Why the burden of proof lies on God ?

[chinu]

What’s your point? That you assume god exists, without proof? That point has been made already. You can’t prove that god exists, hence the burden of proof can only rest with god - as only god has the ability to prove the existence of god.

Am NOT proving God exist.
Am assuming God exist, and further asking question.

It okay if you don't have any answer, good bye.

 

[Tomef]

Am NOT proving God exist.
Am assuming God exist, and further asking question.

It okay if you don't have any answer, good bye.

That is the answer - no-one but god, if he did exist, could prove that he exists. It is not possible for anyone but god to prove that god exists, hence the burden of proof can only be god’s.

 

[chinu]

That is the answer - no-one but god, if he did exist, could prove that he exists. It is not possible for anyone but god to prove that god exists, hence the burden of proof can only be god’s.

Actually the real question is as follows:

As already given that assumption doesn't require proofs, why one cannot ASSUME the existence of God ?

 

[Tomef]

Actually the real question is as follows:

As already given that assumption doesn't require proofs, why one cannot ASSUME the existence of God ?

Feel free to assume whatever you like. Why, though, assume the existence of some invisible god in charge of everything? Assumptions are generally made for a reason, as the first stage towards a hypothesis or for some practical reason (such as the time it takes to boil pasta). Increasing understanding of how the universe works, and how people work, has made assumptions about divine beings redundant.

 

[PureX]

Feel free to assume whatever you like. Why, though, assume the existence of some invisible god in charge of everything?

Logical reasoning requires it. Even science understands this. The issue is in the way people choose to imagine this mystery source.

Assumptions are generally made for a reason, as the first stage towards a hypothesis or for some practical reason (such as the time it takes to boil pasta). Increasing understanding of how the universe works, and how people work, has made assumptions about divine beings redundant.

Knowing why the water boils explains nothing but why the water boils. It's useful information, but it does not negate the questions related to the source or purpose of existence. Which is what the modern concepts of God are attempting to deal with.

 

[PureX]

Feel free to assume whatever you like. Why, though, assume the existence of some invisible god in charge of everything?

Logical reasoning requires it. Even science understands this. The issue is in the way people choose to imagine this mystery source.

Assumptions are generally made for a reason, as the first stage towards a hypothesis or for some practical reason (such as the time it takes to boil pasta). Increasing understanding of how the universe works, and how people work, has made assumptions about divine beings redundant.

Knowing why the water boils explains nothing but why the water boils. It's useful information, but it does not negate the questions related to the source or purpose of existence. Which is what the modern concepts of God are attempting to deal with.

That is the answer - no-one but god, if he did exist, could prove that he exists. It is not possible for anyone but god to prove that god exists, hence the burden of proof can only be god’s.

Actually, only YOU can determine what constitutes "proof" of anything, for you. So if anyone is responsible for providing it to you, it's yourself.

 

[chinu]

Why, though, assume the existence of some invisible god in charge of everything?

In order to have more better, or root cause understanding of how the universe works.

 

[Tomef]

In order to have more better, or root cause understanding of how the universe works.

I’m sure you’ve heard the saying ‘you can’t get there from here’. You can’t arrive at a real understanding of anything if your starting point is to assume some sort of god is behind it all. To understand how any part of the universe works, you need to start by looking at how it works. Ideas about gods have nothing to do with it.

 

[Tomef]

Logical reasoning requires it. Even science understands this. The issue is in the way people choose to imagine this mystery source.

Knowing why the water boils explains nothing but why the water boils. It's useful information, but it does not negate the questions related to the source or purpose of existence. Which is what the modern concepts of God are attempting to deal with.

Actually, only YOU can determine what constitutes "proof" of anything, for you. So if anyone is responsible for providing it to you, it's yourself.

‘Science’ is a process, it doesn’t understand, it leads to understanding. Sooner or later you need to make some sense. Meaningless platitudes scraped together from a jumbled skim of this or that set of ideas just makes you sound like a faulty GPT.

 

[chinu]

I’m sure you’ve heard the saying ‘you can’t get there from here’. You can’t arrive at a real understanding of anything if your starting point is to assume some sort of god is behind it all. To understand how any part of the universe works, you need to start by looking at how it works. Ideas about gods have nothing to do with it.

What made you think that idea about God have nothing to do with it ?

 

[Tomef]

What made you think that idea about God have nothing to do with it ?

It’s a redundant notion. When I was a child and losing my milk teeth, I would put each tooth that fell out under my pillow at night. In the morning it had been replaced with a 5p coin. Much handier than a tooth for buying penny sweets, you can’t barter a tooth for much these days. Anyway, it may be that at some point I believed I had the tooth fairy to thank for my 5 pence piece. I soon realised there was no need for that hypothesis. It was my mum! Other than my mum being involved, the god hypothesis is no different.

 

[shunyadragon]

You mean to say that -- if people stop making such claims then you need NOT any God ? means you personally have NO interest in God ?

Confusing at best. With ALL logical arguments it is up to the person making the positive claim to support or prove that claim.

Proving the negative of s subjective claim is impossible.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually the real question is as follows:

As already given that assumption doesn't require proofs, why one cannot ASSUME the existence of God ?

One can. of course, assume the existence of Gods, fairies and unicorns, but this is not an argument for their existence.

Apologetic arguments for the existence of God require assumptions that God exists to support the conclusions. They are so circular they bite you in the butt.

 

[PureX]

‘Science’ is a process, it doesn’t understand, it leads to understanding. Sooner or later you need to make some sense. Meaningless platitudes scraped together from a jumbled skim of this or that set of ideas just makes you sound like a faulty GPT.

Science can only investigate physical processes. But this will tell us nothing about how or why those processes are occurring, and not some other processes, or no processes at all. So when science discovers a process, this does not in any way detract from the mystery source of all the processes Make up what we experience as existence. Science is not eliminating God, or the necessity for an existential source and purpose for all that exists. If you can't wrap your head around this, it's not my fault.

 

[Tomef]

Science can only investigate physical processes. But this will tell us nothing about how or why those processes are occurring, and not some other processes, or no processes at all. So when science discovers a process, this does not in any way detract from the mystery source of all the processes Make up what we experience as existence. Science is not eliminating God, or the necessity for an existential source and purpose for all that exists. If you can't wrap your head around this, it's not my fault.

I don’t know why you think there’s something there for me to wrap my head around. You’re speaking in random platitudes, and mixing terms in a way that indicates you don’t understand what you mean yourself.

Of course science doesn’t address purpose - that is a given. This idea of a ‘mystery source’ is just a mash-up of something you haven’t properly understood.

If you are referencing existentialism (although it seems more likely you are just bandying about terms you don’t know the meaning of) the majority of existentialist philosophy, after Kierkegaard in any case, denies any kind of purpose or meaning ‘for all that exists’. There is no logical necessity for purpose, that idea is simply absurd.

It’s far better to simply admit you don’t know what you are talking about - that opens up the possibility of learning - than to spout meaningless tripe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not making any claims. I believe the claims made by Baha'u'llah, so I am a Baha'i believer.
The things I believe are claims that Baha'u'llah made, but I am not making any claims of my own.

Sorry, I don't play such silly dodgeball games.

You can go ahead and pretend as if such semantic trickery absolves you of any responsability of justifying beliefs / claims, aka burden of proof.

My brain however doesn't work like that.

 

[chinu]

It’s a redundant notion. When I was a child and losing my milk teeth, I would put each tooth that fell out under my pillow at night. In the morning it had been replaced with a 5p coin. Much handier than a tooth for buying penny sweets, you can’t barter a tooth for much these days. Anyway, it may be that at some point I believed I had the tooth fairy to thank for my 5 pence piece. I soon realised there was no need for that hypothesis. It was my mum! Other than my mum being involved, the god hypothesis is no different.

So, what's wrong in this ? like -- you realised/discovered that there was no need for that hypothesis because it was your mum.
Similarly, you will realise/discover that there's no need for any science hypothesis to understand how universe works because it is our God.

 

[chinu]

One can. of course, assume the existence of Gods, fairies and unicorns, but this is not an argument for their existence.

Of course, debate is NOT about the existence of God.
OP debate is about -- Assuming the existence of God. IF God exist, why the burden of proof lies on God ?

 

[Balthazzar]

Is it a burden to prove at all? Should God require that existence exists and we acknowledge Gods existence as God or is it even necessary for anyone to prove anything about God at all? Should it be necessary and if so, why? Seems a moot point to make and even more so to require a burden of proof. Who cares about proof of God anyway? If it were required that there be proof, I'm sure God would have made it evident enough to be undeniable.

It doesn't matter. If we're meant to know we'll know. If not, we won't. I'll tell what I do know though...

 

[chinu]

Is it a burden to prove at all? Should God require that existence exists and we acknowledge Gods existence as God or is it even necessary for anyone to prove anything about God at all? Should it be necessary and if so, why?

Different people may have different necessities
What made you responding to the thread -- I don't know. Or, do you care to tell ?