Why the burden of proof lies on God ?

[chinu]

Amazing. Does he do omelettes?

What do you think ?

 

[chinu]

Logic and burden of proof is human thing concerning the insecurity, fears and subjective nature of whether God exists or not.

Human beings are the only members of RF, isn't ?

 

[Tomef]

What do you think ?

Should I put in an order, or does god make the omelette through me?

 

[blü 2]

Seriously what made you think that the burden of proof lies on God ?

The burden of proof of what, exactly, lies on who, exactly?

 

[PureX]

I'm not sure we can entertain ideas of "transcending all things" without leaving the realm of reality and stepping into the realm of fantasy. What would it even look like for something to "transcend all things?" Seems like an impossible concept that cannot exist such as the concept of "nothingness."

I agree. To transcend existence is cognitively impossible for us. And yet reality as we understand it logically requires this transcendent realm of being. A realm that we cannot cognate.

You aren't wrong. I do struggle to find what the point is, though

It is a massively profound mystery. If such a thing has a 'point', I guess the point is our unknowing.

I have come to suspect our unknowing is actually a great gift, allowing us to create/define ourselves by our choices. But that's just me.

Eh... But anything is possible. Reality being just a simulation is as possible as anything else as well. What value is there in entertaining possibilities when there's nothing to ground them, though?

The value is in the choosing, as it defines us. And those choices will create who we become as we act on them. It is the ultimate free will.

Possibilities don't seem worthy of much time and effort if they don't have something of substance to give them credence let alone allowing them to shape or influence our world views, seems to me

That's up to you. What is "substance" to you? What is "credence" to you? How much should this even be about you? These are all choices that we each have to make for ourselves, because no one has the answers. And as we make these decisions, and live by them, we are becoming ourselves, of our own volition. I think this is why we are here 'on the blind' so to speak. But why that, I have no guess.

 

[Balthazzar]

Some people believe in God 1%
Some people believe in God 25%
Some people believe in God 50%
Some people believe in God 75%
Some people believe in God 99%
But, when believe in God is 100%, the word "believe" cease to exist. Thereafter, the word BELIEVE is replaced with SURE.

Proof is necessary in order to change this BELIEVE into SURE.

Yeah, but why is proof necessary for anyone other than the 100% er's? Seems a personal thing to me.

 

[chinu]

Yeah, but why is proof necessary for anyone other than the 100% er's? Seems a personal thing to me.

Yes, you cannot compare a 99%er with 1%er, And a 72%er with a 13%er. Different people can have different personal choices.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I personally believe that she doesn't have any responsibility to justify her beliefs/claims unless she wants us to share belief in those claims

I disagree with that. I think the burden of proof is always relevant, regardless if one is trying to convince someone or not.

I think that even merely for the sake of being a rational person, you also have a responsibility to justify your claims / beliefs for yourself.

As such, the burden of proof always applies to claims / beliefs, regardless of what your goals are (convincing others, convincing yourself, whatever).

Sure, you can not care about it. But the concept remains nonetheless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The psychology behind this is that you want my beliefs to be clains so you can say that I have the burden of proof

No.

but I have no burden of proof because I am making no claims.

Again: you can't express a belief in X without claiming X.
Likewise, you can't claim X without implying belief in X.

Unless you are lying.

It's not about me "wanting" you to have a burden of proof.
It's more like you seeming to try to avoid having a burden of proof by pretending it disappears by prefixing claims with "I believe".

I hold myself to the exact same standard. I don't pretend as if prefixing a claim with "I believe" absolved me of a responsibility to rationally justify the claim that follows that prefix.

 

[Stevicus]

No.



Again: you can't express a belief in X without claiming X.
Likewise, you can't claim X without implying belief in X.

Unless you are lying.

It's not about me "wanting" you to have a burden of proof.
It's more like you seeming to try to avoid having a burden of proof by pretending it disappears by prefixing claims with "I believe".

I hold myself to the exact same standard. I don't pretend as if prefixing a claim with "I believe" absolved me of a responsibility to rationally justify the claim that follows that prefix.

I would look at the word "believe" as more of a hopeful opinion than any kind of definitive, positive claim of fact.

It's like saying "I believe the Yankees will win the World Series this year." It will be another six months before we will know if this is true or not, so there's no possible way of proving it one way or the other. That's why gambling on the outcomes of sporting events is so alluring, as people make claims and back them up with money. If a claim turns out to be wrong, they lose their money.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

How is building straw men productive in discourse?

I said behavior is evidence for God's existence, not belief in God.

I've always figured behaviour was evidence of belief, rather than existence. But I'm a pretty literal type, which might be where we part ways, not sure.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I've always figured behaviour was evidence of belief, rather than existence. But I'm a pretty literal type, which might be where we part ways, not sure.

What behaviors are you speaking of?

 

[Trailblazer]

Again: you can't express a belief in X without claiming X.
Likewise, you can't claim X without implying belief in X.

Again: I can express a belief in X without claiming X is true.

It's not about me "wanting" you to have a burden of proof.
It's more like you seeming to try to avoid having a burden of proof by pretending it disappears by prefixing claims with "I believe".

Get a dictionary. To say "I believe" is not a claim.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
claim means - Google Search

Claim: to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it: claim

Belief:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
https://www.google.com/search

Belief:
the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:
His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times.
Recent scandals have shaken many people's belief in (= caused people to have doubts about) politicians.
belief

An acceptance that my belief is true is not a claim that it is true.
I believe that my belief is true. I never claimed that my belief is true.

As nouns the difference between claim and belief is that claim is a demand of ownership made for something (eg claim ownership, claim victory) while belief is mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence.
What is the difference between claim and belief? | WikiDiff

Baha'u'llah made a claim to be a Messenger of God so he claimed ownership of the title Messenger of God.
I believe His claims but I am making no claims because I have nothing to claim. I am making no claims because I have nothing to claim.

I hold myself to the exact same standard. I don't pretend as if prefixing a claim with "I believe" absolved me of a responsibility to rationally justify the claim that follows that prefix.

I am making no claims, I only have beliefs.

Baha'u'llah made claims and he rationally justified His claims, so I believe His claims are true.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What behaviors are you speaking of?

There could be a wide range, but if I was going to put it in a couple of buckets to help explain what I am thinking;
1. Religious practice - adhering to it might not mean you're actually a believer, of course, but I think it's fair to say there are plenty of people who undertake religious practice due to their belief, and it can be seen as evidence of that belief.
2. General behaviours consistent with their Gods or metaphysical beliefs. Old basketball story (my favourite type of story), but AC Green who played for the Lakers was an ordained minister. Throughout a very long and distinguished career, much of it in LA, he remained a virgin. I don't see that as evidence of God, but I certainly see it as evidence he had a strong belief in God. There was also a story of him being slapped in the face at practice one day hard enough to loosen a tooth, and he literally turned the other cheek. Those are fairly extreme examples. It can be as simple as how a person greets others, or their general demeanor and behaviour.

 

[SalixIncendium]

There could be a wide range, but if I was going to put it in a couple of buckets to help explain what I am thinking;
1. Religious practice - adhering to it might not mean you're actually a believer, of course, but I think it's fair to say there are plenty of people who undertake religious practice due to their belief, and it can be seen as evidence of that belief.
2. General behaviours consistent with their Gods or metaphysical beliefs. Old basketball story (my favourite type of story), but AC Green who played for the Lakers was an ordained minister. Throughout a very long and distinguished career, much of it in LA, he remained a virgin. I don't see that as evidence of God, but I certainly see it as evidence he had a strong belief in God. There was also a story of him being slapped in the face at practice one day hard enough to loosen a tooth, and he literally turned the other cheek. Those are fairly extreme examples. It can be as simple as how a person greets others, or their general demeanor and behaviour.

But is it just "belief" that manifests this behavior? Or is it belief in something...God or gods...that manifest this behavior?

As I see it, there are generally three sets of people: those that have had a direct experience of God (and to clear the air right away, I'm not talking exclusively about the God of Abraham), those that are aware such experiences exist and hanker for such an experience, and those that are exclusively engaged in the world and have had no such experience and have no hankering for one.

For those who have had a direct experience, there is no question of the existence of God. They have their own experiential evidence (albeit subjective). For those, they know God exists. For those who have not, but having a hankering, they have reason to believe God exists, either by direct experience with one who has had an experience of God, or by hearing about these God experiences from those that had experiences with God experiencers, either verbally or through texts. For all of these people in the first two groups mentioned, their behaviors are influenced by God, whether directly or indirectly. In their reality, God exists.

For the third group mentioned above, they are either agnostic to the existence of God or they flat out deny it because they have had no experience with any people of the first two groups, or they don't believe the people of the first two groups because of their own personal experiences with those that took belief in God and interpreted it to fit a personal agenda.

In any case, because of these behaviors, and arguable because this forum exists, in many people's reality, God exists.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But is it just "belief" that manifests this behavior? Or is it belief in something...God or gods...that manifest this behavior?

Depends on the specific behaviour. I would say both apply, in a broad sense.

As I see it, there are generally three sets of people: those that have had a direct experience of God (and to clear the air right away, I'm not talking exclusively about the God of Abraham), those that are aware such experiences exist and hanker for such an experience, and those that are exclusively engaged in the world and have had no such experience and have no hankering for one.

For those who have had a direct experience, there is no question of the existence of God. They have their own experiential evidence (albeit subjective). For those, they know God exists. For those who have not, but having a hankering, they have reason to believe God exists, either by direct experience with one who has had an experience of God, or by hearing about these God experiences from those that had experiences with God experiencers, either verbally or through texts. For all of these people in the first two groups mentioned, their behaviors are influenced by God, whether directly or indirectly.

I'd quibble on the groups...I tend to think of such things more in terms of a spectrum than discrete groups. But let's roll with it for now.

In their reality, God exists.

'In their reality' is interesting. I have no doubt or argument that God exists as a concept, that God exists as an honest reality for some people, that God impacts our world, or that God is a motivator for behaviour. I do have doubts that God exists independent of the minds of humankind.

For the third group mentioned above, they are either agnostic to the existence of God or they flat out deny it because they have had no experience with any people of the first two groups, or they don't believe the people of the first two groups because of their own personal experiences with those that took belief in God and interpreted it to fit a personal agenda.

In any case, because of these behaviors, and arguable because this forum exists, in many people's reality, God exists.

Then I would suggest that the God to which you refer exists in the same way as 'justice' does. Within the scope of the human experience and not at all outside it.

Worth noting, I'm not suggesting God is 'real' or God is 'not real'. I understand your point, and I would say justice is both real and important. But remove humans from the equation, and I'm unaware of the presence of justice in the universe. It could exist. But I have no proof or reason to believe it does. Ultimately my answer to whether God exists would be to shrug my shoulders. How would I know? And my reason for being here (on these forums) is that both God and religion are clearly majorly impactful forces on the human condition. But if asked to choose whether I find a God external to human minds likely, I'd say that I do not, and that concepts of God which are more likely simply don't appear Godlike to me in a manner where I would use that word as a descriptor.

Whether any of that is worth much is up to you, but I find the conversation interesting.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'd quibble on the groups...I tend to think of such things more in terms of a spectrum than discrete groups.

Which is why I said "generally." Of course this doesn't apply to everyone.

'In their reality' is interesting. I have no doubt or argument that God exists as a concept, that God exists as an honest reality for some people, that God impacts our world, or that God is a motivator for behaviour. I do have doubts that God exists independent of the minds of humankind.



Then I would suggest that the God to which you refer exists in the same way as 'justice' does. Within the scope of the human experience and not at all outside it.

Worth noting, I'm not suggesting God is 'real' or God is 'not real'. I understand your point, and I would say justice is both real and important. But remove humans from the equation, and I'm unaware of the presence of justice in the universe. It could exist. But I have no proof or reason to believe it does. Ultimately my answer to whether God exists would be to shrug my shoulders. How would I know? And my reason for being here (on these forums) is that both God and religion are clearly majorly impactful forces on the human condition. But if asked to choose whether I find a God external to human minds likely, I'd say that I do not, and that concepts of God which are more likely simply don't appear Godlike to me in a manner where I would use that word as a descriptor.

Whether any of that is worth much is up to you, but I find the conversation interesting.

This is why it's important to learn about what God is beyond what one already thinks they know. If one limits their understanding of God to an anthropomorphic omnipotent creator/ruler, and one hasn't had any experience of such or has had negative experiences of such, then one is likely to rebuff any existence of God, whether inherent to the human mind or beyond it. It places limits of what appears to one as "Godlike."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Which is why I said "generally." Of course this doesn't apply to everyone.


This is why it's important to learn about what God is beyond what one already thinks they know. If one limits their understanding of God to an anthropomorphic omnipotent creator/ruler, and one hasn't had any experience of such or has had negative experiences of such, then one is likely to rebuff any existence of God, whether inherent to the human mind or beyond it. It places limits of what appears to one as "Godlike."

I'd suggest for any word to have meaning, it needs to have limits.

 

[Trailblazer]

For those who have had a direct experience, there is no question of the existence of God.

and even for some of us who have had no direct experience there is no question.
It just makes sense to me but what makes sense to some people does not make sense to others.