Why the burden of proof lies on God ?

[Valjean]

That is not what I said. I said that the only way we could ever have proof is if God provided it.
God can be known and believed on evidence, even though there is no proof.

And you say God does not care to provide such evidence, so wouldn't the reasonable thing to do would be to defer belief till He does?

There is evidence that can be assessed.

Great! What is it?

 

[osgart]

God is extraordinarily absent. If God wants to be known then that's God's burden of proof.

How is God present?

Is it obvious?

Do I have to rely on words in a book or some other's personal experience?

Then there's the matter of correct interpretation.

 

[Trailblazer]

And you say God does not care to provide such evidence, so wouldn't the reasonable thing to do would be to defer belief till He does?

I said that God does not care to provide proof. God did provide evidence.
I suppose the Bible is evidence for God, but as I just said, it is far removed from the source, which is God.

Imo, the best evidence is the Baha'i Faith. It might look like a little bitty religion right now but bear in mind that Christianity was a considered a small cult in the beginning.

If you cannot believe in Baha'u'llah I understand and in that case it would be wise to defer belief.

Great! What is it?

The Revelation of Baha'u'llah. I guess that is so obvious to me because I was never tarnished by any other religious beliefs before I discovered the Baha'i Faith. Then later when I found out about other religions, it was very easy for me to see the difference.

 

[Trailblazer]

God is extraordinarily absent. If God wants to be known then that's God's burden of proof.

How is God present?

Is it obvious?

No, God is not obvious at all. If you want obvious you will have to look at the material world.

We can believe that God is present but that is all we can do.
We can hope God hears us when we pray but that is all we can do.

God is like an absentee Father, and you can't even reach Him on a cell.

Do I have to rely on words in a book or some other's personal experience?

Yes, you have to rely on words in books but I suggest you pick the right books, the ones that are up to date..

Then there's the matter of correct interpretation.

That is true, and that's why I suggest you stay away from the Bible, since it was never intended to be easy to understand, which is why there are so many different Christian beliefs.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Why are you concluding God is a person?

Then what is god?

Could it be they don't acknowledged your perceive absence of God?

My belief has no relevance if a god exists or if someone else praying believes a god does exist.

Absolutely. That is actually a pillar of my religious philosophy.

Can you explain this pillar of your religious philosophy?

 

[chinu]

I have never heard God make any claims about anything.

Its me making this claim, not God.
I don't know what made you think that God is making this claim.

 

[chinu]

Seriously what made you think that anchovies go well with grapefruit sherbet?

Good topic.
Start your own new thread, I'd love to participate

 

[chinu]

I have never heard any god making a claim it exists.

Then, how do you know it is really Him, and not a fake one ?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Then what is god?

It depends on who you ask. For many, it's deity. Putting it simply, God is divinity.

Can you explain this pillar of your religious philosophy?

Sure.

Brahma satyam, jagat mithya.
Brahman is real, the world is false.

Pragmatic reality (vyavaharika), the world one experiences in waking consciousness, is an appearance in Brahman, much in the way a dream is an appearance in a person. Attachment to the world...believing the world is the final reality results in one being trapped in the cycle of rebirth (samsara). Realization of the Self as the Absolute reality (Brahman) releases one from this cycle (moksha).

 

[PureX]

There is no "burden of proof". That's just a phrase someone made up and it stuck.

When making a truth claim, there is the expectation of it being accompanied by logical justification. Whether or not that justification stands as "proof" for anyone is irrelevant to anyone but them, and is a subjective value assessment. Those who demand "proof" are therefor just inviting the claimant into their own private "kangaroo court". And this is a very popular tactic among 'atheists' these days.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It depends on who you ask. For many, it's deity. Putting it simply, God is divinity.


Sure.

Brahma satyam, jagat mithya.
Brahman is real, the world is false.

Pragmatic reality (vyavaharika), the world one experiences in waking consciousness, is an appearance in Brahman, much in the way a dream is an appearance in a person. Attachment to the world...believing the world is the final reality results in one being trapped in the cycle of rebirth (samsara). Realization of the Self as the Absolute reality (Brahman) releases one from this cycle (moksha).

Ok, thank you.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

There is no "burden of proof". That's just a phrase someone made up and it stuck.

When making a truth claim, there is the expectation of it being accompanied by logical justification. Whether or not that justification stands as "proof" for anyone is irrelevant to anyone but them, and is a subjective value assessment. Those who demand "proof" are therefor just inviting the claimant into their own private "kangaroo court". And this is a very popular tactic among 'atheists' these days.

I agree. All it means is if you make a claim you need to support it by good evidence if you want someone else to believe it is true. It is not up to anyone else to find the good evidence. This is not a trick by atheists but a principle of epistemology. The word proof here is used colloquially. If you make a claim you need to support it. That's all.

 

[PureX]

I agree. All it means is if you make a claim you need to support it by good evidence

No, that isn't what it means. The requirement is not "evidence". The requirement is the reasoning upon which the claim is being based. This may include evidence, but evidence is not a necessity.

... if you want someone else to believe it is true.

What the claimant 'wants' is irrelevant to anyone but the claimant.

It is not up to anyone else to find the good evidence.

Evidence is unnecessary. So is anyone else's acceptance of the claim.

This is not a trick by atheists but a principle of epistemology.

'Atheists' these days treat evidence as though it's mandatory and absolute when it is neither because they want to play 'kangaroo judge' in their own imaginary kangaroo courtroom. It's just silly fantasyland stuff.

The word proof here is used colloquially. If you make a claim you need to support it. That's all.

I agree. "Proof" is a subjective value that is almost always held by bias.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

The burden of proof lies with the people that make claims about god(s).

There is no god to be found who's making claims.
It's people claiming to speak for or about gods.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If we make such a claim, but if we only say we believe that God exists that is not a claim.

Do you make claims that you don't believe?
When you believe things, aren't the things you believe claims?

I've explained this many times and still for the life of me I can't see what is so hard to understand about that.


"The sky is purple". This is a claim
"I believe the sky is purple". This is an expression of belief of said claim.

Adding the prefix of "I believe" doesn't seem to change anything. It's not mentioned explicitly in the first, but it sure is implied. The alternative to said implication is that the one making the claim is lying.

If you say "the sky is purple" and we assume you aren't lying, then surely it is implied that you believe that claim to be true, right?
So how is that any different from stating it explicitly like in "I believe the sky is purple".

Do you make claims you don't believe?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then that person has the burden of proof. To them I say good luck! What that person has is at best only evidence, not proof.

Don't be fooled by the word "proof" in the saying "burden of proof".

It doesn't mean that one has to provide "proof". It merely means that the onus of supporting / justifying / defending the claim (with evidence OR proof) falls on the one making the claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Any behaviors associated with one's belief in God.

In what sense?

Tom Cruise's behavior is also impacted by his belief in scientology, but I don't think that counts as evidence for the existence of Lord Xenu or inner Thetans.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why would one believe in God if one acknowledges the absence of God?

???

The one who believes in a god that doesn't actually exists, obviously doesn't believe that god to be absent.
The thing about that person's belief is simply that that person is incorrect.

But the person doesn't know / realize that.

This seems kind of obvious.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't know what made you think that God is making this claim.

Because the burden of proof lies with people who make claims.

And your thread title asks "why the burden of proof lies on god", which implies that god has made claims.

 

[SalixIncendium]

In what sense?

Tom Cruise's behavior is also impacted by his belief in scientology, but I don't think that counts as evidence for the existence of Lord Xenu or inner Thetans.

In any sense that a behavior deviates from what it would be in the absence of a belief in God.

What influenced Tom Cruise's behavior?