Your best argument that god exists

[Bunyip]

I disagree. Humans do not fail to posit everything.

What?

No offence, but I just don't see the point of trying to define atheism in such a way that it appears to be a positive claim. Seems pointless to me. What do you think it achieves?

 

[Willamena]

What?

No offence, but I just don't see the point of trying to define atheism in such a way that it appears to be a positive claim. Seems pointless to me. What do you think it achieves?

So you're saying hard atheists don't exist?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I did not offer any in that post.

I merely pointed out that should I or any other Christian apologist fail to make the case for Christ adequately, that simply means that I am a poor apologist. It does NOT mean that the atheist position has been proven, and skeptics must still offer their own convincing evidence that God does not exist.

Nor does the atheist position really require proof.
I, for example, don't believe in a god because I haven't been shown sufficient evidence that there IS one.
It required no evidence that there wasn't one...

I don't believe in things, especially life altering things, without enough evidence to warrant it, that's it
.
I also don't believe in, for example, Krampus. This does NOT mean I've been shown proof that there IS no Krampus but because I haven't been shown enough proof that there is a Krampus.

 

[Bunyip]

So you're saying hard atheists don't exist?

No. Not sure where you go that from.

 

[Willamena]

No. Not sure where you go that from.

The hard atheist claims that god does not exist, which is a posit about the world.

 

[Randy Carson]

The Scientific Burden of Proof
In the sciences, the burden of proof falls to the one proposing a hypothesis. It doesn’t matter what the hypothesis is:

• If you want to propose that Particle X exists, the burden of proof falls to you.
• If you want to propose that Particle X does not exist, the burden again falls to you.

Either way, in science the person proposing a hypothesis needs to provide evidence for it by using the scientific method (i.e., making a prediction based on the hypothesis and then seeing whether the prediction is fulfilled when a test is run).

Only by doing this can the hypothesis be scientifically established (to the extent that anything can ever be scientifically established).

The Philosophical Burden of Proof
Most discussions about the existence of God are not scientific ones. They may involve observations about the universe and things that science studies (e.g., order, design, etc.). However, they also involve premises that cannot be verified scientifically. Many of them involve premises of a philosophical nature, and so the discussion of God’s existence is often regarded as a philosophical matter rather than a scientific one.

Who holds the burden of proof in philosophy? As in science, it’s whoever is making a claim. It doesn’t matter whether you’re:

• asserting the existence or non-existence of Plato’s Forms,
• claiming the truth or falsity of a particular view of epistemology, or
• asserting that moral judgments are just expressions of emotion or something else.

The principle remains the same: The burden is on you to argue for your own claims.

Philosophy may use a different method than science, but its assignation of the burden of proof is the same.

Taken from: Who Has the Burden of Proof When Discussing God? | Strange Notions

 

[Bunyip]

The hard atheist claims that god does not exist, which is a posit about the world.

How so? Is it the way you wrote that that is confusing you again?

 

[Bunyip]

The Scientific Burden of Proof
In the sciences, the burden of proof falls to the one proposing a hypothesis. It doesn’t matter what the hypothesis is:

• If you want to propose that Particle X exists, the burden of proof falls to you.
• If you want to propose that Particle X does not exist, the burden again falls to you.

Either way, in science the person proposing a hypothesis needs to provide evidence for it by using the scientific method (i.e., making a prediction based on the hypothesis and then seeing whether the prediction is fulfilled when a test is run).

Only by doing this can the hypothesis be scientifically established (to the extent that anything can ever be scientifically established).

The Philosophical Burden of Proof
Most discussions about the existence of God are not scientific ones. They may involve observations about the universe and things that science studies (e.g., order, design, etc.). However, they also involve premises that cannot be verified scientifically. Many of them involve premises of a philosophical nature, and so the discussion of God’s existence is often regarded as a philosophical matter rather than a scientific one.

Who holds the burden of proof in philosophy? As in science, it’s whoever is making a claim. It doesn’t matter whether you’re:

• asserting the existence or non-existence of Plato’s Forms,
• claiming the truth or falsity of a particular view of epistemology, or
• asserting that moral judgments are just expressions of emotion or something else.

The principle remains the same: The burden is on you to argue for your own claims.

Philosophy may use a different method than science, but its assignation of the burden of proof is the same.

Taken from: Who Has the Burden of Proof When Discussing God? | Strange Notions

And what sort of evidence for the non-existence of an unspecified immaterial entity should people be looking for?
Example please?

 

[Willamena]

The Scientific Burden of Proof
In the sciences, the burden of proof falls to the one proposing a hypothesis. It doesn’t matter what the hypothesis is:

• If you want to propose that Particle X exists, the burden of proof falls to you.
• If you want to propose that Particle X does not exist, the burden again falls to you.

Either way, in science the person proposing a hypothesis needs to provide evidence for it by using the scientific method (i.e., making a prediction based on the hypothesis and then seeing whether the prediction is fulfilled when a test is run).

...as necessary.

Only by doing this can the hypothesis be scientifically established (to the extent that anything can ever be scientifically established).

The Philosophical Burden of Proof
Most discussions about the existence of God are not scientific ones. They may involve observations about the universe and things that science studies (e.g., order, design, etc.). However, they also involve premises that cannot be verified scientifically. Many of them involve premises of a philosophical nature, and so the discussion of God’s existence is often regarded as a philosophical matter rather than a scientific one.

Who holds the burden of proof in philosophy? As in science, it’s whoever is making a claim. It doesn’t matter whether you’re:

• asserting the existence or non-existence of Plato’s Forms,
• claiming the truth or falsity of a particular view of epistemology, or
• asserting that moral judgments are just expressions of emotion or something else.

The principle remains the same: The burden is on you to argue for your own claims.

...as necessary. *nods.

Philosophy may use a different method than science, but its assignation of the burden of proof is the same.

Taken from: Who Has the Burden of Proof When Discussing God? | Strange Notions

 

[Willamena]

How so?

How so, what? How is it a posit about the world? It posits a world without god.

 

[Bunyip]

How so, what? How is it a posit about the world? It posits a world without god.

No. A world without god is the default.

 

[Willamena]

Is it the way you wrote that that is confusing you again?

No offense, hon (and no offense by calling you "hon,") but I'm never confused by the way I wrote things.

Never.

 

[Randy Carson]

And what sort of evidence for the non-existence of an unspecified immaterial entity should people be looking for?
Example please?

It's up to you to make your case as best you can.

Now you see why atheists attempt to pin the burden of proof on theists rather than do the work required to develop their own arguments.

However, there is another active thread for that. In this thread, the OP clearly places the burden of proof on the theists. So, you're off the hook!

 

[Willamena]

No. A world without god is the default.

Nevertheless, it's a posit.

 

[Willamena]

It's up to you to make your case as best you can.

Now you see why atheists attempt to pin the burden of proof on theists rather than do the work required to develop their own arguments.

Some don't even admit that there are arguments (go figure!).

 

[Bunyip]

It's up to you to make your case as best you can.

Now you see why atheist attempt to pin the burden of proof on theists rather than do the work required to develop their own arguments.

Atheism has no burden of proof. There is no burden for them to transfer.

It is just the default.

But ok, I will make my best case that your god does not exist ok? 1. There is no reliable evidence of it.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism has no burden of proof. There is no burden for them to transfer.

It is just the default.

But ok, I will make my best case that your god does not exist ok? 1. There is no reliable evidence of it.

Making a case admits a burden....

 

[Bunyip]

Nevertheless, it's a posit.

Only because you have chosen to word it that way. As i said, I don't see the point - other than to obfuscate.

 

[Bunyip]

Making a case admits a burden....

Does it?

 

[Willamena]

Only because you have chosen to word it that way. As i said, I don't see the point - other than to obfuscate.

If my words don't please you, provide your own.