Personally, I think the strongest evidence for the existence of God is the fact that the vast majority of humans believe that a god of some sort exists.
Now, this is not enough to convince me, but just thought I'd throw it out there.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who bears the burden of proof?
- Thread starter Strength & Honor
- Start date
Now, this is not enough to convince me, but just thought I'd throw it out there.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
For an explanation on the theist/atheist/gnostic/agnostic thingie see here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/resources/102356-agnostic-vs-atheist.html
As for the topic at hand, the burden of proof MUST lie with the one making the positive claim simply because it is logically impossible to prove the non-existence of anything.
If it was the other way around we would have to start believing in every claim anyone ever made. Unicorns, faeries, gods, angels, demons, the blue goblin that lives behind my kitchen sink...they would all have to believed until we could prove they did not, in fact, exist.
The only logical solution is to dismiss any claim that is not backed by evidence.
As for the topic at hand, the burden of proof MUST lie with the one making the positive claim simply because it is logically impossible to prove the non-existence of anything.
If it was the other way around we would have to start believing in every claim anyone ever made. Unicorns, faeries, gods, angels, demons, the blue goblin that lives behind my kitchen sink...they would all have to believed until we could prove they did not, in fact, exist.
The only logical solution is to dismiss any claim that is not backed by evidence.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Sad thing is that some people use just such reasoning to form beliefs. So many people claim they've seen flying saucers, so the *@*%$ things must be real. Yup, they're real. And I believes it.
Atomist
I love you.
I think consciousness would be the strongest argument... but both those arguments are riddled with fallacies.
Neither do I... but maybe I should expand.
Take Lourdes: say we evaluate the claim "Lourdes has special significance as a place where the God worshipped by the Catholic Church heals the sick."
This could be broken down into two sub-claims:
- healing occurs at Lourdes at a greater rate than would be expected by random chance or natural factors.
- this greater rate is attributable to the Christian God.
The data to support the first sub-claim are the incidences of healing themselves. Each incidence of an illness being healed is like a "tick" that brings the total count closer to the threshold of statistical significance. If God really is healing people at Lourdes, then one important element of the evidence for this will be the aggregate picture made up of the individual cases of healings.
I agree that this doesn't have any bearing on the second sub-claim, except that if the first sub-claim is false, then the second sub-claim is moot.
The burden of proof is on the one making a the claim.
In practice, this is often the theist, because the theist is claiming the existence of a specific entity, while the most common argument of the atheist is that there is little or no evidence to support that claim.
If, on the other hand, the atheist says, "There definitely are no gods at all." then s/he would have a burden of proof as well. Sometimes in a debate, both can have the burden of proof.
I think it's also important to note that while the atheist's main argument tends to be the lack of evidence, it's typically not their only argument. Depending on how specific of a god concept the theist has, things begin not making sense or not aligning with observations of how reality really works, and the atheist can refer to that as evidence that the claim is likely invalid.
In practice, this is often the theist, because the theist is claiming the existence of a specific entity, while the most common argument of the atheist is that there is little or no evidence to support that claim.
If, on the other hand, the atheist says, "There definitely are no gods at all." then s/he would have a burden of proof as well. Sometimes in a debate, both can have the burden of proof.
I think it's also important to note that while the atheist's main argument tends to be the lack of evidence, it's typically not their only argument. Depending on how specific of a god concept the theist has, things begin not making sense or not aligning with observations of how reality really works, and the atheist can refer to that as evidence that the claim is likely invalid.
Anyone who makes a positive statement.
I'd agree, except that I think humanity's capacity to question is being underestimated.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I'd agree, except that I think humanity's capacity to question is being underestimated.
I never underestimate humanity's capacity to question - whether it makes sense or not.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Having the burden of proof does not make a proposition any more likely to be wrong. What it means is that negative claims about existence are difficult, if not impossible, to verify. If I claim that unicorns exist, then all I have to do is find a place with one unicorn in it to prove my point. If I claim that unicorns do not exist, then I have to look in all possible places they could be in order to verify that they do not really exist. They may not really exist, but it is unreasonable to insist that I search all spaces to prove it.
As a rhetorical ploy, the burden of proof gambit is usually a non-starter with theists. Most theists, as Dunemeister has already demonstrated, believe that they have met their burden of proof and that the burden has actually shifted more in the direction of atheism. Indeed, most of the time we are looking at arguments that examine arguments put forth by theists. While I agree that the burden of proof ultimately lies with theists, atheists are being lazy when they say that they don't have to offer arguments for why one ought not to believe in the existence of one or more gods. In the end, it does come down to what counts as good reasons for rejecting belief in gods. The lack of credible evidence is one argument, but certainly not the most convincing one to make. Theists think that they can come up with all sorts of reasonable evidence.
As a rhetorical ploy, the burden of proof gambit is usually a non-starter with theists. Most theists, as Dunemeister has already demonstrated, believe that they have met their burden of proof and that the burden has actually shifted more in the direction of atheism. Indeed, most of the time we are looking at arguments that examine arguments put forth by theists. While I agree that the burden of proof ultimately lies with theists, atheists are being lazy when they say that they don't have to offer arguments for why one ought not to believe in the existence of one or more gods. In the end, it does come down to what counts as good reasons for rejecting belief in gods. The lack of credible evidence is one argument, but certainly not the most convincing one to make. Theists think that they can come up with all sorts of reasonable evidence.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Faith is an item that does not require proof......see Webster's.
As for proving God?
Make a claim and see if you can support it.
How about.....He is....
Larger, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and greatly experienced.
Moving up the line of beings that possess these qualities...
few on Earth possess them all.
Now...if you wish to be sure...
decide first if your mortal life is all that you are.
If there is life after death....there is a God.
If you don't believe in life after death, this discussion is moot for you.
What are you doing here?
Bored?
As for proving God?
Make a claim and see if you can support it.
How about.....He is....
Larger, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and greatly experienced.
Moving up the line of beings that possess these qualities...
few on Earth possess them all.
Now...if you wish to be sure...
decide first if your mortal life is all that you are.
If there is life after death....there is a God.
If you don't believe in life after death, this discussion is moot for you.
What are you doing here?
Bored?
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Dictionaries provide definitions, not advice on what requires proof.
You first.
I don't believe in Superman, either, but I did enjoy the comic books and the movies.
But we can imagine beings with any qualities we want, can we not?
Or not. The likelihood is that there is neither.
Why would I come here if I were bored? I'm here because I enjoy the discussions. Why are you here?
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Faith is therefore also often preceeded by the adjective "blind"...
Saying that there is a god in the first place is a claim in and of itself.
Now, try to support that.
How does that make him a god?
Not entirely sure what your point is...
That is all that I can know that I have. And no priest, rabbi or imam can tell me anything about what happens after I die that I do not already know.
That does not necessarily follow.
Still, go ahead and provide some evidence that there is life after death.
I'd love to hear it.
And why would that be?
Apparently having a discussion with you.
Nah. Hungry though. Dinner time soon.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Faith is therefore also often preceeded by the adjective "blind"...
Saying that there is a god in the first place is a claim in and of itself.
Now, try to support that.
How does that make him a god?
Not entirely sure what your point is...
That is all that I can know that I have. And no priest, rabbi or imam can tell me anything about what happens after I die that I do not already know.
That does not necessarily follow.
Still, go ahead and provide some evidence that there is life after death.
I'd love to hear it.
And why would that be?
Apparently having a discussion with you.
Nah. Hungry though. Dinner time soon.
This style of rebuttal is poor and time consuming.
And to the face of an atheist...pointless.
Try reading the post I wrote with an open mind.
Last edited:
Smoke
Done here.
That could as easily be taken as evidence that no god does exist.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
If I was to say that blarks exist, does it fall to me to show that they do, or does it fall to you to prove that they don't?
The answer is the same if you substitute God.
Meh. I'm just taking it at face value. If 100 people came up to me and said they saw a UFO land in the field last night, I would definitely believe they saw something, and I would probably be more inclined to believe that aliens are visiting our planet.That could as easily be taken as evidence that no god does exist.
There are literally billions of people telling me that a god of some sort exists. This is something which makes me more inclined to believe a god exists. However, there are many other things which offset that inclination.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
This style of "rebuttal" is poor but fully expected from someone with no evidence and no arguments.
And from a theist...unsurprising.
Try reading the post I wrote with an enquiring mind.
Religion is not quite like 100 people seeing a UFO.
It's like one or a few people claiming to see a UFO (and all disagreeing over what that UFO looks like), and then telling their friends, who tell their friends, who tell their friends, and so forth.