Who is the one who must "prove"

[Spirit of Light]

I have often seen someone say.

You must prove to me that your God exist. So the non believer claim that a believer must prove his or her personal belief.

But if a non believer want to prove that God does not exist. Why is it not them who must prove religioues people are wrong in their personal belief? How come it is always the believer who have to be the one to prove their belief?

So the challange will then be. Non believers can you prove my faith is untrue or false or can you prove that other peoples faith or religion is untrue or wrong?

And no i have no desire to mock you for not believing, feel free to disbelieve.
Maybe it is the disbelief in any sign of a God that make you unable to see God the way a believer do?

I would like to hear your take on this.
And remember, this is in the discussion area of RF, not in debate area

 

[Secret Chief]

The onus is on a person who is making any assertion to provide publicly verifiable evidence to support it.

 

[Spirit of Light]

The onus is on a person who is making any assertion to provide the evidence to support it.

The believer or the non believer? Seen from OP Question that is.

 

[Secret Chief]

The believer or the non believer? Seen from OP Question that is.

Whoever is making the assertion. Absence is not an assertion, there is an infinite number of absences - unicorns, unicorns with two horns, pink unicorns, red unicorns, unicorns made of jelly... and that's just a few unicorns.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The believer or the non believer? Seen from OP Question that is.

That would have to be the believer. Theres no question where the initial assertion came from.

 

[Nimos]

But if a non believer want to prove that God does not exist. Why is it not them who must prove religioues people are wrong in their personal belief? How come it is always the believer who have to be the one to prove their belief?

It's very simple really and as I see it, a defence against non sense or unjustified beliefs, doesn't have to be religious at all.

But let's say I created a medicine based on oil from nuts, gummy bears and a secret ingredient and stated that it could reduce the chance of getting Covid by 90%, you just have to eat them on a regular basis.

Obviously you would have some issues believing me, so you might ask me to provide some prove for it?

And if it were as you say, I could simply say that I wouldn't and you should prove me wrong, that it doesn't actually reduce the chance by 90%. That is not really something you should have to do, when I'm the one making the claim. And the same goes with anything, if I claim unicorns, trolls or smurfs exists, it is not up to you to prove that they don't.

It is called the burden of proof, you make the claim, you provide the proof.

But you are correct, that if an atheist claim that God doesn't exist, then you can demand them to provide evidence as well. Which they can't

 

[Spirit of Light]

That would have to be the believer. Theres no question where the initial assertion came from.

So if a non believer I do not believe in a God exist, there will not be any proof that he/she ever will accept as the truth. Even if the God stood in front of him/her they would reject it, because God can not exist according to them.

How do they give proof of that God does not exist?

 

[Spirit of Light]

It's very simple really and as I see it, a defence against non sense or unjustified beliefs, doesn't have to be religious at all.

But let's say I created a medicine based on oil from nuts, gummy bears and a secret ingredient and stated that it could reduce the chance of getting Covid by 90%, you just have to eat them on a regular basis.

Obviously you would have some issues believing me, so you might ask me to provide some prove for it?

And if it were as you say, I could simply say that I wouldn't and you should prove me wrong, that it doesn't actually reduce the chance by 90%. That is not really something you should have to do when, I'm the one making the claim. And the same goes with anything, if I claim unicorns, trolls or smurfs exists, it is not up to you to prove that they don't.

It is called the burden of proof, you make the claim, you provide the proof.

But you are correct, that if an atheist claim that God does exist, then you can demand them to provide evidence as well. Which they can't

But it is the non believer who claim God do not exist. Prove it

 

[Nimos]

But it is the non believer who claim God do not exist. Prove it

Some do claim that and again they won't be able to prove it. It is not the position I take personally. But rather that the evidence for a God(s) that is presented to us by religions, is not sufficient for me to hold such believe.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Some do claim that and again they won't be able to prove it. It is not the position I take personally. But rather that the evidence for a God(s) that is presented to us by religions, is not sufficient for me to hold such believe.

That is a better answer then to just say God do not exist

 

[Deeje]

How do they give proof of that God does not exist?

I have often wondered about that myself....

 

[SalixIncendium]

If you want me to live in accordance with your God's law, behave in accordance with your God's will, or acknowledge your God, then the onus is on you to prove to me that your God exists.

If you keep your beliefs about your God to yourself and use these toward your own personal development, you have nothing to prove to me.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I have often wondered about that myself....

So far they have not given one that clearly show God do not exist

 

[exchemist]

The onus is on a person who is making any assertion to provide publicly verifiable evidence to support it.

I would agree with this in the form in which you originally wrote it (as shown in post 3), but actually I think that demanding "publicly verifiable" evidence is possibly a step too far. I see what you are getting at with that qualification: something close to the scientific requirement for reproducible evidence. But, given that not all claims are scientific claims, I don't think we can demand that all must meet the criteria for evidence that science uses.

In the arena of religion in particular, people often make tentative claims that are not absolute, or black and white, and are based on personal, subjective feelings or experience. I think that is fair enough, myself.

When it comes to the question of the existence of God, it seems to me only a fool would make a black and white claim that there definitely is, or definitely is not, a God. It is one of the oldest chestnuts in philosophy that this can never be settled.

 

[Spirit of Light]

If you want me to live in accordance with your God's law, behave in accordance with your God's will, or acknowledge your God, then the onus is on your to prove to me that your God exists.

If you keep your beliefs about your God to yourself and use these toward your own personal development, you have nothing to prove to me.

The second part of your answer relate to me. Yes i speak about God, butits up to you and the path you are on in life to show you the personal answer you looking for ( if you looking for it, that is )

 

[Nimos]

That is a better answer then to just say God do not exist

Here is an actual example of 3 atheists discussing this very topic. The caller claim that God doesn't exist, which the others think is a false position. Might be interesting for you to see, why they disagree so much.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If you want me to live in accordance with your God's law, behave in accordance with your God's will, or acknowledge your God, then the onus is on you to prove to me that your God exists.

If you keep your beliefs about your God to yourself and use these toward your own personal development, you have nothing to prove to me.

To expand upon what I said above, if you lack belief in God, and you want me to change my beliefs in God, then the onus is on you to prove to me that there is no God.

Essentially, the burden of proof is on the person suggesting another changes their views to align with theirs.

 

[Secret Chief]

Even if the God stood in front of him/her they would reject it

Not so. That is evidence.

 

[Spirit of Light]

To expand upon what I said above, if you lack belief in God, and you want me to change my beliefs in God, then the onus is on you to prove to me that there is no God.

Essentially, the burden of proof is on the person suggesting another changes their views to align with theirs.

Is it to change an other persons belief by telling a non believer, I believe in Allah? Does it test the "belief" of the non believer to hear that someone do believe in a God?

Remember my questions is not about mocking the non believer, i think i searching for the reason why a non believer can say, God does not exist, now prove that God exist.

Would that non believer ever accept any of the proves that is put in front of him/her?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Is it to change an other persons belief by telling a non believer, I believe in Allah? Does it test the "belief" of the non believer to hear that someone do believe in a God?

Forgive me for answering your question with a question, but what is the point of telling anyone you believe in Allah unless asked? What is it you are hoping to accomplish with this information?

Would that non believer ever accept any of the proves that is put in front of him/her?

Only a fool would say they don't believe in elephants in the presence of one.