Why does the believer in God's existence have the burden of proof?

[Gambit]

Why does the believer in God's existence have the burden of proof?

The problem is that the skeptic and/or atheist requires scientific evidence for God's existence. But what he or she fails to understands is that belief in God's existence is presented as a metaphysical belief, not as a scientific fact.

 

[Bunyip]

Because he/she is positing the existence of something.

 

[Gambit]

Because he/she is positing the existence of something.

Why do I as a believer have to justify my personal belief to you?

 

[Bunyip]

Why do I as a believer have to justify my personal belief to you?

You don't. But were you to posit the existence of god to me, you would bear the burden of proof.

 

[Gambit]

You don't. But were you to posit the existence of god to me, you would bear the burden of proof.

That's right. I don't have any burden of proof. Whether you believe or not is of no consequence to me.

 

[Bunyip]

That's right. I don't have any burden of proof. Whether you believe or not is of no consequence to me.

You only have that burden when making that assertion.

 

[McBell]

That's right. I don't have any burden of proof. Whether you believe or not is of no consequence to me.

In a debate over the existence of god, those claiming god exists have the burden of proof.

 

[Gambit]

In a debate over the existence of god, those claiming god exists have the burden of proof.

It's a belief. Beliefs do not require proof. If you could actually prove it, then it would not qualify as a belief.

 

[Jumi]

Proving things is up to you, just don't expect others to believe as you do.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's a belief.

I find unsubstantiated beliefs very unsatisfying, but each to their own.

 

[McBell]

It's a belief. Beliefs do not require proof. If you could actually prove it, then it would not qualify as a belief.

Yes it is.
Some say it is faith.
The reason it is called both is because it cannot be established as fact.

If you make the statement that god exists, not stepping up to the burden of proof makes the statement an empty claim.
It gods very existence is an empty claim, it follows that everything claimed for said god is also empty.

 

[Lyndon]

Someone can believe what ever they want, the burden of proof is on whoever is trying to prove or disprove something, whether they are a believer or non believer.

 

[leibowde84]

Why does the believer in God's existence have the burden of proof?

Because they are the one making the claim, and often failing to sufficiently define what "God" is. It is unreasonable to expect anyone to prove a negative of this sort, as God is a supernatural, vaguely defined concept. Keep in mind, most would merely say that there is insufficient proof for the existence of God, not positively claim that God does not and cannot exist. Thus, it only seems appropriate that the party actively making a claim in a supernatural entity should hold the burden of proof. Don't you agree? If not, why not?

 

[JRMcC]

Because he/she is positing the existence of something.

Is the presupposition always that nothing exists unless it's been seen/proven to be real?

Do you believe in extraterrestrial intelligent life? You can only argue for its existence through reasoning. There is no proof.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why does the believer in God's existence have the burden of proof?

Technically, he does not.

But without accepting that burden he has no reason to expect others to care about his beliefs.

 

[Thief]

If you state....there is no God.....
you share the burden as well.

and we all know....thee will be no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment.
no proof.

But there are lots of good reasons to believe there is a God......and sooooo many of us.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's a belief. Beliefs do not require proof. If you could actually prove it, then it would not qualify as a belief.

You're describing a guess, not a belief.

 

[leibowde84]

Is the presupposition always that nothing exists unless it's been seen/proven to be real?

Do you believe in extraterrestrial intelligent life? You can only argue for its existence through reasoning. There is no proof.

It's a belief. Beliefs do not require proof. If you could actually prove it, then it would not qualify as a belief.

Everyone is responsible, imho, to have sufficient reasoning for holding their beliefs. This reasoning should be based on more than just what "makes sense" or "seems to be the case", as our conscious experience is often faulty. So, I think you both have a point. No absolute "proof" should be demanded, but there should always be reasoning behind the beliefs you hold, rather than holding them blindly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do I as a believer have to justify my personal belief to you?

Not as a believer; as a person arguing a claim... as you did here:

Atheists and/or skeptics are wont to demand scientific evidence for the existence of God. But such a demand is ridiculous. Why? Because God is universal mind or consciousness and mind or consciousness cannot be objectively measured or observed; it can only be inferred. In fact, there is no scientific evidence that human consciousness even exists.

And here:

Consciousness and its contents are all that exists.

Etc.

And it isn't so much that you HAVE to justify your position; it's that it would be unreasonable for you to fault people for not accepting your arguments until you justify them. Whether you want people to accept your arguments or whether you care about being seen as illogical is your own business.

 

[leibowde84]

Why do I as a believer have to justify my personal belief to you?

I don't think anyone "has" to justify their personal beliefs to anyone else. But, in a debate forum such as this, I think that it is a different story. We owe it to each other on here to present substantial arguments to defend our beliefs. This practice helps everyone involved, as it forces us to look at our own beliefs skeptically.