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

[SkepticThinker]

Your definition of atheism was lack of belief in God, not disbelief in God, two different things, disbelief is much more active than lack of belief.

Its the difference between not believing at all, and not having a belief (one way or the other).

For instance if I said I don't believe in aliens, that's strong statement, however if I were to say I lack a belief in aliens, it doesn't mean I don't believe they might exist, It just means I don't have a belief in them existing. Two distinctly different meanings.

I've never seen any good evidence from anyone that has lead me to believe that the god they worship actually exists.

I've also never seen any good evidence from anyone that has lead me to believe that werewolves exist. I'm guessing you haven't either.

Do you consider those statements "lack of belief" or "unbelief?"

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Ok, I'll accept there may exist an agnostic theist. It's just a little weird saying you believe in something you lack knowledge about.

Basically saying you believe in something but there is not enough information to make a decision about it's existence.
People are strange.

So are there any agnostic theists out there and what exactly does your belief in God consist of and what is it based on?

If I could reply for someone else.. I have a friend who refuses to be called an atheist, but "kinda" believes in god..
Mostly for the Pascall's Wager reason.. I consider him an agnostic theist..

 

[Lyndon]

I've never seen any good evidence from anyone that has lead me to believe that the god they worship actually exists.

I've also never seen any good evidence from anyone that has lead me to believe that werewolves exist. I'm guessing you haven't either.

Do you consider those statements "lack of belief" or "unbelief?"

Maybe you're just not good at putting yourself in someone else's shoes, otherwise you might have more understanding of their belief. I had several years as an agnostic in my youth, so I think I have some understanding of that philosophy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Maybe you're just not good at putting yourself in someone else's shoes, otherwise you might have more understanding of their belief. I had several years as an agnostic in my youth, so I think I have some understanding of that philosophy.

Instead of trying to be condescending to me, how about just answering the question I asked? I'm trying to understand where the problem is and I thought it was a pretty simple question.

 

[steveb1]

good posting!!!

Thanks Lyndon for your kind words.

 

[Fraleyight]

Ok, I'll accept there may exist an agnostic theist. It's just a little weird saying you believe in something you lack knowledge about.

Basically saying you believe in something but there is not enough information to make a decision about it's existence.
People are strange.

So are there any agnostic theists out there and what exactly does your belief in God consist of and what is it based on?

Well, depending how you think knowledge is obtained.. Being an "Agnostic Theist" is an intellectually honest position for any Theist.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I don't think that the positing party necessarily has the burden of proof, but that method has become the agreed-upon one in debating.

I am a theist - a panentheist (not a pantheist) and would caution all kinds of theists about making claims that God's existence can be proven. I think it can be proven, but the proof and the evidence occur only on the subjective, not the objective/external level. This is because, as the late atheist Gore Vidal said, "God, or what have you, is not to be found on the far end of a syllogism, no matter how brilliantly formulated". For me this idea entails the necessity that God's existence or non-existence cannot be established by philosophical debate or scientific quantification. God's existence can be known - not intellectually - but as an object of experience.

If God is an object of experience, both the need of faith and of philosophical "proof" evaporate in the face of the reality of the "gnostic" first-hand experience of God. God's existence is not even a sensible question if God can be experienced. Direct experience trumps both intellection and "faith about"/"believing in" a divine abstraction.

I would suggest that theists who want to "prove God" to non-believers direct the non-believers not to intellection or scientific cosmology, but to the inner experience of God. If someone proves the existence of Jupiter's moons by inviting questioners to look through a telescope, theists similarly can direct seekers to look through the "telescope" - the lens - of prayer, contemplative practice, meditative methods...the lenses that provide direct experience.

God, as the object of experience, does not need to be believed in or proved by some supposed origin-or-behavior of the cosmos.
God can be experienced as an internal presence and process. "a mighty activity of the soul", as Carl Jung wrote.

If a non-believer asks for proof, just tell him/her that the proof is not up to the believer to provide. The proof is up to the non-believer to provide for him/herself. The non-believer must become a provisional seeker and use the lenses that the spiritual traditions provide.
If a non-believer does so and does not find God, fine.
But if a non-believer refuses to investigate, s/he can be dismissed as intellectually dishonest and perhaps cowardly - just as we dismiss the "experts" of Galileo's time who refused to look through his telescope.

I'm curious, in your opinion only.. not asking for sources or anything.. but how many atheists do you think HAVEN'T looked?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Maybe you're just not good at putting yourself in someone else's shoes, otherwise you might have more understanding of their belief. I had several years as an agnostic in my youth, so I think I have some understanding of that philosophy.

Actually, his statement was pretty straight forward, and pretty common. So the irony of your whole statement there is a bit baffling...
Perhaps you're not as good at putting yourself in others shoes as you think.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe you're just not good at putting yourself in someone else's shoes, otherwise you might have more understanding of their belief. I had several years as an agnostic in my youth, so I think I have some understanding of that philosophy.

Everything is possible, but you probably should not assume too much about what other people are capable of doing or not.

 

[steveb1]

I'm curious, in your opinion only.. not asking for sources or anything.. but how many atheists do you think HAVEN'T looked?

I have no idea of the statistics of atheists "who sought, but did not find". But like I said, IF they DID look, I've got no problem. I was singling out those who deny and condemn without doing the search, not the real experimenters. But to be fair, the vociferous ones don't seem to have looked because they've made an a priori judgment call that the idea of God is an impossibility and hence they excuse themselves from the search. Naturally I'm thinking of web/boards/forums posters and of course Big Unbelievers like Dawkins and DeGrasse Tyson. I view it as "if you haven't done your homework, you're not allowed to vote". If you've done your homework, by all means, cast your vote and don't be shy about discussing it...

 

[LuisDantas]

I have no idea of the statistics of atheists "who sought, but did not find". But like I said, IF they DID look, I've got no problem. I was singling out those who deny and condemn without doing the search, not the real experimenters. But to be fair, the vociferous ones don't seem to have looked because they've made an a priori judgment call that the idea of God is an impossibility and hence they excuse themselves from the search.

Wow. That is such a strong contrast from what the available evidence shows.

Naturally I'm thinking of web/boards/forums posters and of course Big Unbelievers like Dawkins and DeGrasse Tyson. I view it as "if you haven't done your homework, you're not allowed to vote". If you've done your homework, by all means, cast your vote and don't be shy about discussing it...

I think you are setting yourself up for some major grief up ahead. However you have reach that conclusion... I just don't think you will be able to keep that opinion very easily or very honestly for much longer.

 

[steveb1]

Wow. That is such a strong contrast from what the available evidence shows.



I think you are setting yourself up for some major grief up ahead. However you have reach that conclusion... I just don't think you will be able to keep that opinion very easily or very honestly for much longer.

I've already sought and found. Those who don't seek are not allowed to vote. Simple. If you won't look thru a telescope to find out if Jupiter has moons, you're not allowed to expound on their existence. Like I said, Simple.

 

[Lyndon]

I think your quote function is malfunctioning. Steve

 

[steveb1]

I think your quote function is malfunctioning. Steve

Geez.... thanks again Lyndon... I just deleted it because it wasn't that apt and I was too lazy to retype... but thanks for watching out for me!

 

[LuisDantas]

I've already sought and found. Those who don't seek are not allowed to vote. Simple. If you won't look thru a telescope to find out if Jupiter has moons, you're not allowed to expound on their existence. Like I said, Simple.

"Not allowed to vote"?

What would the vote even be?

 

[steveb1]

"Not allowed to vote"?

What would the vote even be?

The vote would be personally verified statements about God and spirituality, just as the vote about Jupiter's moons would be verified statements of those who looked through a telescope. If you looked through telescope you can say you saw or did not see Jupiter's moons; if you looked through the contemplative lenses you can say you found, or did not find, God. The God-vote would consists of such statements as:

The divine exists as an object of experience; the divine has such-and-such qualities; I am in union/communion with the Spirit; God is infinite compassion/wisdom/unimpeded Light; God is/is not a Creator; God is No-Thing-Ness; the eye by which we see God is the eye by which God sees us; Bodhi is not different from Enlightenment; Nirvana is the extinguishing of attachment and desire; God's Presence is spread over the earth but people tend not to be aware of it; all things are inherently Buddha Nature; the kingdom of heaven is like leaven; God is love; to abide in the Self is to abide in God; ultimate reality is unborn and unconditioned.
Etc.

If someone hasn't performed the injunction: "To know X, do Y", then the person has no data or experience which entitles them to vote, i.e., they haven't done the homework, the research, the experimentation that would enable them make statements about whichever domain is under discussion.

 

[LuisDantas]

The vote would be personally verified statements about God and spirituality, just as the vote about Jupiter's moons would be verified statements of those who looked through a telescope.

That is an odd way at putting it. The way I see it, there is no "vote". People just decide - or shall I say realize - whether they believe in some deity or not.

If you looked through telescope you can say you saw or did not see Jupiter's moons; if you looked through the contemplative lenses you can say you found, or did not find, God. The God-vote would consists of such statements as:

The divine exists as an object of experience; the divine has such-and-such qualities; I am in union/communion with the Spirit; God is infinite compassion/wisdom/unimpeded Light; God is/is not a Creator; God is No-Thing-Ness; the eye by which we see God is the eye by which God sees us; Nirvana is the extinguishing of attachment and desire; God's Presence is spread over the earth but people tend not to be aware of it;

If you say so. Would you mind sparing the Buddhist ones, though? I would rather not mix that teaching with deity-related matters. They really don't need the baggage.

the kingdom of heaven is like leaven; God is love; to abide in the Self is to abide in God; ultimate reality is unborn and unconditioned.
Etc.

If someone hasn't performed the injunction: "To know X, do Y", then the person has no data or experience which entitles them to vote, i.e., they haven't done the homework, the research, the experimentation that would enable them make statements about whichever domain is under discussion.

That does not make a lot of sense to me.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

....


That does not make a lot of sense to me.

Try re-reading it as a way to avoid any burden of proof, and it makes sense, in that light.

 

[steveb1]

Try re-reading it as a way to avoid any burden of proof, and it makes sense, in that light.

Quite the contrary, it consists of a direct experience instead of belief-in or intellection about. Unless you think that viewing Jupiter's moons through a telescope is an avoidance of proof.
Your sarcasm is pretty typical of the online atheists I described earlier.
Not my .... burden ... if you refuse to perform the injunction.
And I never said that God or what have you can be "proved" - I said it can be an object of experience, which is highly evidential to the experiencer, but not to others. They, too, would need to do the homework.

 

[steveb1]

That is an odd way at putting it. The way I see it, there is no "vote". People just decide - or shall I say realize - whether they believe in some deity or not.

===

If you say so. Would you mind sparing the Buddhist ones, though? I would rather not mix that teaching with deity-related matters. They really don't need the baggage.




That does not make a lot of sense to me.

===

It makes sense the same way looking thru a telescope makes sense:

If you want to know X - see Jupiter's moons, then you must do Y - look through a telescope.
If you want to know X - God, God's attributes, then you must do Y - look through the "lenses" provided by the various traditions.

I may have mis-typed earlier and said if you want to do X, do Y, whereas I meant to say if you want to KNOW X, then DO Y - a simple injunction for knowledge acquisition in any field.

I use the Buddhist and Gospel of Thomas and Christian mysticism because they all illustrate the point I'm making that Spirit can be an object of experience confirmed internally by investigative practice. Also it helps to keep in mind that there are parallels between theistic and non-theistic mystical experiences and traditions, e.g., viewed impersonally, Nirvana coincides with Christian mystics' descriptions of God as unconditioned, unborn no-thing-ness.

there is no "vote". People just decide - or shall I say realize - whether they believe in some deity or not.

t

But once again, it is not about belief or believing or "faith-in" - or intellection, for that matter. It's about experiencing God as a reality seen with the "eye of contemplation" (the "lens" one uses to do the looking). Once God is experienced, arguments about "his" existence become irrelevant, as does faith in "his" existence. ... If I never had a headache, but knew that others claimed to have headaches, I might or might not believe in headaches. But if I experience a headache, I know: I don't need to believe in headaches or prove or disprove their existence. Ditto God, the spirit, the holy, whatever spiritual category is under discussion. It's not a matter of deciding on a belief, it's a matter of having, interpreting, and cultivating an experience. Of then being able to "vote" - to make accurate statements based on experience rather than intellection or faith.

As the late atheist writer Gore Vidal said: "God, or what have you, is not to be found on the far end of a syllogism, no matter how brilliantly phrased". That's sort of like what I'm saying: God can be an object of experience and as such is not subject to philosophical/scientific/or faith explanations. Why argue about the existence and flavor of the apple when one can taste it for oneself? Why argue about the existence and features of Jupiter's moons when one can look through a telescope? Why deny the existence and attributes of spiritual categories when the spiritual traditions offer lenses for the search? That is, before judging, before casting the "vote", one is obligated to find out for oneself if the various spiritual lenses do or do not work. To me, this is just a pragmatic, common-sense attitude - "Is that car any good to drive? Well, drive it and find out.".