Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
The Burden Of Proof...On God?
Here's a question that has been bugging me: Who bares the burden of proof regarding God? The believers or the nay-sayers?
On the one hand, the proposition of a higher power that we can't hear, touch, or see is a supernatural claim.
But on the other hand, at least 90%(nearly 95% according to the LA Times) of the world believes in some sort of "power beyond us". So, doesn't the idea of no such power become the supernatural claim?
So, it's up to you forum-goers! Who bares the Burden of Proof?
[Edit] The category has been revised to 'Flamewars'.
On the one hand, the proposition of a higher power that we can't hear, touch, or see is a supernatural claim.
But on the other hand, at least 90%(nearly 95% according to the LA Times) of the world believes in some sort of "power beyond us". So, doesn't the idea of no such power become the supernatural claim?
So, it's up to you forum-goers! Who bares the Burden of Proof?
[Edit] The category has been revised to 'Flamewars'.
Comments
Claiming that atheists bear the burden of proving that there is no god is like claiming that scientists bear the burden of proving that there's no granite tea kettle orbiting Charon.
I see God as being similar. There either is one or there isn't, and we aren't really going to know until it's time to meet our maker. Certain passages of the Bible may be subject to scientific inquiry (was there a flood, how old is the Universe?), but that just proves that a book contains error. It doesn't disprove the existence of God.
If I asked you, right now, to prove how and why gravity works, could you? Or do you simply blindly accept the "theory" of how gravity works?
And that is why I am a Agnostic (Unitarian/Deist) Atheist
"Casandra, you are with child?"
"Yes husband, I am."
"But, I have been away these past few months with the legions!"
"It was Hermes! He came very quickly..."
"Damn you Olympians!"
*** Six months later ***
"Why does this baby look like our gardener?"
"Oh... Hermes said the baby would look like the nearest male aside from himself..."
"ORLY?"
If you make an extraordinary claim and can not provide evidence you are wrong by default. I don't need to disprove you. You carry the burden of proof. You must provide evidence to support your extraordinary claim. If you can't, I win. There is no need for disproving. If you disagree with this, you are irrational and illogical. There are no buts about it. If you truly believe in something extraordinary without evidence, you are delusional and possibly insane.
Let me reverse the question upon you. How was Jesus born to a virgin Mary? How did he raise Lazarus from the dead? How did he turn water into wine? How did he himself raise up from the dead? How did he then return 40 days later and then float into the sky? Can you answer any of these questions? If you were not a Christian, don't you think they would sound pretty ridiculous? Do you have any evidence, apart from the Bible (which is not evidence), that this is even possible? Would you believe your daughter if she was pregnant and said she was a virgin?
Science can't prove many things. We're well aware of that. To prove something 100% true is an extremely difficult if not impossible task. What we can do, however, is show what is likely and probable, or what is mathematically predictable. Scientific theories are accepted due to the mountains of evidence in support and the lack of counterexamples. The claims are not unreasonable, and they have backing. This is very different from theistic claims.
Saying that an atheist is making a claim is like saying that every single human being who doesn't believe in my magical invisible third nut is making a claim. That's a very poor and intellectually dishonest or misinformed position, and I hope you're not seriously making this point...
The claim: gravity appears as a force
The evidence: millions of observations, tens of thousands of controlled experiments, consistent returned data
Reasonable conclusion: gravity exists
Gravity is generally accepted to exist due to the enormity of the extant evidence for it. Now, compare that to various theories as to why gravity works.
The claim: gravity works through the exchange of particles
The evidence: scant observations, statistical correlations, consistent mathematical theory
Reasonable conclusion: gravity may work through the exchange of particles, but there is no impetus to preclude other possibilities
Notice how "proof" is a sliding scale? We can't "prove" anything 100%, but reasonable people accept claims that are backed with substantial evidence and question claims that aren't. That's why it's reasonable to accept backed scientific theories and unreasonable to accept theistic claims. There is a claim that the universe is shaped a certain way. There is evidence for it, and no counterexample has yet been found. It is thus reasonable for someone familiar with the evidence in question to accept the possibility/probability that the universe is indeed shaped that way, or in the very least that the mathematical model thereby derived is functional. It is also reasonable for someone not familiar with the evidence to believe any of this through trust of the scientists involved.
The scientists in question are still searching frantically for a counterexample. Science tries to prove itself wrong continually. We accept theories that are mathematically useful or predictive because they -work- and do not require additional, unsupported, extraordinary claims. But there is absolutely no burden of proof for the nonexistence of a god. The nonexistence is the default rational position, and does not need to be supported. The only burden of proof is on those who make the theistic claim.
http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=070109
The claim: gravity works through the warping of space by mass
The evidence: stellar shifts measured during the May 29, 1919 solar eclipse: http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM7I9R1VED_index_0.html
Conclusion: Mass curves space, causing effects we recognize as gravity.
and further: Just so. Such positions cannot be proven and so all must fail logically. Belief and faith, however, reside outside the realm of logic. People have the ability to form crazy beliefs, take comfort in them, and even benefit from them in spite of their logical failure. Problems arise when these people use their beliefs as a basis to exclude, harass, and marginalize other people. More problems arise when these people try to force other people to accept these beliefs despite their unwillingness to do so. If people would just believe what they want, understand that their beliefs cannot survive logical scrutiny, and leave others alone to their own beliefs or lack thereof we would be much better off. The claim: The number of people who subscribe to a belief and the logical validity and/or quality of that belief are directly proportional.
The evidence: When I was younger, the Bee Gees were extremely popular. As in you wouldn't believe how popular. Right now, Justin Timberlake, Ashley Simpson, and Carrot Top can actually make a living in the entertainment industry and NASCAR is EXTREMELY popular.
The conclusion: The number of people who subscribe to a belief and the logical validity and/or quality of that belief are inversely proportional.
Your appreciation of the Bee Gees cannot be supported by logic.
It was something along the lines of how faith is the belief in something when there is no proof. If God exists as an element of faith than any positive proof would therefore cause God to no longer exist as faith and proof can not co-exist in this manner.
To me, God is "random chance" and nothing more. Those who study random numbers will tell you that there is no such things as all numbers are inherently non-random when looked upon with great enough depth. Except for Pi which goes on and on and never repeats itself!
God is also used to explain anything that we can not currently explain. Two slugs are eating a leaf. The leaf breaks off and they fall into a pile of salt and die. As far as the slugs are concerned (assuming they can think) it was an act of God that thrust them to their deaths. We know, by looking at the bigger picture, it was a kid with a pair of scissors and a mean streak!
Intelligent design is just the one random occurrence that bore fruit. Just as many financial companies start out with a ton of different funds and then remove the unprofitable ones so they can say, "look! All of our funds make money!" The same is true with intelligent design. We ignore all the creatures that have become extinct and focus only on those that have survived and exclaim, "there must be a godly power for this to happen!"
You can not prove the existence of God because anything that can be proven falls out of the realm of an "act of God!"
Random Chance != God
God == Random Chance
God == All unexplained things
All unexplained things != God
Does that explain it better? I can not prove gravity, does it not exist?
Also, your logic is like saying:
1!=2 but 2==1
What are you doing here? Go claim your Nobel Prize!
No, my logic is the same as: Calico == Cat but Cat != Calico. If that is too hard for you to parse: All calicos are cats but all cats are not calicos.
There is a mountain of evidence for gravity. If you believe in gravity, nobody can fault you for it or call you irrational. If you don't believe in gravity in the face of this mountain of evidence you can only be called in sane. There is no evidence for god and some evidence against god. If you believe in god you are at least as crazy as someone who does not believe in gravity.
Believing gravity exists is like believing cats exist. Believing in god is like believing in unicorns.
Wikipedia: Gravity
My point is that the theory of gravity may be accepted as fact due to the evidence but has not been proven 100%, thus it is still a theory.
My point (if you read my above comments) is that the theory of God exists but it has not been proven. It likely will never be proven as I do not believe it myself! Many things we once thought were caused by an angry god have since been found to be natural phenomanom. If a God (in the biblical sense) were proven to exist than what does that say about us? What power do we truly have if an angry God can just wipe us out on a whim?
I'd like to believe we go *somewhere* after we die but I don't believe there is some old guy with a beard in charge.
Yes, I mashed up my terms. Thank you for clarifying for me.
Yes, the existence of "God" is more of a hypothesis at best. There are no facts that can be corroborated and there is only one document available that talks about his existence and it was written by believers...
Virgin birth? Space Aliens! Or she was fooling around and had someone hide behind a bush with a megaphone to intimidate her husband...
Raising from the dead? Well, perhaps he wasn't really dead yet? It happened in a Monty Python movie...
Water into wine? That could have just been a figurative story that was exaggerated into a literal story. Remember the scene in Life of Brian where the people were way way far away and could not quite hear what Jesus was saying?
Until all things have been proven scientifically there will always be some who will believe that something occurs because "God wills it." God is the absence of proof, an excuse if you will.
Rym - away with your pedantic arguments! All mathematical theories can be proven true given enough computing power. Wait, what about the mathematical proof that adding two even numbers always results in an even result? What about the law of divisibility by three?
Somethings can be proven beyond being a theory as long as the particular circumstances around the event are constant. i.e. the boiling point of water is not a constant, it is also based on atmospheric pressure, elevation and a few other things. This is why you can not boil water on top of a mountain and why eggs always taste like crap on an airliner. BUT, you can prove that if all things are constant water will boil at a certain temperature.
Even with gravity, you can be certain that if you open a window and throw something out the window (that is heavier than air) that it will fall to the ground. I would call it something like, "The Law of Gravity and Rym's Window" but that would not prove the over-all theory of gravity as it would only be an example of how gravity works. With that said, if any single time Rym through a heavy object out of his window and it did not fall down it would not only throw out this law but would confuse the hell out of the law of gravity as a whole!