Where Does The Burden Of Proof Fall?

[TJR666]

I have noted in previous postings statements like this: “The atheist does not need to prove that God doesn’t exist; the theist must prove that God exists.”

 

This raises the question: Where exactly does the burden of proof fall?

 

Starting from the atheist’s point of view, how could a person professing atheism go about proving God’s non-existence?

 

To do so would mean that a person would need to have complete knowledge of all time and space, and any and all other dimensions to know for sure that God does not exist. I hope this is obvious, but such a person with such knowledge would in fact be “god” themselves.

 

OK. Since we all recognise that it is impossible for man to know absolutely everything, and thus actually prove God’s non-existence, then those who profess atheism must change tack slightly and assert that they do not need to prove that God doesn’t exist, but insist that the theist must prove that God does in fact exist.

 

In doing this, those who profess atheism are insisting that the burden of proof belongs with those like me who assert the affirmative proposition (ie, “That God exists”) as opposed to those who assert the negative proposition (ie, “That God does not exist”), which they know is ultimately unprovable anyway.

 

However, this very proposition, “that the burden of proof falls on the theist”, is in and of itself also an affirmative proposition, and so requires proof itself. Can it be proved that the theist must prove that God does in fact exist? This point is often overlooked.

 

We need to note that atheism is just as much an affirmative proposition as theism. For example:

 

Atheism:

1)The doctrine or belief that there is no god or the assertion that his existence is meaningless.

2)Rejection of belief in God or gods.

Collins English Dictionary, 1981

 

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.”

Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 1984

 

“Atheism: The critique or denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is the opposite of theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswered or unanswerable; for the atheist, the non-existence of God is a certainty.”

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1992

 

Thus, since both propositions (ie, “That God exists” and “That God does not exist”) are equally affirmative, it appears that the burden of proof falls EQUALLY on both the atheist AND the theist.

 

So, recognising that the burden of proof falls equally on both, the person professing atheism must change tack again. Since the atheist position is ultimately unprovable, the person professing atheism tries to argue that the theist position is similar, and thus asserts that “… actual proof of God’s existence is not possible”.

 

Again, this proposition, “that proof of God’s existence is not possible”, is in and of itself an affirmative proposition, and so requires proof itself. Can it be proved that no proof of God’s existence is possible? What exactly would we count as “proof” anyway? How can we be sure God doesn’t exist until we find and exhaust all possible proofs?

 

Perhaps what is meant by their statement is simply that “… there is no evidence for God’s existence.”

 

Not so. I, like many before me, have proposed that the complexity of living organisms is excellent evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer (and please note: I said evidence, not proof). If this is not considered good evidence, then I must ask of those who profess atheism this question:

 

“What evidence then would convince you that anything has been intelligently designed, either by human beings or by some other intelligence?”

 

Consider the SETI project: The whole SETI project is based around discovering a radio signal from outer space that could be interpreted as evidence for an intelligent message sender. So, what criteria do they use?

 

The answer is quite simple: SETI is looking for a radio signal from outer space that is not just random background noise nor from a known source, either human or otherwise. What they are looking for is a signal from outer space with non-random information encoded in it; something deliberate. Such a deliberate signal if found would be interpreted as having come from an intelligent source.

 

So, suppose we are wandering around a forest, we look down, and find a stone arrowhead. I doubt of anyone reading this would believe that anything but a human being crafted such an arrowhead. Why? Simply because no known natural process or any other creature except a human being is known to craft arrowheads. Encoded in the arrowhead’s simple design is the fact that it was thought about and deliberately designed and crafted for a particular purpose. It is deliberate and non-random. Like a deliberate, non-random radio signal from outer space, the arrowhead becomes good evidence that there was an intelligent designer behind it.

 

But I ask, what about the human being who found it?

 

For example: The human brain has been described as probably the most complex arrangement of matter in the universe. Its mere 1.5 kg (about 3 pounds) contains at least 2,500 million neurons; if you stretched them all out and laid them end to end, it would come to about 75 km (about 45 miles) worth; the brain’s information processing capabilities are absolutely staggering.

 

Then there is the intricate design complexities shown in the heart, lungs, blood, kidneys, liver, eyes, ears, nose, stomach and intestines, muscles, skeleton, skin, etc, etc, etc. Then there is the complexity of the cell including its DNA mechanisms; you can store all the DNA information to replicate the entire current world’s population of over 6 billion people in a volume of less than half an aspirin!

 

I believe that it is simply irrational to believe that something as simple and basic as a stone arrowhead could be declared to be the product of an intelligent designer, but the staggeringly complex human being who found it is declared to be just a product of time and chance. That sort of reasoning is simply absurd.

 

Recognising this, the last refuge then for someone who professes atheism is to assert that “… belief in God is irrational”.

 

Again, this statement presupposes that it is irrational to believe anything without proof, and of course, that in and of itself becomes another proposition that also requires proof. Can it be proved that belief in God is irrational?

 

So consider: What evidence does anyone have for the existence of another person’s mind?

 

That’s an interesting question, isn’t it? So, for those who profess atheism, it appears that people can believe in the existence of something that we all believe exists without actually having any evidence or proof for its actual existence.

 

TJR666

[Vixentrox]

Prove that your god isn't really the Invisible BLUE Unicorn in disguise.

[Skankboy]

Just a quick note:

 

You can't prove a negative. Therefore the burden is always on the positive assurtion. That is my understanding anyways...

[dogmatically_challenged]

Here is your answer.

 

If there is not any kind of evidence of a being/thing then there is not any kind of awareness of a being/thing. In which case, what is incoherently being described (said being/thing that is not evident), does not exist to humans. We must be aware of it first for it to exist for humans.

 

This is why it is logical to say that a being/thing which is unsupported by any evidence does not exist, because it is logical to only believe in things which are supported by evidence.

 

You are not logicaly entitled to your bible god, afterlife, pixies, leprechauns, unicorns, or godman. These of which I speak is the whole reason for the burdon of proof being on the ones who make claims on the EXISTENCE of a being or thing.

 

Are we to plan our lives on every claim ever made that have ZERO evidences for them? We will soon run into contradictions that will paralyze us in doing or planning anything if we did that.

 

To devote our lives to things that are evident and to reject things that have ZERO evidence we will not run into such a problem.

 

 

That is precisley why.....

 

THE BURDON OF PROOF IS ON YOU ONLY.

 

If you had a heart for understanding this would not be such a bitter pill for you to swallow.

 

Is god possible? Yes. Claims which have no evidence for them are still possible, but we are not logicaly obliged to refrain from saying it does not exist, because without evidence a being or thing does not exist to humans. We can only reason on what is evident and not on what is merely possible if the goal for such reasonings is for some kind of application in the world in which WE exist. Your god has no place yet in our world until it becomes coherent to us. Cut and dry.

 

If you were to give me specific reasons why you believe in bible god I could show you that you in fact never did honestly try to narrow things down in the direction of your god and godman being evident. Probability trumps possiblity if we want understanding.

[Purple Rhino]

I understand what you are saying. And my thoughts are if this were Christian.net I would expect to bring more proof that there is no god.

 

But this is ExChristian so the weight of proof not only needs to be on the xian point of view but also compelling enough to have us even ponder the possibility that we walked away from a truth and not fairy tales and bigotry.

 

 

PR

[Druid]

Shouldn't the burden of prove lie with those who assert that such a being has properties that they themselves attribute to him/her/it?

[dogmatically_challenged]

I understand what you are saying. And my thoughts are if this were Christian.net I would expect to bring more proof that there is no god.

 

But this is ExChristian so the weight of proof not only needs to be on the xian point of view but also compelling enough to have us even ponder the possibility that we walked away from a truth and not fairy tales and bigotry.

PR

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We can only reason on what is evident and not on what is merely possible if the goal for such reasonings is for some kind of application in the world in which WE exist.

 

They have no logical grounds for thier belief in bible god no matter were they habitate. Since it is logical and practical to only believe in what there is evidence for; it is logical for all humans to say that bible god does not exist until there is evidence for it. We can change our minds as evidence comes in, but until then we have no logical reason to believe in bible god. IT can't exist for us humans yet. Bible god does not exist for us humans. That includes xers. They have never honestly narrowed things down in the direction of bible god and thier godman.

 

I will nip this use of junk philosophy by xers in the bud right now, so that they must focus on bible claims.

[Vixentrox]

I am able to walk on water, create food and come back from the dead. But I can only do when no one is watching and I can't do it when people doubt my ability or when recording devices are present.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Shouldn't the burden of prove lie with those who assert that such a being has properties that they themselves attribute to him/her/it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes.

[Ouroboros]

TJR666,

 

So you're saying all religions are true then? Because no religion has to be proven true, but should be assumed true, and it's up the the atheist to prove each and everyone of these to be untrue. And do you claim it's the atheists responsibility to also prove that Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, etc doesn't exist either.

 

An Atheist only claims that he doesn't have a belief in a any God.

 

Some people on this site are Agnostic (which you probably despise too), and some are Deists (which you probably hate), and Theists (which are totall wrong according to you), but all of these groups are accepted on this website. Why? Because this website is EX-Christian.net, not Atheist.net.

 

Actually I have respect and tollerance with the Christians that are on this website too, but doesn't preach, or evangelize their beliefs. And the reason to that is that no one else of the other religious or non-religious members on this site do it either.

 

If you demand of us to believe your God, then you have to prove your God!

 

We don't believe, it's our website, you are a guest, you make a claim, then we demand a proof from YOU!

[dogmatically_challenged]

I am able to walk on water, create food and come back from the dead.  But I can only do when no one is watching and I can't do it when people doubt my ability or when recording devices are present.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hehe!

 

All xers are going to a hell that I designed that is 1 million times more painful than thier gods if they do not start praying to me and send me 5 dollars/month.

 

If they meet my demands I'll save thier souls from my hell after they shed thier mortal coil by placing them in a heaven that is 1million times more pleasant than thier gods heaven. And I can do this all because I have killed thier god and godman and have destroyed thier domain in the ether.

 

Now the xers have better evidence for my godhood as I am an actual contemporary person telling them of my special plan of slavation for all of mankind. Hehe.

 

I challenge all xers to disprove my godhood.

 

I will have such fun using thier very arguments in defending my godhood.

 

( Thanks Mr. Neil! hehe.)

[Antihero]

I have noted in previous postings statements like this: “The atheist does not need to prove that God doesn’t exist; the theist must prove that God exists.”

 

This raises the question: Where exactly does the burden of proof fall?

 

Starting from the atheist’s point of view, how could a person professing atheism go about proving God’s non-existence?

 

To do so would mean that a person would need to have complete knowledge of all time and space, and any and all other dimensions to know for sure that God does not exist. I hope this is obvious, but such a person with such knowledge would in fact be “god” themselves.

 

Except, of course, if you are out to simply disprove the existence of the christian god, and whatever other gods people believe in. After all, who cares if some god exists far off in some other dimension, and does not interfere with life on this earth? The burden of proof falls on you because you claim some specific magical sky fairy directly affects our lives - without any proof to support that claim, and against evidence that says your particular incarnation of a god can't exist. Atheists simply claim it doesn't.

 

You can mold your god to try and fit the requirements of logic and science, but when you get to the point where you can't know your god without knowledge of all time and space, and any and all other dimensions, then you may as well forget about it - it is clearly a "god" that doesn't matter to us.

 

 

Again, this proposition, “that proof of God’s existence is not possible”, is in and of itself an affirmative proposition, and so requires proof itself. Can it be proved that no proof of God’s existence is possible? What exactly would we count as “proof” anyway? How can we be sure God doesn’t exist until we find and exhaust all possible proofs?

 

Perhaps what is meant by their statement is simply that “… there is no evidence for God’s existence.”

 

Not so. I, like many before me, have proposed that the complexity of living organisms is excellent evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer (and please note: I said evidence, not proof). If this is not considered good evidence, then I must ask of those who profess atheism this question:

 

“What evidence then would convince you that anything has been intelligently designed, either by human beings or by some other intelligence?”

 

What happens when we discover the exact natural mechanisms that led from the big bang to the beginning of life? You could say a god caused it all, or say a god uses these methods to cause life - but then why bother calling it god? Call it nature and accept it. As is evidenced by your claims, the god you want to believe in is simply a personification of the misunderstandings and misconceptions people have about their environment.

 

 

So consider: What evidence does anyone have for the existence of another person’s mind?

 

That’s an interesting question, isn’t it? So, for those who profess atheism, it appears that people can believe in the existence of something that we all believe exists without actually having any evidence or proof for its actual existence.

 

TJR666

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Can you mess with axioms like that? If you don't accept that you exist, others exist and reality exists, then can you really get anywhere? If you say that we don't have proof for the minds existence (a mind being the process of the brain), then you may as well go walk off a cliff - after all, what proof is there that the cliff exists, that cannot be applied as a proof for the mind, and therefore, clearly in your mind, dissmissed.

 

The difference between your god and the mind, is that you can affect the mind, change it and study it.

[dogmatically_challenged]

If something is self evident it needs no proof. Axioms are how we get by in reality. We are rewarded or punnished according to our perception of reality. No Axioms = no survival in this reality in which we exist.

 

Axioms are essential. The lack of evidence in your god is damning proof that your god is either playing games with us or IT does not exist. We depend on axioms to live. If your god does not respect that then IT is either playing games with us for sport, or.. IT is simply a made up invisible friend given us by our ancestors.

 

If your god was really interested in a relationship with us it would respect the fact that we need axioms to draw on and so then it would do what it takes to give US ALL confidence in it so that we can make a choice. We must be aware of god first.

 

Damning proof your god is not interested in a real loving relationship with humanity or it does not exist at all. A book is not needed as an aid to communicate by a god. Neither is hope or faith needed to feed a creator god in anyway. Not if your god IS love and has the abilities given us in scripture.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Zoe Grace

Furthermore...most atheists really don't give a crap what YOU believe. We dont' care one way or the other if you deconvert. If you want to live in meaningless superstition, it's fine with us. Therefore we are not asking you to accept a position other than your own. we just don't care.

When it comes to bible god I do care if they believe in it. The xer belief system ( the bible is what I use to judge as well as what ever thier CURRENT dogmas may be), is abusive, oppresive, immoral, and does not teach us to use critical thinking and empathy to get along.

 

This can lead to domestic emotional abuse and oppresive rules in the house based on ethics that can't possibly all be used for today.

 

Same with how an xer would vote, treat thier nieghbor or a stranger who is different. Thier world view does not take into account the world view of others and is extremely bigoted in this regard. Love is not enough. Respect is important to.

 

The xer world view more often than not really has a hard on for democracy were the mob rules, just like they have in thier family unit.

 

I agree with everything else you say here, as your god does not demand belief, nor does it coerce us to enjoy what ever gifts it may offer, through threats of hell. If your god exists it must deserve your respect since what ever it may have to offer you rests on its own merit without needs of threats to coerce fear. You repect your god were the xers have only blind folded fear.

 

If you say you can sense the ultimate consciousness then I can't argue with that really, I can't sense this supreme force that you may sense. Your god does not exist for me. Maybe there is a reason for that. It's possible. If your god punnishes you and rewards you based on your behavior then that is possibly real to you, but can't be for me.

 

However, I have every right to say that an alleged god that demands that I believe in it yet it does not make the effort to make me aware of it, does not exist. A being intelligent enough to create the whole universe would not be so stupid to demand belief without giving me confidence in it some how. Confidence comes from an initial action that would gain trust to begin with and bible god is stupid or is yanking our chains with all the confusion and violence that has come from xianity. A being intelligent enough to create the universe would be above that. Bible god is a primitive personality. I can rightly say it does not exist and is a human invention because it has the reek of primitive human.

[quicksand]

However, this very proposition, “that the burden of proof falls on the theist”, is in and of itself also an affirmative proposition, and so requires proof itself. Can it be proved that the theist must prove that God does in fact exist? This point is often overlooked.

Ah a strawman resting on equivocation.

 

Nice try.

[quicksand]

forget this one...

 

Starting from the atheist’s point of view, how could a person professing atheism go about proving God’s non-existence?

Another strawman. You have to prove why this is so. Existance of God is superfluous, or the whatever the immaterial you wish to posit a belief in.

 

You could try and debate that belief in athesim (ha ha) is the same thing as belief in God, but first you'd have to demostrate that a belief in athesim is the same thing as belief in an immaterial deity.

 

Good luck.

 

 

 

 

 

PS. Beliefs are proactive and are made by the person that wishes to hold them. This is your slip-up.

[dogmatically_challenged]

True, but you can't force people to abandon their faith without being just as immoral and abusive.  Its best just to guard against world takeover...while giving the crazy people a wide berth to pray to their imaginary friend.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Incorrect assumtion. I do support freedom of religion for the very reasons you point to.

 

But to change minds through persuasion based on reason ( a skill I don't quite have yet if I am dealing with hard core fundies) is not immoral or abusive at all. Xer prosylitizing is immoral and abusive at it's very core, but not freethought.

[MrSpooky]

In the context of metaphysics, a statement that claims the EXISTENCE of an entity possesses the Burden of Proof. This is because if the Burden of Proof is placed on the opposing side, EVERYTHING imaginable must exist because it is impossible to disprove their existence, no matter how ridiculous the claim.

 

Thus, the statement "God exists" must be proven.

 

Furthermore, TR, please refine your posts in the future. You jump from discrete topic to discrete topic with little unifying multiple themes.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Of course...but Deconverting fundie christians is about as easy as fundies converting us.  You can't make people deconvert.  Either they are going to see the light on their own or they aren't.  It doesn't matter what you say or don't say.  99% of them are going to hear what they want to hear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, incorrect assumption. We really do agree on many things here. I do not mess with fundies.

 

There are plenty of people who claim xianity yet really don't like or agree with everything in the bible, once they are actualy shown scripture. If people read the bible on thier own, without the "guidence" of people who are all ready indoctrinated , I assure you that many will no longer claim the bible has anything to do with a loving god. I do not live in the bible belt.

 

It is not as as bleak as you imagine it to be. People are curious about these things and will listen. Online I talk to fundies, but I pretty much leave most fundies alone in R.T.

[Ouroboros]

I know exactly where the burden of proof really should be laid.

 

God himself.

 

If he can't prove his existence, then he doesn't exist.

If he can prove his existence, then he exists.

 

Now, I was Christian, and the last days I prayed for something, just something small to convince me, just enough to convince me. But nothing. Nothing at all. Dead silence.

 

So if he exists, he chose to be non existent when I needed him the most. Very deceitful act from him, if so is the case.

 

If he doesn't exist, my understanding of God is easier to swallow, since then tehre was no God who would answer my silly request.

[Samurai Tailor]

I have noted in previous postings statements like this: “The atheist does not need to prove that God doesn’t exist; the theist must prove that God exists.”

 

This raises the question: Where exactly does the burden of proof fall?

Pragmatically, upon the person who seeks to persuade. In this case, both the atheist and the theist have entrenched positions toward which they try to draw the opponent via argumentation.

 

Logically, upon the theist. A must be a proposition before ~A.

Starting from the atheist’s point of view, how could a person professing atheism go about proving God’s non-existence?

Depends on what is meant by "God."

However, this very proposition, “that the burden of proof falls on the theist”, is in and of itself also an affirmative proposition, and so requires proof itself. Can it be proved that the theist must prove that God does in fact exist?

Sure. A precedes ~A. A negation cannot exist until there is a proposition to negate.

We need to note that atheism is just as much an affirmative proposition as theism.

Some of us don't take too kindly to being philosophically pigeonholed by subjective definitions. I can be an atheist by not being a theist; I don't have to actively deny theism.

So, recognising that the burden of proof falls equally on both, the person professing atheism must change tack again. Since the atheist position is ultimately unprovable, the person professing atheism tries to argue that the theist position is similar, and thus asserts that “… actual proof of God’s existence is not possible”.

Actually, that would be an agnostic of the Huxleyan flavor.

Not so. I, like many before me, have proposed that the complexity of living organisms is excellent evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer (and please note: I said evidence, not proof).

However, complexity can also be arrived at via mutation and natural selection. And we already know those processes are ever occurring.

If this is not considered good evidence, then I must ask of those who profess atheism this question:

 

“What evidence then would convince you that anything has been intelligently designed, either by human beings or by some other intelligence?”

Not sure. Perhaps some complex morphology without being accompanied by an observable, natural complexity-generating process.

Consider the SETI project: The whole SETI project is based around discovering a radio signal from outer space that could be interpreted as evidence for an intelligent message sender. So, what criteria do they use?

 

The answer is quite simple: SETI is looking for a radio signal from outer space that is not just random background noise nor from a known source, either human or otherwise. What they are looking for is a signal from outer space with non-random information encoded in it; something deliberate. Such a deliberate signal if found would be interpreted as having come from an intelligent source.

But how do we recognize non-random signals? It has to be similar to something we are already familiar with.

[Samurai Tailor]

Continued from previous...

So, suppose we are wandering around a forest, we look down, and find a stone arrowhead. I doubt of anyone reading this would believe that anything but a human being crafted such an arrowhead. Why? Simply because no known natural process or any other creature except a human being is known to craft arrowheads. Encoded in the arrowhead’s simple design is the fact that it was thought about and deliberately designed and crafted for a particular purpose. It is deliberate and non-random. Like a deliberate, non-random radio signal from outer space, the arrowhead becomes good evidence that there was an intelligent designer behind it.

 

But I ask, what about the human being who found it?

 

For example: The human brain has been described as probably the most complex arrangement of matter in the universe. Its mere 1.5 kg (about 3 pounds) contains at least 2,500 million neurons; if you stretched them all out and laid them end to end, it would come to about 75 km (about 45 miles) worth; the brain’s information processing capabilities are absolutely staggering.

But the human brain is really only quantitatively more complex than the chimpanzee brain, which is quantitatively more complex than the shrew brain, and so on.

 

You are treating the human brain as special because it is the most complex, but that is just circumstance; there always has been a most complex brain, human or otherwise.

Then there is the intricate design complexities shown in the heart, lungs, blood, kidneys, liver, eyes, ears, nose, stomach and intestines, muscles, skeleton, skin, etc, etc, etc.

Along with deficiencies. Eyes with functional cells wired backwards; the wonderful appendix; the recurrent laryngeal nerve; the coccyx and its nonfunctional extensor muscles, etc. etc. etc.

Then there is the complexity of the cell including its DNA mechanisms; you can store all the DNA information to replicate the entire current world’s population of over 6 billion people in a volume of less than half an aspirin!

DNA molecules are small, therefore God?

I believe that it is simply irrational to believe that something as simple and basic as a stone arrowhead could be declared to be the product of an intelligent designer, but the staggeringly complex human being who found it is declared to be just a product of time and chance. That sort of reasoning is simply absurd.

It might be if we had no plausible alternative mechanism to produce complex organisms. Fortunately, we do.

Recognising this, the last refuge then for someone who professes atheism is to assert that “… belief in God is irrational”.

 

Again, this statement presupposes that it is irrational to believe anything without proof, and of course, that in and of itself becomes another proposition that also requires proof. Can it be proved that belief in God is irrational?

 

So consider: What evidence does anyone have for the existence of another person’s mind?

 

That’s an interesting question, isn’t it? So, for those who profess atheism, it appears that people can believe in the existence of something that we all believe exists without actually having any evidence or proof for its actual existence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe in other people's minds because the alternatives are absurd. With some difficulty perhaps, I can stop believing, yet I will still have to go to school tomorrow and interact with my students as if they had minds. Seems like wasted effort to disregard a pretty foundational belief if it won't change anything.

[Ouroboros]

DNA molecules are small, therefore God?

That's cool, since the Human Brain was so big so it pointed to God, and now this!

 

Can we say DNA molecules are small, therefore God, and Human brain is very big, therefore God.

 

Next should be:

 

Beer is good, therefore God.

Sky is very blue, therefore God.

I can watch TV, therefore God.

I can be an Atheist, therefore God.

There is no God, therefore God?

God is a Dog, therefore God!

 

Damn, everything points to God, doesn't it!?

 

The Christians have answers for everything...

 

Why does pringles look the way they do? Because God made them that way!

 

Why doesn't my cellphone work everywhere? Because God wants to test you!

 

Why does my nose brigde perfectly fit my glasses? Because God made the nose to fit the glasses, silly!

 

And last but not least, why do we sneeze? Because the holy spirit in us is trying to come out and spread the joy!

[MrSpooky]

The Burden of Proof is more than a matter of pragmatics.

 

Elements of reality is defined by an ontology that possesses discrete and identifiable attributes and properties that constitute what it is. A is A.

 

Anything in a proposition that violates this principle immediately invalidates said proposition. Placing the Burden of Proof on the nonsubstantive side results in ALL substantive claims (no matter how ridiculous) as being equally valid... thus, the Burden of Proof must rest on the substantive side. In metaphysics, this is the side that proclaims "The entity X exists."

[TJR666]

TJR666,

 

So you're saying all religions are true then? Because no religion has to be proven true, but should be assumed true, and it's up the the atheist to prove each and everyone of these to be untrue. And do you claim it's the atheists responsibility to also prove that Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, etc doesn't exist either.

 

An Atheist only claims that he doesn't have a belief in a any God.

 

Some people on this site are Agnostic (which you probably despise too), and some are Deists (which you probably hate), and Theists (which are totall wrong according to you), but all of these groups are accepted on this website. Why? Because this website is EX-Christian.net, not Atheist.net.

 

Actually I have respect and tollerance with the Christians that are on this website too, but doesn't preach, or evangelize their beliefs. And the reason to that is that no one else of the other religious or non-religious members on this site do it either.

 

If you demand of us to believe your God, then you have to prove your God!

 

We don't believe, it's our website, you are a guest, you make a claim, then we demand a proof from YOU!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From TJR666 to Hans:

 

Yes, the burden of proof falls on the one making the assertive proposition. For example, if you insist that “Santa clause does not exist”, then you must prove it. If I say “Santa Claus does exist”, then I must prove it.

 

Next, you make an assumption that I “despise” agnostics or “hate” non-Christian deists. Not so; or are you making an assertion that requires proof? No, just joking. Where have I ever said something like this?

 

I have said many times before that I recognise that I am merely a guest on this site. Like guests sometimes do, I suspect that my welcome is wearing a bit thin. I have also stated that I’m here to discuss things with other people who do not believe the same as me; they are more interesting. I have also expressed my belief several times that I have “a snowball’s chance in hell” of converting those here. I’m visiting merely to raise issues and discuss things and see how other people think.

 

So, where do I fit in? I appear to have your tolerance for now, but do I have your respect? I certainly respect not just your opinion, but many of the others here also. If nothing else, I have triggered some lively discussions of late.

 

My position as a Christian is as much an assertive position as that for the atheist or agnostic or ex-Christian or whatever. Thus, you are absolutely correct when you say that if I desire you to believe in my God, then I will have to prove it. But first, one must believe that the something called “god” (any deity; something beyond time and space; call it what you may) does actually exist. That’s what I’m trying to get people thinking about.

 

The example that I put forward about the arrowhead; I note that it has not been commented upon yet. Is it proof? Certainly not. Is it good circumstantial evidence? I believe it to be so.

 

TJR666