Burden of Proof

[cnorman18]

It seems to be taken for granted around here that in any debate over God's existence, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, i.e., the theist. .

There is a God = positive claim; requires proof.

There is NO God = negative claim; no proof required. Onus is on whoever disagrees.

Therefore, whoever initiates the conversation, we are left with the atheist tapping his foot with his hand out, waiting for proof, while the theist shuffles his feet and tries to think of something - a hopeless task, in my opinion.

If a proof of God were possible, I suspect someone would have found it at some point in the last five thousand years or so.

Therefore, all theists are required by logic and rationality to immediately give up their beliefs and become atheists, right? Otherwise they are (choose one) hypocrites, irrational, stupid, dishonest, or all of the above.

Well, not quite.

If no proof of God is possible, then proof becomes irrelevant.

Don't misunderstand; if I wish to convince an atheist that there is a God, proof is still a requirement. It just becomes clearly impossible to offer any. Can't be done.

On the other hand, if proof if impossible, the theist is no longer a hypocrite, irrational, etc. if he or she wishes to retain theistic beliefs. One cannot be expected to produce, not that which does not exist, but that which cannot exist.

(Parenthetically: the fact that proof of God is impossible, whether God actually exists or not, has long been established here. If you doubt that, give an example of proof that is even theoretically possible. Bear in mind that no one here can compel God to do anything, so a proposed proof that begins, "God could..." has neither value nor meaning. By the same token, no one here has access to the mind of God; therefore, any question beginning with "Why hasn't God..." is similarly silly.)

The burden of proof is therefore on whoever wants the other person to change his or her position; and that burden can never be met in either direction.

You want an atheist to become a theist? Present an objective and verifiable proof that there is a God, preferably one, particular, identifiable God. And good luck with that.

You want a theist to become an atheist? Present objective proof that no God could possibly exist, or that the particular God believed in by the theist does not exist.

Is that possible? Truthfully, I haven't given that as much thought; but I doubt it. Again, I suspect that if there existed a definitive disproof of God's existence, someone would have brought it forward over the last five millenia, and we would all long since have become atheists.

Questions for debate:

(1) Is it even theoretically possible to objectively prove the existence of God?

(2) Is it possible to objectively and definitively prove the NONexistence of God?

(3) If God has delegated the responsibility for determining right and wrong, caring for each other and the planet, and establishing peace, justice and mercy to US - what difference does it make?

(4) If the question of God's existence is therefore rendered permanently moot, might it not be worthwhile to begin trying to distinguish the differences between toxic and benign religions, as opposed to arguing over whether or not religion per se is a pernicious falsehood?

[Zzyzx]

.

The burden of proof is therefore on whoever wants the other person to change his or her position; and that burden can never be met in either direction.

I agree 100%.

That is a primary reason behind my decision to focus upon presenting ideas alternative to Christian propaganda -- with the suggestion that thinking people evaluate the merits of what is said, examine wide ranging evidence and make intelligent decisions based upon evidence and reasoning.

Questions for debate:

(1) Is it even theoretically possible to objectively prove the existence of God?

No

(2) Is it possible to objectively and definitively prove the NONexistence of God?

No

(3) If God has delegated the responsibility for determining right and wrong, caring for each other and the planet, and establishing peace, justice and mercy to US - what difference does it make?

None

(4) If the question of God's existence is therefore rendered permanently moot, might it not be worthwhile to begin trying to distinguish the differences between toxic and benign religions, as opposed to arguing over whether or not religion per se is a pernicious falsehood?

YES

I suggest that Christianity and Islam share honors in being toxic and that Buddhism and Judaism are perhaps benign.

It will be interesting to discuss the meaning of toxicity in religion. My personal definition is promotion of negative values, attitudes and effects. Divisiveness among people is high on my list of negative effects of Christianity and Islam – ranging from personal interaction through suspicion, hatred, conflict and warfare. Delusions of superiority and condescending attitudes and lack of respect in regard to those who worship different gods or worship in different ways or refuse to worship.

[MrWhy]

It seems to be taken for granted around here that in any debate over God's existence, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, i.e., the theist. .

There is a God = positive claim; requires proof.

There is NO God = negative claim; no proof required. Onus is on whoever disagrees.

Therefore, whoever initiates the conversation, we are left with the atheist tapping his foot with his hand out, waiting for proof, while the theist shuffles his feet and tries to think of something - a hopeless task, in my opinion.

If a proof of God were possible, I suspect someone would have found it at some point in the last five thousand years or so.

Therefore, all theists are required by logic and rationality to immediately give up their beliefs and become atheists, right? Otherwise they are (choose one) hypocrites, irrational, stupid, dishonest, or all of the above.

Well, not quite.

If no proof of God is possible, then proof becomes irrelevant.

Don't misunderstand; if I wish to convince an atheist that there is a God, proof is still a requirement. It just becomes clearly impossible to offer any. Can't be done.

On the other hand, if proof if impossible, the theist is no longer a hypocrite, irrational, etc. if he or she wishes to retain theistic beliefs. One cannot be expected to produce, not that which does not exist, but that which cannot exist.

(Parenthetically: the fact that proof of God is impossible, whether God actually exists or not, has long been established here. If you doubt that, give an example of proof that is even theoretically possible. Bear in mind that no one here can compel God to do anything, so a proposed proof that begins, "God could..." has neither value nor meaning. By the same token, no one here has access to the mind of God; therefore, any question beginning with "Why hasn't God..." is similarly silly.)

The burden of proof is therefore on whoever wants the other person to change his or her position; and that burden can never be met in either direction.

You want an atheist to become a theist? Present an objective and verifiable proof that there is a God, preferably one, particular, identifiable God. And good luck with that.

You want a theist to become an atheist? Present objective proof that no God could possibly exist, or that the particular God believed in by the theist does not exist.

Is that possible? Truthfully, I haven't given that as much thought; but I doubt it. Again, I suspect that if there existed a definitive disproof of God's existence, someone would have brought it forward over the last five millenia, and we would all long since have become atheists.

Questions for debate:

(1) Is it even theoretically possible to objectively prove the existence of God?

(2) Is it possible to objectively and definitively prove the NONexistence of God?

(3) If God has delegated the responsibility for determining right and wrong, caring for each other and the planet, and establishing peace, justice and mercy to US - what difference does it make?

(4) If the question of God's existence is therefore rendered permanently moot, might it not be worthwhile to begin trying to distinguish the differences between toxic and benign religions, as opposed to arguing over whether or not religion per se is a pernicious falsehood?

I think you are correct about the word "proof". It should probably not even appear in discussions about EOG. There's just the weight of evidence, and who has the burden to produce evidence? There is a clear sequence of claims that puts the burden on "god does exist". It's highly unlikely that the first thought or statement about god was "god does not exist".

There's a problem with treating questions (1) and (2) as equals. One is making a claim about highly extrordinary events. The other is simply rejecting that claim on the basis of insufficient evidence. It's difficult to accept that these two positions have equal intellectual status. This is not a simple case of two different interpretations of some ordinary condition or state, nor one of situational truth.

We can imagine an almost infinite list of unlikely “things� that cannot be disproved. Attempting to prove something does not exist is not reasonable except for specific simple limited cases, such as "There is no golf ball in the glass."

A "benign" religion?? How can something with strong emotional influence be benign? Religion can polarize groups to extreme positions that make tolerance and compromise seem impossible. The belief that "god is on our side" creates an inflexible mode of thinking. It inhibits negotiation, which is necessary for resolution in many political conflicts.

What is at stake is the level of reason. It needs much improvement if we hope to reduce the daily global mayhem. Can we make progress in our ability to reason in all areas, but leave this issue in limbo?

[cnorman18]

.

The burden of proof is therefore on whoever wants the other person to change his or her position; and that burden can never be met in either direction.

I agree 100%.

That is a primary reason behind my decision to focus upon presenting ideas alternative to Christian propaganda -- with the suggestion that thinking people evaluate the merits of what is said, examine wide ranging evidence and make intelligent decisions based upon evidence and reasoning.

Questions for debate:

(1) Is it even theoretically possible to objectively prove the existence of God?

No

(2) Is it possible to objectively and definitively prove the NONexistence of God?

No

(3) If God has delegated the responsibility for determining right and wrong, caring for each other and the planet, and establishing peace, justice and mercy to US - what difference does it make?

None

(4) If the question of God's existence is therefore rendered permanently moot, might it not be worthwhile to begin trying to distinguish the differences between toxic and benign religions, as opposed to arguing over whether or not religion per se is a pernicious falsehood?

YES

I suggest that Christianity and Islam share honors in being toxic and that Buddhism and Judaism are perhaps benign.

It will be interesting to discuss the meaning of toxicity in religion. My personal definition is promotion of negative values, attitudes and effects. Divisiveness among people is high on my list of negative effects of Christianity and Islam – ranging from personal interaction through suspicion, hatred, conflict and warfare. Delusions of superiority and condescending attitudes and lack of respect in regard to those who worship different gods or worship in different ways or refuse to worship.

Thanks for your remarks, Z.

I would add to the list of toxic effects the tendencies to reject factual or scientific information if favor of dogma, to shape the details of one's lifestyle according to irrelevant religious criteria (as opposed to ethical concerns), and to devote time and energy to changing the beliefs of others as opposed to promoting positive behavior. There are others.

Benign, or even positive, effects would be promoting freedom of thought and inquiry, promoting a rational ethic, and focusing attention on practical concerns as opposed to the supernatural and theological concerns that are usually identified as "religious."

[aawhc]

There are no benign religions, all have flaws.
Christians and Muslims are willing to kill "infidels"
Hindus have a horribly unjust caste system
Jews, because they are such a minority, have little power, however, if they had greater numbers (as they did during the Old Testament), they probably would be killers like they were in the past, and as some Christians and Muslims are today.
Buddhists light themselves on fire.

[cnorman18]

I think you are correct about the word "proof". It should probably not even appear in discussions about EOG. There's just the weight of evidence, and who has the burden to produce evidence? There is a clear sequence of claims that puts the burden on "god does exist". It's highly unlikely that the first thought or statement about god was "god does not exist".

There's a problem with treating questions (1) and (2) as equals. One is making a claim about highly extrordinary events. The other is simply rejecting that claim on the basis of insufficient evidence. It's difficult to accept that these two positions have equal intellectual status. This is not a simple case of two different interpretations of some ordinary condition or state, nor one of situational truth.

We can imagine an almost infinite list of unlikely “things� that cannot be disproved. Attempting to prove something does not exist is not reasonable except for specific simple limited cases, such as "There is no golf ball in the glass."

I quite agree, and it was never my intention to say that the two questions were of equal weight. My point is that if one wishes to persuade another to alter his or her position, "you don't have enough evidence to think that" isn't sufficient. Their position must be definitively refuted - and I doubt that that is possible in either direction.

A "benign" religion?? How can something with strong emotional influence be benign?

The emotional influence of Judaism is in its cultural aspects, not its theology. Judaism as a religion doesn't trade in emotion much.

Religion can polarize groups to extreme positions that make tolerance and compromise seem impossible. The belief that "god is on our side" creates an inflexible mode of thinking. It inhibits negotiation, which is necessary for resolution in many political conflicts.

That sort of thing isn't characteristic of Judaism either. We don't claim that ours is the One True Faith. Judaism is right for Jews; on what is right for others, we have no comment.

What is at stake is the level of reason. It needs much improvement if we hope to reduce the daily global mayhem. Can we make progress in our ability to reason in all areas, but leave this issue in limbo?

Those aren't mutually exclusive. IMHO, being Jewish rather increases one's devotion to rationality and critical thought and inquiry. It is a truism that Jews are overrepresented in the professions which require them: the sciences, medicine, law, accounting, banking.

Not all religions promote ignorance and provincialism. It is no accident that Jews have long been criticized as being overly intellectual, more citizens of the world than of any nation, and of tending toward socialism and the Left. Free thought and argument are Jewish traditions.

[cnorman18]

There are no benign religions, all have flaws.....

Isn't "They're all alike, I recognize no exceptions" a pretty good working example of what "bigotry" means?

Jews, because they are such a minority, have little power, however, if they had greater numbers (as they did during the Old Testament), they probably would be killers like they were in the past...

That's a huge and enormously unwarranted assumption. Christians once tortured and burned people as a way of promoting their faith; they don't any more, and that was only 500 years ago, not 3,000 - and Judaism has changed rather more than Christianity since the first century.

Buddhists light themselves on fire.

I don't think that's a formal requirement of that religion, and it's not a regular part of their services.

You are finding ways to rationalize and justify your a priori judgments, not reasoning from observation and facts. You might be a serial killer under some circumstance or other, but it's hardly proper to treat that as a relevant fact. It isn't. It's rather more fair to discuss you as you actually are, now.

[Zzyzx]

.
Hi Aawhc,

Welcome to the forum.

There are no benign religions, all have flaws.

I don't think that "benign" implies to be without flaws.

Benign: showing kindness and gentleness *benign faces* b : FAVORABLE, WHOLESOME *a benign climate* -- of a mild type or character that does not threaten health or life

It appears as though there is no reference to flaws – only to gentleness, kindness, and non-threatening nature.

Jews, because they are such a minority, have little power, however, if they had greater numbers (as they did during the Old Testament), they probably would be killers like they were in the past, and as some Christians and Muslims are today.

I am not so sure that I agree that Jews "have little power" – OR that they are not engaged in killing (collectively in an organized manner).

It may be accurate to suggest that groups that wield great power tend to be less benign than the powerless. Christian churches have less power now than during the Dark and Middle Ages; however, I would not doubt that given sufficient power they would again enforce their doctrines and dogma ruthlessly.

Jews, according to stories from the Old Testament or Torah were far from benign.

I suggest that theocracy is a highly undesirable condition that promotes the interests of certain god worshipers and tramples the interests of others.

Perhaps ALL religions should be legally and forcefully limited in power and influence to prevent them from becoming "toxic". I use the term "toxic" as defined by Merriam Webster:

Toxic: of, relating to, or caused by a poison or toxin

What is the poison or toxin as the term is applied to religion? Is any religion free of the condition? Is this worthy of a separate thread?

[JoeyKnothead]

The burden of proof is therefore on whoever wants the other person to change his or her position; and that burden can never be met in either direction.

I can agree with this. My atheism is based first on the positive claim. I don't usually go about telling folks there is no God, not counting within these forums anyway.

(1) Is it even theoretically possible to objectively prove the existence of God?

I don't think there is a God for which to prove the existence of. Most God proofs I'm aware of seem to rely on the fact they are unfalsifiable.

(2) Is it possible to objectively and definitively prove the NONexistence of God?

Yes. I said so.

(3) If God has delegated the responsibility for determining right and wrong, caring for each other and the planet, and establishing peace, justice and mercy to US - what difference does it make?

Agreed. I've learned the lessons are what are important, not whether He's there or not.

(4) If the question of God's existence is therefore rendered permanently moot, might it not be worthwhile to begin trying to distinguish the differences between toxic and benign religions, as opposed to arguing over whether or not religion per se is a pernicious falsehood?

I wanna agree here, but I can't help believing that as a given religion gains a critical mass of power it tends towards oppression, much like other ideologies.

[Fisherking]

The burden of proof is therefore on whoever wants the other person to change his or her position; and that burden can never be met in either direction.

I agree 100%

I would tend to agree also.

That is a primary reason behind my decision to focus upon presenting ideas alternative to Christian propaganda

I agree, but of course I would present ideas alternative to secular propaganda, confident that thinking people would evaluate the merits of what was said by examining a wide range of evidence and make intelligent, unbiased decisions based upon evidence and reasoning.

(1) Is it even theoretically possible to objectively prove the existence of God?

No

(2) Is it possible to objectively and definitively prove the NONexistence of God?

No

(3) If God has delegated the responsibility for determining right and wrong, caring for each other and the planet, and establishing peace, justice and mercy to US - what difference does it make?

When individuals, cultures, countries, social groups, ect. have opposing views of what is right and wrong, which god should be appealed to for ultimate authority?
What if one's god does not mandate caring for the planet, establishing peace, or is not merciful and just? Wouldn't there be differences?

(4) If the question of God's existence is therefore rendered permanently moot, might it not be worthwhile to begin trying to distinguish the differences between toxic and benign religions

What objective means would one use to determine which religions were toxic or benign?

I suggest that Christianity and Islam share honors in being toxic and that Buddhism and Judaism are perhaps benign.

I would be interested to see the objective criteria used to make these suggestions.

Divisiveness among people is high on my list of negative effects of Christianity and Islam – ranging from personal interaction through suspicion, hatred, conflict and warfare.

Are these percieved negative effects objective?

Delusions of superiority and condescending attitudes and lack of respect in regard to those who worship different gods or worship in different ways or refuse to worship.

Are those who do not worship any gods exempt from delusions of superiority and condescending attitudes to those that do?