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?

[bernee51]

As far as objective proof for a God goes, if one can demonstrate that it is impossible for the universe to exist without one, it follows deductively that there must be one.

So, is it impossible for the universe to exist without a God?

Well, three cosmologists, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin(I think those are spelled right... lol), in 2003, formulated a proof that any universe which has, on average, been expanding, must have had a definite point of beginning.

It has been experimentally verified that our universe is and has been expanding, with no sign of stopping. Therefore we can conclude that the universe had a beginning.

If everything that had a beginning had to have a cause, then the universe had to have a cause. It has been argued that not everything has to have a cause; some QM interpretations, for example, demonstrate probabilistic rather than deterministic causes. It's important to realize, though, that these are only one of a variety of interpretations; other interpretations, which are experimentally indistinguishable from the popularly-cited Copenhagen interpretation, are purely deterministic. As an example I will cite David Bohm. So we have no reason to believe that something that has a beginning does not need to have a cause.

The universe's cause, if we are to avoid an infinite regress, must be eternal and immaterial, because if it created time and space it could not be constrained by them. In addition, for an eternal cause to have a temporal effect requires "personhood". At any point a non-personal cause exists, it effect also exists. For example, water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been 0 degrees C from infinity, then the water would have been frozen from infinity.

Therefore the cause of the universe must have been eternal, immaterial, and personal--the three main attributes which define "a God". Which God, though, is still a matter of debate.

This 'proof' did not hold water in other threads - why do you repeat it here?

That the universe had the appearance of a 'beginning' only means it had the appearance of a beginning. To assume that whatever wrought this beginning MUST have been god is not supported by any evidence.

As I have suggested elswhere - the universe, AFAWK, could be and have always been extant in some shape or form. This is as likely and as evidenced as any god.

[/i]

[MrWhy]

As far as objective proof for a God goes, if one can demonstrate that it is impossible for the universe to exist without one, it follows deductively that there must be one.

So, is it impossible for the universe to exist without a God?

Well, three cosmologists, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin(I think those are spelled right... lol), in 2003, formulated a proof that any universe which has, on average, been expanding, must have had a definite point of beginning.

It has been experimentally verified that our universe is and has been expanding, with no sign of stopping. Therefore we can conclude that the universe had a beginning.

If everything that had a beginning had to have a cause, then the universe had to have a cause. It has been argued that not everything has to have a cause; some QM interpretations, for example, demonstrate probabilistic rather than deterministic causes. It's important to realize, though, that these are only one of a variety of interpretations; other interpretations, which are experimentally indistinguishable from the popularly-cited Copenhagen interpretation, are purely deterministic. As an example I will cite David Bohm. So we have no reason to believe that something that has a beginning does not need to have a cause.

The universe's cause, if we are to avoid an infinite regress, must be eternal and immaterial, because if it created time and space it could not be constrained by them. In addition, for an eternal cause to have a temporal effect requires "personhood". At any point a non-personal cause exists, it effect also exists. For example, water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been 0 degrees C from infinity, then the water would have been frozen from infinity.

Therefore the cause of the universe must have been eternal, immaterial, and personal--the three main attributes which define "a God". Which God, though, is still a matter of debate.

If time and space are inseparable attributes of the universe, does the term "beginning" have any meaning in that question? Was there a "before" the universe if time did not exist? The words "before", "beginning", "cause", all seem dependent on the existence of time, and therefore may be useless in this topic. We live in a time constrained environment and are intellectually blocked when trying to think about anything outside of time. The universe may have always existed. Existed as long as time has.

Are we sure that the universe did not exist in some form before the expansion begin? It may have been the speculated singularity, but is that not existence? If this is the case then something existed, but time may have been frozen due to extreme gravity or dimension of the singularity.

A lot of interesting questions, but no answers unless you insist on the existence of a creator, which would be something more complex than what you explained with it. Now, where's that Tylenol?

[catalyst]

I have always thought the burden of proof is on the person initiating their position in the first place. ie: if they claim that their god exists, the onus is on them to prove as much and if someone claims that god/gods DON'T, then the onus is on them to prove as much.

It is unlikely that someone would claim a god does not exist, unless someone had first claimed it does. I suppose if the initial discussion begin with "Could a supreme creator be responsible for ?", then the first claim could have been "no". The first time this subject came up in any early culture, a supreme being was probably declared based on simple assumptions about cause and effect. Finally, any claim about events or entities that involves the supernatural should be accompanied by conclusive evidence. If we don't ask for evidence that matches the magnitude and consequence of the claim, then we would be doing any number of crazy things, like starting unjustified wars.

Any request to prove that a supernatural claim is not true, is logical nonsense.

Believe it or not Mr Why I agree with you, but I obviously saw the question differently to you, as in, the original writer referencing debate on this particular website specifically, where one would assume that we have all heard prior to being here the "arguements", pro or con and as such, if I were to start a thread claiming that no god/s exist, I believe the onus would be on me to "prove" WHY.

As to some assumed "supreme being? I would think that the the first human being to see fire would believe it was some "supernatural" miracle, just as many of the events supposedly witnessed in many religious writings are. Obviously now though in this day and age there is explanation and reason for the vast majority of these alleged "miracles".

If anything as time rolls on, the 'proofs" for any god/supernatural figures, are quickly dwindling.

And to Skyler. With your rhetoric, it would be impossible for your god to exist itself without cause. If you argue of course that your god was "always there", then so could the universe.

As you seem to like reading up on Cosmology, and if you want to be objective and absorb information from all angles, I suggest you give Hawkings/Hartle Uncaused Universe a read.

[Cephus]

I asked for possible proof of the existence of God. Try again.

Examining things that God is supposed to have done most certainly would provide possible evidence for the existence of God. When the only possible evidence we might have is the interaction reported in the Bible and you simply throw the Bible out as pointless, you're simply re-defining your arguments so that any evidence for God is impossible. That's rather dishonest, don't you think?

Stop right there. Why do I care if you take me seriously or not?

You don't care if your arguments are taken seriously? Then why are you here?

I require no proof for myself. If I don't care whether you believe it or not, why do I need any?

Again, why are you here? This is a debate board. If you don't care if anyone else believes you or not, why are you posting here to begin with? Just to rant?

Why? I don't care what they think either. You can think mr crazy too if you want to. We're talking about your changing MY mind, not convincing you.

When did I ever say I wanted to change your mind? You're the one who started this thread with the claim that there is no evidence possible and then have sought to redefine all arguments to maintain your initial claim.

If you want me to give it up myself, since I don't need positive proof, you better have some disproof to show ME - or I have no reason to change.

First off, I don't care if you change or not, you've already made it quite clear you're not rational in this regard. I'm simply responding to a thread that *YOU* posted. Secondly, I'm not arguing to make you change your mind, I'm arguing solely on the basis of the evidence for a particular claim, I couldn't care less what you, or any individual, believes about the claim.

Surprise! Everyone doesn't have to think just like you. Maybe you need objective proof for everything you think and believe. That's your right. I don't, and that's my right too. And you certainly have the right to think mr an idiot if you like. I don't care about that either, you see.

Nope, you don't have to think just like me, but while there isn't an objective standard on thought, there certainly is on logic and rationality. You can certainly argue that people don't have to be rational and I'll agree, just like people don't have to be sane, but your whole "I don't care what you think" nonsense is childish, you're on a debate forum, responding in a debate to me, so therefore you must care what I think or you wouldn't keep responding.

Then why are you insisting I have to prove something when I don't?

Because you keep making claims which do confer the burden of proof on you, even though you freely admit you have no ability to actually back it up.

Why? I have to keep what I believe a deep, dark secret because I can't prove it to your satisfaction? Sorry; last time I checked, the First Amendment did not contain the phrase "...so long as it can be objectively proven."

Stop being a child. If you publically make a claim that something is true, then it rests on your shoulders to demonstrate it. If you don't want the responsibility to demonstrate it, don't make the claim. This whole "I can make any claim I want and you can't stop me" nonsense is just ridiculous.

You are free to believe that if you like, and I am free to think that you don't understand Judaism, that you don't want to understand Judaism, that you reject and deny everything I try to tell you about Judaism, and prefer to cling to your own preconceived ideas about Judaism for which you can cite no references, no sources and no authority but your own unsupported notions of what Judaism OUGHT to be according to YOUR thinking.

You're the one that things that some guy named Joe Rosenberg in New York, an atheist who has never cracked a Torah or cared about his Jewish heritage, is suddenly part of some magical, mystical Jewish community he's never heard of. You treat all three possible definitions of Judiasm, cultural, religious and ethnic, as if they were interchangable, simply because it makes you, and a lot of Jews, more comfortable to think of yourselves as one big happy, interconnected family. Yet you have not logically demonstrated that it is so. What you're basically arguing is like saying anyone born in Spain, anyone born, anywhere in the world of a Spanish mother, or anyone who learned Spanish in high school, are all part of a giant, interconnected "Spanish family". That's just silly.

Gee, I wonder which one of us is right. I only have 4,000 years of tradition and teaching to back me up. You have - um, yourself....

You overestimate the importance of tradition. Tradition is just something that people have believed for a long time, it says nothing about whether those beliefs are actually true. Why you're so impressed with long-term Jewish delusions is beyond me.

Who are you to reject and deny the millenia-old self-definition of an entire people on the basis of your own opinions alone?

I don't give a damn about the self-definition of the Jews, just because that's how they think of themselves doesn't make it factually true. You could probably find a group of people who self-define themselves as frogs, I'm sure, does that make them frogs? I don't think so. You place entirely too much emphasis on what the Jews think and believe and not nearly enough on what is actually true or false about what they think or believe.

We Jews get to define what Jews are and what Judaism is. You don't. Get over yourself.

And I get to tell you that your definitions are absurd. Get over yourself.

[cnorman18]

I asked for possible proof of the existence of God. Try again.

Examining things that God is supposed to have done most certainly would provide possible evidence for the existence of God.

Supposed by whom? By me? By you?

When the only possible evidence we might have is the interaction reported in the Bible....

The only possible evidence for God is the Bible? Prove that claim, please....

(Deists, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Wiccans...)

and you simply throw the Bible out as pointless, you're simply re-defining your arguments so that any evidence for God is impossible. That's rather dishonest, don't you think?

I'm not redefining anything. My OP said nothing about the God of any specific religion, just God. The Bible is entirely irrelevant, especially since many people, including myself, believe in God and somehow manage to do it withour believing in the literal truth of the Bible.

You are very quick to call people dishonest if they don't dance to your tune.

God. Not Bible. Simple. Can God be proven, or not?

Stop right there. Why do I care if you take me seriously or not?

You don't care if your arguments are taken seriously? Then why are you here?

To acquaint others with my point of view? To educate people about Judaism, which is little known? To learn the perspectives of others?

I didn't say I didn't WANT others to take my views seriously; but I don't especially care if a few, like yourself, don't.

I require no proof for myself. If I don't care whether you believe it or not, why do I need any?

Again, why are you here? This is a debate board. If you don't care if anyone else believes you or not, why are you posting here to begin with? Just to rant?

See above - and below.

Why? I don't care what they think either. You can think me crazy too if you want to. We're talking about your changing MY mind, not convincing you.

When did I ever say I wanted to change your mind? You're the one who started this thread with the claim that there is no evidence possible and then have sought to redefine all arguments to maintain your initial claim.

Maybe you should reread the OP. I specifically said that proof was only an issue if one wishes to change another's mind - and I have redefined no arguments. YOU redefined "proof of God's existence" as "proof of the literal truth of the Bible," which is ludicrous, and now you're calling me dishonest because I want you to answer the original question.

If you want me to give it up myself, since I don't need positive proof, you better have some disproof to show ME - or I have no reason to change.

First off, I don't care if you change or not, you've already made it quite clear you're not rational in this regard. I'm simply responding to a thread that *YOU* posted.

No, you are apparently responding to some other thread that you've made up. Not this one. Read the OP.

Secondly, I'm not arguing to make you change your mind, I'm arguing solely on the basis of the evidence for a particular claim, I couldn't care less what you, or any individual, believes about the claim.

Um - then why are you here? That's rather similar to what I said about my own position.

Surprise! Everyone doesn't have to think just like you. Maybe you need objective proof for everything you think and believe. That's your right. I don't, and that's my right too. And you certainly have the right to think mr an idiot if you like. I don't care about that either, you see.

Nope, you don't have to think just like me, but while there isn't an objective standard on thought, there certainly is on logic and rationality.

Where? The only "objective standard" I've are. You present here, e.g. In your "rational" views on Judaism, is your own unsupported opinion and nothing more. How are you different from a fundamentalist whose claims boil down to "because I say so?"

Where are your references? Where are your sources? Where can I find the strict definitions and categories you insist on? I see nothing but your opinions here. Nothing at all.

You can certainly argue that people don't have to be rational and I'll agree, just like people don't have to be sane, but your whole "I don't care what you think" nonsense is childish, you're on a debate forum, responding in a debate to me, so therefore you must care what I think or you wouldn't keep responding.

But you just said you couldn't care less about what other people think....

"Childish" is an unprovoked insult. Just for the record. If you could defend your views as rationally and logically as you claim, those wouldn't be necessary.

Then why are you insisting I have to prove something when I don't?

Because you keep making claims which do confer the burden of proof on you, even though you freely admit you have no ability to actually back it up.

I ask again: what claims?

Why? I have to keep what I believe a deep, dark secret because I can't prove it to your satisfaction? Sorry; last time I checked, the First Amendment did not contain the phrase "...so long as it can be objectively proven."

Stop being a child.

Stop insulting me because I disagree with you and you can't think of another response.

If you publically make a claim that something is true, then it rests on your shoulders to demonstrate it.

You won't say why.

If you don't want the responsibility to demonstrate it, don't make the claim. This whole "I can make any claim I want and you can't stop me" nonsense is just ridiculous.

Why isn't that strictly, absolutely and provably true?

Why am I obligated to prove anything? Because I just am? Because you say so? Because you demand it?

You are free to believe that if you like, and I am free to think that you don't understand Judaism, that you don't want to understand Judaism, that you reject and deny everything I try to tell you about Judaism, and prefer to cling to your own preconceived ideas about Judaism for which you can cite no references, no sources and no authority but your own unsupported notions of what Judaism OUGHT to be according to YOUR thinking.

You're the one that things that some guy named Joe Rosenberg in New York, an atheist who has never cracked a Torah or cared about his Jewish heritage, is suddenly part of some magical, mystical Jewish community he's never heard of.

Are you pretending I am the only one who thinks that (or a less exaggerated and polemical version of that)? I have sources. I have references. This isn't just my own idea.

What do you have other than your own mouth? Why does your (again) unsupported opinion trump every else's?

You treat all three possible definitions of Judiasm, cultural, religious and ethnic, as if they were interchangable...

That is a falsehood. They are separate and distinct and apply in different ways. They are not "interchangeable."

....simply because it makes you, and a lot of Jews, more comfortable to think of yourselves as one big happy, interconnected family.

Claiming you know the motivation of an entire people? Your mindreading skills are astonishing!

Can you PROVE that assertion? You just made a public claim. By your own standards, you are now obligated to prove it. Let's see you do it.

Yet you have not logically demonstrated that it is so.

That this is the way the Jewish people think of themselves? I have proven that over and over. Who gets to define a group other than the people in it? On what basis does your unsupported opinion overrule everyone's who actually has an interest in the matter?

What you're basically arguing is like saying anyone born in Spain, anyone born, anywhere in the world of a Spanish mother, or anyone who learned Spanish in high school, are all part of a giant, interconnected "Spanish family". That's just silly.

No. I'm not, and you know it. If those people wished to define themselves in that way, I would have no problem with it; that would be their choice, not yours or mine. They don't.

Again; who appointed you judge and delegated to you the authority to define groups to which you do not belong (and wich you know next to nothing about)? What makes your opinions facts?

Gee, I wonder which one of us is right. I only have 4,000 years of tradition and teaching to back me up. You have - um, yourself....

You overestimate the importance of tradition. Tradition is just something that people have believed for a long time, it says nothing about whether those beliefs are actually true. Why you're so impressed with long-term Jewish delusions is beyond me.

Like I said; you know nothing about Judaism. You don't even have any idea how ridiculous you have just made yourself with thy statement, do you? Not a clue.

Who are you to reject and deny the millenia-old self-definition of an entire people on the basis of your own opinions alone?

I don't give a damn about the self-definition of the Jews, just because that's how they think of themselves doesn't make it factually true.

What would? Can you answer that?

Just for fun, Expert on Judaism, what is YOUR definition of a Jew? What would you say to a Jew who doesn't fit it and still claims to be Jewish? Would you tell him that he doesn't know who he is, but you do?

You could probably find a group of people who self-define themselves as frogs, I'm sure, does that make them frogs? I don't think so.

If I ever saw a dishonest and blatantly false analogy...

You place entirely too much emphasis on what the Jews think and believe and not nearly enough on what is actually true or false about what they think or believe.

When it comes to defining a people, what would make a definition "factually true"? That you approve of it? You're on the record as dismissing Jewish law as invalid and meaningless, you have here dismissed Jewish tradition as invalid and meaningless, and, even though you clearly know nothing about Judaism, you claim the authority to replace our definitions with your own.

Other than your own personal and totally unsupported opinion, I have to wonder what gives you the authority to make these pronouncements.

That's a polite way of asking, "Who the hell do you think you are?"

We Jews get to define what Jews are and what Judaism is. You don't. Get over yourself.

And I get to tell you that your definitions are absurd. Get over yourself.

I think we're done with that subject. You have obviously never opened a single book about Judaism and don't know even the most basic things about it, and yet you think you're qualified to make pronouncements about what Judaism is, who is and is not a Jew, what Jews have to believe, and to deny that we have the right to define ourselves as a community on our own terms. All based on nothing but your own unsupported opinion. You have an amazing compulsion to confuse your opinions with facts.

Enough of that. You know nothing, and you don't even know why or how you've just proven it.

Back to square one:

Is there even a theoretically possible proof of the existence of God - not the accuracy of the Bible, not the occurrence of miracles, not life after death, not Good and Evil or any other ancillary and optional religious beliefs, but, as in the OP, the mere existence of God?

You claimed there must be. Now prove your claim.

[bernee51]

I think we're done with that subject. You have obviously never opened a single book about Judaism and don't know even the most basic things about it, and yet you think you're qualified to make pronouncements about what Judaism is, who is and is not a Jew, what Jews have to believe, and to deny that we have the right to define ourselves as a community on our own terms. All based on nothing but your own unsupported opinion. You have an amazing compulsion to confuse your opinions with facts.

You appear unciomfortably defensive regarding your adopted 'faith' and its related god beliefs.

Just an observation....

but

Enough of that. ...

Back to square one:

Is there even a theoretically possible proof of the existence of God - not the accuracy of the Bible, not the occurrence of miracles, not life after death, not Good and Evil or any other ancillary and optional religious beliefs, but, as in the OP, the mere existence of God?

Again I ask the question.

If this supposed god has no interaction to speak of and no apparent interest in the universe...if it 'merely exists'...why call it god?

Forget the 'evidence'...why SHOULD god exist? What NEED is there for god?

[cnorman18]

I think we're done with that subject. You have obviously never opened a single book about Judaism and don't know even the most basic things about it, and yet you think you're qualified to make pronouncements about what Judaism is, who is and is not a Jew, what Jews have to believe, and to deny that we have the right to define ourselves as a community on our own terms. All based on nothing but your own unsupported opinion. You have an amazing compulsion to confuse your opinions with facts.

You appear unciomfortably defensive regarding your adopted 'faith' and its related god beliefs.

Just an observation....

Hardly. "Defensive" carries the connotation that the criticism might have a bit of truth to it. That is not the case.

The appropriate word would be "indignant." Ignorant and arrogant goyim have presumed to dictate to us what Jews and Judaism are or ought to be for centuries, and Cephus is more ignorant and arrogant than most. I find his pronouncements at once hilariously uninformed, stunningly high-handed, and borderline offensive. I have never seen anyone, anywhere or at any time, presume such astonishing authority over something about which he demonstrably knows virtually nothing at all. If it wasn't so jaw-droppingly rude and self-absorbed, it would be funny.

but

Enough of that. ...

Back to square one:

Is there even a theoretically possible proof of the existence of God - not the accuracy of the Bible, not the occurrence of miracles, not life after death, not Good and Evil or any other ancillary and optional religious beliefs, but, as in the OP, the mere existence of God?

Again I ask the question.

If this supposed god has no interaction to speak of and no apparent interest in the universe...if it 'merely exists'...why call it god?

Forget the 'evidence'...why SHOULD god exist? What NEED is there for god?

I don't know that that question is answerable for a believer, because of the obvious assumption which it contains.

Observe:

"Why SHOULD a mountain exist? What NEED is there for mountains?"

It's quite understandable; the non-theist takes it for granted that God is a human construction, an invention. If that is the case, those questions make perfect sense.

The theist does not understand God in this way. God simply IS, like the mountain, and the questions are non sequiturs. Things that actually exist do not need reasons to do so. They just do.

As for God's disinterest and non-involvement - well, those are interesting questions, particularly in regard to Judaism; but that isn't the subject here.

The question remains: is it even theoretically possible to prove God's existence?

If it isn't, that fact has certain consequences for the ongoing discussion here, which I mentioned in the OP; but first we must answer the question.

[bernee51]

Back to square one:

Is there even a theoretically possible proof of the existence of God - not the accuracy of the Bible, not the occurrence of miracles, not life after death, not Good and Evil or any other ancillary and optional religious beliefs, but, as in the OP, the mere existence of God?

Again I ask the question.

If this supposed god has no interaction to speak of and no apparent interest in the universe...if it 'merely exists'...why call it god?

Forget the 'evidence'...why SHOULD god exist? What NEED is there for god?

I don't know that that question is answerable for a believer, because of the obvious assumption which it contains.

Observe:

"Why SHOULD a mountain exist? What NEED is there for mountains?"

Given the turbulent geological history of the planet mountains SHOULD exist. In fact it would be surprising if they didn't. Mountains are needed as part of the hydrological cycle. And they are definately needed by mountaineers.

See - that was easy.

It's quite understandable; the non-theist takes it for granted that God is a human construction, an invention. If that is the case, those questions make perfect sense.

The theist does not understand God in this way. God simply IS, like the mountain, and the questions are non sequiturs. Things that actually exist do not need reasons to do so. They just do.

The mountain is not 'simply is'. There is evidence, as well as a should and a need.

As for God's disinterest and non-involvement - well, those are interesting questions, particularly in regard to Judaism; but that isn't the subject here.

I beg to differ. If god is not interested and not involved and has no apparent influence why call it god?

The question remains: is it even theoretically possible to prove God's existence?

Not if the claim is that god has no characteristics.

And there lies the rub. For you god may be ineffable, have no characteristics, be uninvolved in the machinations of the universe, just 'be god'. I think my question then is valid. Why call it god?

For many, if not most, theists though god does come with characterisics - with baggage. It has, in big ways, and according to many still does, involve itself in the workings of men.

It is this god that should be put to question - not your ersatz god

[Jester]

That is, in this case, is the Bible substantial evidence that the Christian god exist? For debates about proof and certainty we should consider that, lack of 100% certainty in an idea should not be a license to believe some other idea that has even less evidence.

Agreed (though I dont know that any position has yet been established as having more or less evidence at this point).

The subject of ethics and morality should have (and has had) it's own thread, but since it's often used as evidence for the existence of, or the need for, a god I would like to respond.

Fair enough.

Morality has biological roots, but is influenced by recent advances in social awareness and analysis. The foundation of modern human morality is empathy. Being vicariously aware of what another creature is going through. The primitive (biological) parts are based on the same principle that all social critters function under. To get the benefits of living in a social group, you need to conform to some specific behavior rules. Any species that breeds within certain rules for long enough will incorporate something in it's genetic makeup that perpetuates those behaviors. Ants, bees, apes, and humans (smart apes) are some of the social species that incorporate this influence. Religious scriptures and modern law have incorporated these fundamental rules with some variation, and have added additional rules as conceived by the authors. Sometimes the additional rules were based on observed practical principles, and sometimes they were based on nothing but other scriptures, cultural baggage, or the need to preserve the power of the religion and it's elite.

I agree that this is definitely a fair enough concept. I, of course, maintain that this does not establish ethics as having any meaningful value outside a means to fulfilling biological drives. You have not opposed this, of course, but I am inclined to ask if you consider ethics something to be revered in and of themselves, or are merely a means to an end.
Either is an acceptable answer. Assuming that ethics are a means to an end, however, Id like to bring up those cases of people choosing to die for their beliefs. It seems that ethics have another value for them.

[Jester]

That's only the case for a completely hands-off God, which the Judeo-Christian version, for example, has never been depicted as being. As soon as said deity interacts with our reality, he leaves evidence that we can find.

Unless his interaction is scientific in nature, and/or any interaction is intentionally explained/interpreted by us in a scientific manner. In this instance, we are, quite specifically, using circular reasoning to disprove Gods existence.

None at all, but since you're now trying to make claims about the characteristices of a deity whose existence has never been determined in the first place, it's now in the realm of utter fantasy

Dont we need to define the characteristics of God before we can accurately answer the question of his existence?

What this supposed god thinks and feels is irrelevant to whether or not it actually exists.

My above comment referred to any characteristics of God, rather than merely the psychological (though those would become relevant at certain points themselves).

I'd actually argue that there's no such thing as a benign religion if it seeks to teach the untrue as true in any way, shape or form.

This, in my view, would be a much more clear place to discuss burden of proof. If religion is inherently bad, what sociological evidence do we have to support this claim? Thus far, my research has led me to the conclusion that religious and non-religious have essentially equal altruism levels.

I'm not talking about altrusim or anything like that. I've posed the question before, name one thing that religion does that is demonstrably true, demonstrably good and cannot be achieved without religion and have yet to hear of a single answer.

The word benign refers more closely to altruism than truth. With regard to your question, however, I completely agree that people of all positions are capable of good. I meant only to make the point that religion has not been established to have a negative effect on human behavior. Rather, this assertion has been shown to be false.

However, I consider anything that discourages critical thinking, rational evaluation and mindless dogmatism to be uniformly negative and that's one of the basic hallmarks of religion.

I completely agree with the first half of that sentence. Obviously, I completely disagree with the tail end of it, and would expect some kind of support for such an assertion. I am quite familiar with the stereotype that religion excludes critical thought. I have also met individuals which fit this stereotype (though not in higher percentages than uncritical non-theists). I fail to see, however, that the basic nature of religion has been in any way evidenced as contributing to such a mentality. It is for this that I would like evidence.

I didn't mention his intentions or beliefs specifically because I'm not talking about them. In general terms, the religions *ALL* reach a point somewhere in their beliefs where they simply accept concepts that they have no rational reason to do so. They apply a different standard to their religious views than they do to virtually everything else in their lives. That indeed is throwing out rationality and intelligence on these specific issues.

This is true only if viewing religion from a very specific perspective, which I do not feel to be accurate. But allow me to qualify:
Yes, I agree that there is no absolute proof of any one religious idea. I would temper this with the fact that every belief, religious or not, is unproved. Thus, belief without proof does not equate an uncritical mind.
As far as having no rational reason to do so. This is simply untrue. Many rational reasons to believe in religion have been presented on this forum. They may be reason that you personally dont find compelling, of course. While you are certainly allowed to believe as you do, this doesnt make those who disagree irrational.
I would also disagree with the idea that all religious people apply a different standard toward their religious beliefs than they do to any other aspect of their lives. Not only is this speculation into the minds of a great many people, but it is clearly untrue for at least a portion of the group in question. I can speak from both experience and reading on this point. Unless we can find some piece of research supporting the idea that religious people are invariably uncritical, then this statement is unsupported.