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?

[Cephus]

All it truly tells us is that science is not the tool to use to go looking for God.

This seems to want to escape the proofs of science. God seems to always move away from scientific evidence. Where once God was seen as the cause of all things, science shows more and more that God is doing less and less. To say that science is not the proper tool is to say there is no scientific proof or basis for a given god.

Good point that I didn't address. My response to this is what tool should we use when looking for God? We need a tool that produces demonstrably reliable and factual answers that can be tested independently and logically without first having to believe in them.

Come on Jester, what tool would you suggest?

[theleftone]

Religious people are just people in that regard, no better nor worse than anyone else on the whole when it comes to behavior, but I haven't argued that what makes religion bad is behavioral, it's belief-based.

All human knowledge is limited to a specific system (contextual) and contingent. Thus, all human perspectives are 'belief-based.' It seems strange to criticize religion for being belief-based.

However, it's not just actions that are problematic, religion has a long, long track record of anti-intellectualism as well.

Social problems are caused by humans, not religion. If we eradicate religion from society, the same problems would still persist. This is, in part, the human condition.

No, it actually is a dead-on accurate description because there simply is no objective evidence whatsoever to support the factual existence of *ANY* deity.

What objective evidence exists for this claim?

All fields of study have some variation in their tools, this is not inherently problematic.

Yes, but no fields of study simply throw all the tools out the window and rely on faith. Religion does.

To study religion, religious scholars bring in tools from linguistics, archaeology, hermeneutics, textual criticism, philosophy, psychology, literary criticism, and so on.

I don't have to be the final judge, I just have to look at the definition of the term.

The definition is still ambiguous. What is reason? How do we determine what is and is not reason? And, as a result, there is still judgment involved.

I would assert that some events can have multiple correct explanations.

Then you would need to back that up.

There is a sheet of paper. One side is blue. The other side is red. Show only the red side to one person. Show only the blue side to another person. The person who saw the blue side says the paper is blue. The person who saw the red side says the paper is red. Who is correct?

They are both correct. The paper is both blue and red.

A common problem with Western thought is an overemphasis on the either/or concept. It forces us to think in narrow terms when such narrow terms are inappropriate. We need to counterbalance either/or though with both/and thought.

Just using myself as an example, in order to be convinced that any particular religion was factually true, first I'd need to be convinced, through objective evidence, that *ANY* god(s) were factually real, then I'd need to find further evidence that a particular god was actually the one that was real, then I could examine the religion that has sprung up around that particular god. That's how rational people work.

Is rationality necessarily linked to evidentialism? This seems to be implied within the quotation above.

[McCulloch]

However, it's not just actions that are problematic, religion has a long, long track record of anti-intellectualism as well.

Social problems are caused by humans, not religion. If we eradicate religion from society, the same problems would still persist. This is, in part, the human condition.

True, but religion has a long track record in providing justifications to those who would persist social problems. For example, as Cephus points out, religions have often been anti-intellectual. Without religion, some of those who for their own personal reasons are anti-intellectual, would have a few less places for their attitudes to find a receptive audience. Religion has often been at the forefront of human rights abuses. Without religion, what recourse, what societal solace would the slavers, those who would deny votes to women, the anti-gays etc have? Certainly less than what they had.

[cnorman18]

Supposed by whom? By me? By you?

By people who are not dead set against evidence existing. You've simply set up a self-fulfilling system whereby you claim no evidence can exist and anyone who suggests evidence, you simply reject it.

That is simply false.

I am not asking for evidence; I am asking for a theoretical example of a proof of the existence of gods. I have seen none offered, and therefore have rejected nothing.

Once again, you put words in my mouth and argue against them, condemning me for holding positions I do not hold.

....although I know you didn't intend to limit it to the Christian God...

So you admit that you understood the question I meant to ask perfectly well, chose to answer another, then accused me of dishonesty when I did not accept your answer.

Leave that aside.

Very well; after all this, can you answer the original question as you knew it was intended? What proof is even theoretically possible for a god or gods?

you didn't ask if there actually was any evidence for God, only if it was possible that there could ever be such evidence. There can be. There just isn't.

There you go again. You claim there "can be," What, specifically, might it be?

Further, I did not ask for examples of evidence. Some would say a lovely sunset is evidence that gods exist. I asked for an example of possible proof, which a sunset is not.

Can you give an example of a proof of a god or gods, or not?

Don't bother with the "define gods or a god first" dodge. You are perfectly comfortable making the claim that there is no proof for God, gods, or a god without defining same. What would that proof, to which you yourself refer, look like?

No, you've only demonstrated that the Jews, or at least a certain subset of Jews which you purport to speak for, pay too much attention to tradition. Try again.

If you had ever bothered to open one (1) single book about Judaism, you would have learned in the first 10 pages how silly that is.

Since you like Merriam-Webster's definitions:

"Judaism: 1. a religion developed among the ancient Hebrews and characterized by belief in one transcendent God who has revealed himself to Abraham, Moses, and the Hebrew prophets and by a religious life in accordance with Scriptures and rabbinic traditions"

Judaism IS tradition, Cephus. There is no prescribed body of doctrines or beliefs, no Creed, no Jewish Pope, no central authority; there is only the tradition as recorded in the Talmud, in other Jewish documents, and in the collective memories and practices, both universal and diverse, of the Jewish people. Tradition is all there is; there is nothing else.

Saying that Jews pay too much attention to tradition is like saying that Catholics pay too much attention to the Church or that scientists pay too much attention to the Scientific Method. Again, if you had the least smidgen of actual knowledge about Judaism, you would never have said something so ludicrous.

Judaism is not like any other faith, and Jews are not like any other group. We are not like Catholics, or Spanish speakers, or frogs; and no matter how much you jump up and down and insist that you know better, the final authority for defining Jews, Judaism and the Jewish community remains with those who actually know something about it - that is, with Jews.

As I have been saying for quite some time now (significantly, without the least hint of acknowledgement from you), if you had some shred or scrap or fig leaf of reference, authority, source, or ANYTHING to back up your ignorant (strictly defined) opinions, the situation might be different. But since all you have to offer is your own little definitions, limitations and prejudices, your opinion was not worth knowing in the first place, and is certainly not worth discussing any further.

If you can come up with an example of a possible proof of God, a god, gods, etc., with no further dodges, excuses or hoops for me to jump through - I'll be fascinated to see it and show how it can easily be refuted and dismissed as probative of nothing.

Otherwise - have a nice day, and take a bit more care when accusing others of dishonesty. When others are simply not using the same definitions as you, and you admit that you know that, the charge of lying seems a bit - excessive.

[Cephus]

All human knowledge is limited to a specific system (contextual) and contingent. Thus, all human perspectives are 'belief-based.' It seems strange to criticize religion for being belief-based.

Sorry but you're wrong. If person X makes observation A, then that observation can be tested by people Q, R, S, and T. If the observation is verified, then it is considered generally reliable. Observations and verifications can be made by pretty much anyone, regardless of whether they accept the conclusion a priori or not. In fact, the best verifications are made by those who specifically seek to prove the conclusion wrong. Religion, however, does not make observations which can be rationally verified by anyone who comes along. It requires faith, which is certainly not, no matter how you're trying to cast it, a rational way of looking at the world around us.

Social problems are caused by humans, not religion.

Religion is caused by humans. It's an excuse used by many to excuse social ills which have no rational justification. If we eliminate religion and other similar excuses, we eventually run out of dark corners for the detestible to hide in to justify their anti-social behaviors.

What objective evidence exists for this claim?

You could easily disprove it by simply presenting any objective evidence to support the factual existence of any deity. Go ahead. Until you manage it, the claim stands.

To study religion, religious scholars bring in tools from linguistics, archaeology, hermeneutics, textual criticism, philosophy, psychology, literary criticism, and so on.

But unfortunately, they often only bring those tools which already support the beliefs they have. Biblical archeologists, for example, often ignore archaeological discoveries that disprove the Bible, in fact much of the supposed discoveries that were made in the early part of the 20th century have had to be largely re-examined because the archaeologists in the Middle East went out looking with a shovel in one hand and a Bible in the other and when they found a site, they simply looked in the Bible for something vaguely similar to identify the site they found. This kind of stuff is never discovered by the "true believers" who are only interested in pointing to questionable scholarship that supports what they already believe.

They are both correct. The paper is both blue and red.

Yet when you hand that piece of paper to someone who critically examines it, the truth is discovered. It's the people who have an emotional attachment to the paper being one color or the other who refuse to acknowledge the truth, even when shown that they were wrong all along.

Is rationality necessarily linked to evidentialism? This seems to be implied within the quotation above.

Not necessarily, but certainly evidence helps. It's more difficult to identify the facts when there is nothing that people can look at or examine critically. If you'd like to suggest other methods of factually determining the truth that doesn't involve objective evidence, feel free.

[Cephus]

I am not asking for evidence; I am asking for a theoretical example of a proof of the existence of gods. I have seen none offered, and therefore have rejected nothing.

Which I have provided several examples of. You simply don't like that I was referring to a specific deity. But unfortunately if you refuse to define your supposed generic deity with things that it supposedly did, how can anyone provide evidence for it? In the end, what's the difference between your generic god that you've purposely refused to give any interactions to look at and a god that simply doesn't exist in the first place?

So you admit that you understood the question I meant to ask perfectly well, chose to answer another, then accused me of dishonesty when I did not accept your answer.

Whether or not you intended to limit your question to the Christian God, you still referred to it and I treated your question as such. Maybe in the future you need to be more careful in your phrasing.

Very well; after all this, can you answer the original question as you knew it was intended? What proof is even theoretically possible for a god or gods?

I already gave you several proofs that would be theoretically possible for a god or gods. You didn't like it because it referred to a specific God. Give me some information on these gods that you're talking about and I'd be happy to find theoretical proofs that could exist for them.

There you go again. You claim there "can be," What, specifically, might it be?

You don't read well, do you? There *COULD BE* evidence that God created the universe, as described in the Bible. There just isn't. There *COULD BE* that God flooded the world, as described in the Bible. There just isn't. There *COULD BE* evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, as described in the Bible. There isn't, however. We could lather, rinse and repeat this for pretty much any god out there, the adherents of most gods tell stories about their gods interacting with the real world and those interactions should, in most cases, leave evidence we could find. They just don't.

Some would say a lovely sunset is evidence that gods exist.

And they'd have to demonstrate that the correlation between the two exists, something they could not logically do.

Can you give an example of a proof of a god or gods, or not?

Do you ever get tired of running around with those goalposts strapped to your back?

[theleftone]

However, it's not just actions that are problematic, religion has a long, long track record of anti-intellectualism as well.

Social problems are caused by humans, not religion. If we eradicate religion from society, the same problems would still persist. This is, in part, the human condition.

True, but religion has a long track record in providing justifications to those who would persist social problems. For example, as Cephus points out, religions have often been anti-intellectual. Without religion, some of those who for their own personal reasons are anti-intellectual, would have a few less places for their attitudes to find a receptive audience. Religion has often been at the forefront of human rights abuses. Without religion, what recourse, what societal solace would the slavers, those who would deny votes to women, the anti-gays etc have? Certainly less than what they had.

This creates a slippery slope. If we remove religion from society because it has been used to justified anti-social behaviors and can be used to justify such behaviors in the future, why stop there? Where does the removal of human-created institutions end? Without some additional criteria, this approach would quickly render society useless. Keep in mind, such additional criteria must avoid special pleading.

[Cephus]

This creates a slippery slope. If we remove religion from society because it has been used to justified anti-social behaviors and can be used to justify such behaviors in the future, why stop there? Where does the removal of human-created institutions end? Without some additional criteria, this approach would quickly render society useless. Keep in mind, such additional criteria must avoid special pleading.

What makes you think we should stop? Those human-created institutions that perpetuate and encourage anti-social behaviors should be removed. If your goal is the betterment of mankind and the improvement of the human condition, why would you ever argue that keeping these essentially negative institutions around is a good thing?

[theleftone]

All human knowledge is limited to a specific system (contextual) and contingent. Thus, all human perspectives are 'belief-based.' It seems strange to criticize religion for being belief-based.

Sorry but you're wrong. If person X makes observation A, then that observation can be tested by people Q, R, S, and T. If the observation is verified, then it is considered generally reliable. Observations and verifications can be made by pretty much anyone, regardless of whether they accept the conclusion a priori or not. In fact, the best verifications are made by those who specifically seek to prove the conclusion wrong. Religion, however, does not make observations which can be rationally verified by anyone who comes along. It requires faith, which is certainly not, no matter how you're trying to cast it, a rational way of looking at the world around us.

Sorry, but I am correct. Human knowledge is necessarily limited because it is generated from the human experience or extensions of the human experience. The contingency of human knowledge necessarily follows from this. This allows us to understand all human perceptions are based on limited and contingent assumptions.

Thus, to dismiss religion as irrational on this grounds amounts to special pleading.

Social problems are caused by humans, not religion.

Religion is caused by humans. It's an excuse used by many to excuse social ills which have no rational justification. If we eliminate religion and other similar excuses, we eventually run out of dark corners for the detestible to hide in to justify their anti-social behaviors.

And humans would still engage in anti-social behavior. People do not need justifications for anti-social behaviors because humans are both rational and emotional.

What objective evidence exists for this claim?

You could easily disprove it by simply presenting any objective evidence to support the factual existence of any deity. Go ahead. Until you manage it, the claim stands.

Odd. I was thinking the same thing.

To study religion, religious scholars bring in tools from linguistics, archaeology, hermeneutics, textual criticism, philosophy, psychology, literary criticism, and so on.

But unfortunately, they often only bring those tools which already support the beliefs they have.

Bart Ehrman would disagree.

Biblical archeologists, for example, often ignore archaeological discoveries that disprove the Bible

Israel Finkelstein would disagree.

in fact much of the supposed discoveries that were made in the early part of the 20th century have had to be largely re-examined because the archaeologists in the Middle East went out looking with a shovel in one hand and a Bible in the other and when they found a site, they simply looked in the Bible for something vaguely similar to identify the site they found. This kind of stuff is never discovered by the "true believers" who are only interested in pointing to questionable scholarship that supports what they already believe.

What is a true believer? And how do we know true believers are incapable of engaging in these 'discoveries?'

They are both correct. The paper is both blue and red.

Yet when you hand that piece of paper to someone who critically examines it, the truth is discovered. It's the people who have an emotional attachment to the paper being one color or the other who refuse to acknowledge the truth, even when shown that they were wrong all along.

Fallacy of equivocation. The fallacy is employed because the logical tool (either/or) is insufficient to answer the question. Thus, rather than switch tools (to both/and) the response merely employs a logical fallacy.

Is rationality necessarily linked to evidentialism? This seems to be implied within the quotation above.

Not necessarily, but certainly evidence helps. It's more difficult to identify the facts when there is nothing that people can look at or examine critically. If you'd like to suggest other methods of factually determining the truth that doesn't involve objective evidence, feel free.

Evidence helps. We agree on this end. I have no well-defined supplementary methods to suggest, at this time.

[theleftone]

This creates a slippery slope. If we remove religion from society because it has been used to justified anti-social behaviors and can be used to justify such behaviors in the future, why stop there? Where does the removal of human-created institutions end? Without some additional criteria, this approach would quickly render society useless. Keep in mind, such additional criteria must avoid special pleading.

What makes you think we should stop? Those human-created institutions that perpetuate and encourage anti-social behaviors should be removed. If your goal is the betterment of mankind and the improvement of the human condition, why would you ever argue that keeping these essentially negative institutions around is a good thing?

I consider the institutions to be neutral. The institutions do not perpetuate and encourage anti-social behavior. Humans do. The flaw is not within the institutions, but within man.