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?

[Goat]

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.

Are there any 'institutions' that are not made up of humans?

[McCulloch]

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.

In other words, there are limits to human understanding, therefore anything could be true and nothing we know is certain. Religion might be right because human understanding is limited.

[theleftone]

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.

Are there any 'institutions' that are not made up of humans?

To my knowledge, no. Though, I am not sure of the significance of this.

[TMMaria]

Religion expects acceptance of the existence of an unseen, unknown deity without a shred of evidence to support it on faith.

On the contrary, people's leap of faith always was due to witnessing accompanying signs. Jesus' had a marvelous followings because of people witnessing miraculous signs. The Apostles had a marvelous followings because of witnessing signs which is evidence of the existence of an unseen Deity. My own conversion, and as we speak now numerous conversions happening around the world are because people are witnessing miraculous signs, of things happening which goes against natural laws and all that can be explained by science.

It's not that there isn't any evidence...it is that you yourself has not receive the gift of witnessing any kinds of signs that will certain to bring you to a leap of faith.

[McCulloch]

It's not that there isn't any evidence...it is that you yourself has not receive the gift of witnessing any kinds of signs that will certain to bring you to a leap of faith.

God must hate me. Why does he give some people this gift and other people are left without it?

[theleftone]

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.

In other words, there are limits to human understanding, therefore anything could be true and nothing we know is certain. Religion might be right because human understanding is limited.

This is an inaccurate representation. Human understanding is limited. Knowledge exists within a system (context based upon assumptions). Religion might be rational in a given system.

[Cephus]

On the contrary, people's leap of faith always was due to witnessing accompanying signs.

Ah, but how do you know that those supposed "signs" actually are what people interpret them to be? Isn't it interesting that, almost without fail, the god(s) that people interpret the signs to be from are the same ones that they were raised with and culturally indoctrinated with? You don't often find people living in Muslim countries suddenly getting signs from, say, the Egyptian Sun God Ra. The reality is that people are simply misinterpreting events which have natural explanations. They are simply attributing these events to the supernatural when there is no reason whatsoever to do so. If God wants to give signs, why doesn't he give something unmistakable? Cure some completely incurable diseases. Regrow amputated limbs in front of TV cameras. Come on, God can't be that pathetic and impotent, can he?

Jesus' had a marvelous followings because of people witnessing miraculous signs.

Outside of the Bible, there's no evidence to suggest Jesus had any following whatsoever. Certainly he wasn't a big celebrity, historians of the day living in the Palestine area certainly never bothered to write a word about him, a few mentioned his followers long after his death, but never as a living individual.

It's not that there isn't any evidence...it is that you yourself has not receive the gift of witnessing any kinds of signs that will certain to bring you to a leap of faith.

No, it's that there isn't any evidence and you're too deluded to see the clear reality. No surprise there.

[Goat]

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.

Are there any 'institutions' that are not made up of humans?

To my knowledge, no. Though, I am not sure of the significance of this.

If humans make up all institutions, then no institution can be 'neutral'.

[theleftone]

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.

Are there any 'institutions' that are not made up of humans?

To my knowledge, no. Though, I am not sure of the significance of this.

If humans make up all institutions, then no institution can be 'neutral'.

My mistake. I misread your question. I understand the question as, "Are there any 'institutions' that are not made by humans?"

I draw a distinction between the institution and the people who create it. Institutions are the results of human activity. That is, institutions are not entities which are capable of actions.

[Flail]

I am very aware of multitudes of Muslims,Christians,Jews,Hindus etc, who have 'received miraculous signs' from a diety....however, this does not assist in the debate. What I need is evidence of which of these varied signs from varied sources are evident and irrefutably true and which are irrevocably false..and what is the standard of proof?