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?

[theleftone]

It's not a discussion, it's a debate, it's an attempt to get at the TRUTH, not to make you feel good about your beliefs. If that's what you're looking for, you're in the wrong spot. While you have a right to hold whatever beliefs you see fit, no one is under ANY obligation whatsoever to respect the specific beliefs you hold, nor are any beliefs you might hold sacred and above criticism.

Deal with it. Don't like it, put me on ignore.

Allow us to evaluate this response. The following are the portions of substance.

It's not a discussion, it's a debate, it's an attempt to get at the TRUTH

The remainder is gibberish about the person and/or directed at the person.

not to make you feel good about your beliefs. If that's what you're looking for, you're in the wrong spot. While you have a right to hold whatever beliefs you see fit, no one is under ANY obligation whatsoever to respect the specific beliefs you hold, nor are any beliefs you might hold sacred and above criticism.

Deal with it. Don't like it, put me on ignore.

This is a common theme within Cephus posts. He spends more time addressing the person rather than the persons arguments. I fail to see how anyone else could not have a problem with this.

[Fallibleone]

Moderator note #2: tselem, I suggest again that you refrain from criticising another's style and return to the topic of the thread.

Cephus, please exercise some restraint. As you are aware, uncivil posts are also against forum rules.

[byofrcs]

.....
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.

......

...but we nearly all have become atheists about certain gods e.g. few believe in esoteric Egyptian goddesses (for example).

By definition all the atheists on this forum do not have a belief in Egyptian goddesses but more importantly I would claim that few Christians would have a belief in any Egyptian goddesses.

This proof is not detached from the followers in that the proof isn't independent of the followers. The definitive disproof thus lies in the non-existence of the followers, given it would seem for millenia that the proof lies solely in the followers. Same as their fashion, diet , and language.

Gods are part of culture. When a culture dies out, the gods die out. Shift happens. To me that is proof enough.

[Confused]

MODERATOR ACTION:

While we appreciate your attempt to get this thread back on track byofrcs, until the other forum members agree to stick to the topic and the moderators have had a chance to discuss this, I am locking this thread.

[Jester]

In fact, you do because you are insisting that there are other valid tools one can use, yet, as usual, you are completely unable to back up your assertion.

That back up is logical. There a fields of study other than science due to the fact that the definition of science limits it from being an all-encompassing form of thought.

What you're basically doing is complaining that we're using a hammer to nail two boards together instead of a "blingstanger", yet you haven't demonstrated that a "blingstanger" is real. Are we "biased" toward using a hammer?

I'm complaining that we're using a hammer to bang a screw into a wall, and getting upset about how bad a nail that screw is.

Above, I am claiming that such laws are a case of looking for clues in the wrong place.

So produce evidence that there is a "right place". You're making a claim, it rests solely on you to back it up.

Theology is the right place. We needn't agree with the claims of any particular theological position (Christianity, atheism, etc) to admit that the study exists.

Please stick to the points without commenting on my personal understanding.

Then you need to stop making comments that lead to that conclusion.

You are free to conclude anything you'd like. If such conclusions about about my character, rather than the discussion, please keep them to yourself. I will do the same.

But, getting to the actual flood story in the Bible, I see no place where it claims that there were no physical, scientific causes.

Of course not, it was a story written by a bunch of bronze-age primitives with a very basic, superstitious understanding of the world around them.

And yet it does not refer to magic. In fact, it refers to the flood as happening in the most naturalistic way understood at the time (rain). And, regardless, we can't inject claims that aren't there, then disprove the matter based on those claims.
The fact remains that any scientist worth his salt would seek a natural cause for any event that has been established as true. This is a very good thing, but denies us the right to ever claim "miracle" or "magic" via scientific study.

Ethics, if you're claiming they come from a god, are only as valid as the factual existence of that god.

I do claim as much, and would argue that anyone who accepts the premise of ethics has accepted evidence for a deity.

Theology, if it hinges on worshipping a particular god, is only as valid as the factual existence of that god.

Disproving the existence a particular god only affects the theology surrounding that particular god. The study goes much farther than that and, given that atheism is a theological position, there is no way to refute all of it by arguing that no gods exist.

Unfortunately for you, on a debate forum such as this, one simply cannot assert things that they cannot demonstrate, as required in Rule #5.

Okay, I'm realizing that you and I have had some serious miscommunication. I had thought you understood that my references to ethics, theology, and the nature of premises versus conclusions drawn from said premises were the matters that I'd been discussing, and the support for my claims. You are free to disagree, as I expect you shall, but my comments are not in violation of rule number five.

While you're certainly free to believe that everything is an illusion and we're all heads in a jar, for instance, it only matters in a debate forum what you can demonstrate and convince others of through evidence and logical arguments.

I have the same frustration actually: We're still seeking a way to demonstrate the existence of physical reality. We haven't yet found the slightest bit of evidence to that end.

Please do.

Done. I don't actually say things I cannot back up.

Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

I do have some reservations about this conclusion, but mostly wanted to mention that this (and the others you mention) do not discuss our point. The claim I was asking you to support was the idea that religion causes people to have more negative or cruel behavior. Please provide some kind of data to that end.

I doubt that the issue was prayer with atheists, but many are guilty of neglect. (But no more than theists, of course.)

We're not talking about neglect, we're talking about people deluded into believing that some big boojum in the sky will save their kid.

If the child still dies, I consider the bottom line to be the same. Legally, it is the same.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. "Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

As many quotations from Hitler directly confess that he is a blatant liar, I'm not sure that we should accept this as more than a PR statement. Many businesses also speak of great concern for ecology while dumping toxins when they don't think people are looking.
A better test for this would be to see if the Bible supports a genocide of the Jewish people (the only significant test, in my view), or if those who follow it are more likely to be hateful toward Jewish people. This last would be the scientific approach.

I've already mentioned the communist revolutions.

Yet none of that was done in the name of atheism, communist regimes simply eliminated all things that would conflict with loyalty to the state and religion qualified.

Actually, they were quite openly atheist. Personally, I'm not sure what else to call the killing of people on the stated grounds that they are theists. Clearly, this is not something that theists would do (not that this excuses anything negative theists have done).
Perhaps you are unaware of the history of the Cultural Revolution on this point. The government spent a great deal of time, money, resources, and military force to attack religious organizations whether or not they were of any threat. Thousands of temples were burned, religious groups frequently faced mass execution, anyone caught supporting religious ideas was tortured, and (to this day) there are people in prison in China with "theist" as the charge against them.
This is clearly a banner of atheism. Yes, they are merely standing against that which gets in their way, but many of the people killed did nothing to hurt them politically. In which case, why should they have cared so much unless atheism was also a banner or theirs (which it is in such revolutions). Did they see religion as a threat? Of course. But this is no different than the religious seeing atheism as a threat, and no better an excuse.

Beyond that, I seriously question whether the "religious" acts you mention were religiously motivated at all.

The people who committed them certainly claimed they were, and because we cannot truly know their intentions, we must take them at their word until we have reason not to.

The fact that religious belief has not been correlated with such behavior would be a reason not to believe as much. Given this, it is clear that they have another motivation.

I've not run for public office as a non-theist, but I have mentioned to people that I am a theist and received less-than-polite responses (to say the least).

Oh yes, that's certainly on the par with being told you're not worthy to be an American citizen by the sitting President.

I dont defend such a bigoted remark, for certain.
To put my situation into perspective, however, at the time he made that comment, I was in a country in which my beliefs were specifically forbidden by law. I see no reason to dramatize my position, but the simple fact does illustrate that prejudice is a human problem, not merely a theist one. Personally, I tend to doubt that there is any person who has not been treated unfairly because of what they believe. It is this condition in general that ought to be stopped.

I wish you would talk about evidence, I'm getting sick and tired of asking you to present it and having you dodge the question.

To clear up the point, I honestly thought you saw the connections I was working toward. I didnt mean to be vague (apologies). I have referenced the fact that the physical universe that most all people accept without question is not in the slightest bit evidenced. Accepting it, while rejecting other paradigms on the ground of lack of evidence is clearly a logical contradiction. I do believe there to be validity in the claims of the New Testament, and no non-Christian interpretation has yet struck me as logical.

That said, it's bizarre that you think I haven't properly looked into the matter, simply because I keep asking you to demonstrate how to do so and you refuse.

I feel that such things have been mentioned, but feel that, because of our miscommunication, I do not seem to get responses to the actual logical issues Ive mentioned.

Such a test requires that we accept the physical universe as a premise.

Which, in fact, we all do. Move on.

My intent is to move on to why. I posit that there is no logical answer (citing the fact that all proofs mentioned thus far rely on circular reasoning). If there is no logical reason presented, I am forced to conclude that the acceptance of such a premise is a non-rational act, and in direct contradiction of the idea that we must reject any idea that is not evidence.

I'm not personally interested in their opinion, but rather in what can be proved.

I agree, I was just demonstrating that you were incorrect in your assertion. Their opinions are logically bankrupt.

I dont remember commenting at all on the opinions of such a group (other than to voice my lack of concern). As such, Im not sure what assertion you feel this disproves, but, whichever one it may be, I will point out that neither my lack of interest nor your assertion establishes logical bankruptcy.

Atheism:
American Heritage Dictionary
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Yup, disbelief. There is a difference in disbelief and believing something does not exist. Try again.

Read definition number two again. It establishes clearly that I was making a proper use of the term.
A similar response could be given for the others as well, but I see no need to go through each of them.

Do I have to keep going? You keep proving I was right.

How so, the definition I mentioned is well within these parameters.

I was using the most inclusive definition, you are using the least inclusive.

How does this establish one as more true than another.

The fact that some atheists actively state there are no god(s) doesn't show that *ALL* atheists do similarly.

As a purely academic curiosity, then, how would you differentiate the latter type from agnostics?

I was claiming that such a government is opposed to religious practice, and I don't see how your comment above addresses that point.

Yet the fact that the government permits religious practice proves otherwise.

Such practices are permitted for foreigners due to political pressure. This is not to say that opposition does not exist. Against locals, it is often harsh.

They may be opposed to UNCONTROLLED religious practice,

If you are defining uncontrolled as meeting to discuss theological ideas without any political aspiration, then this is correct.

but to say they are opposed to all religious practice is ludicrous.

The history of the cultural revolution does not tell this story.

Certainly, anyone can have any view they wish, however that doesn't mean they are free to impose their views on others.

I completely agree.

Then the point stands.

That you were wrong? Yes. That point most certainly stands.

Im not certain what your motivation for writing this is " obviously this was not the intent of such a comment. I would argue that it is pedophilia that is the problem, not some outside factor.

It's funny that you keep asking for numbers and studies, yet whenever I ask you to produce a single shred of objective evidence for the factual existence of God, you can't do it. Go figure.

I feel much the same regarding the issue of the physical universe.

If you believe that aiding the human race in general is good for the world these facts make it clear that a small percentage of the money we have here would make a massive difference in the hands of the lives of the poorer people in the world.

Yet that doesn't demonstrate that it is the best for the world, in fact, there are arguments that can be made that overpopulation has a directly harmful impact on the human race and therefore, letting the poor die off may be an ultimate positive. Not saying I agree with it, just that there is more than one take on the problem.

So, which is your opinion, then? This particular point began when I suggested that we ought to send some of our money to the poorer parts of the world, and you disagreed. Given this, it seems that you would agree with the argument you mention, but you dont seem to be taking that stance here.
So, simply put, could you state your position on this one?

Could you reference that quotation?

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - Mother Teresa

Given her actions in general, Im still not convinced that this was meant as a flippant or uncaring comment toward the poor. It seems more reasonable to assume that shes pointing out the good side of a negative thing.

On another occasion, Teresa told a terminal cancer patient, who was dying in extreme pain, that he should consider himself fortunate: "You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." The patient freely related his reply, which she seemed not to realize was meant as a putdown: "Then please tell him to stop kissing me."

Regardless of how the patient reacted, we have again a situation of her trying to look on the bright side. I see no reason why her entire lifes story should be ignored in light of these two comments, which dont seem to communicate maliciousness or dispassion at all.

In fact, I specifically suggested that we take the direct statement "love your enemies" seriously.

I've got no problem with that, except to point out that God in the Bible commanded his people to "love their enemies to death" quite a few times.

I can definitely understand your concern, though I should mention that these are extremely difficult situations to find in proper context. Yes, it illustrates that God is not a pacifist, but the most direct statements of the Bible (without tons of cultural and historical issues to obscure their meaning) are clearly positive.

Specifically, I believe that we ought to start with what Christ in particular says about God, as recorded in the New Testament.

Well, what you believe Christ said, you mean, since you have no way to demonstrate that Jesus ever said any of it, nor even existed, as described in the Bible, at all.

Okay, fair enough. But lets start with what he said, as recorded by the Bible. That works in terms of definition.
As to the matter of history, we have more evidence that Christ existed than most historical events. I suppose if I wanted to be an extreme skeptic, I could believe that almost nothing we know about history is true, but I dont see any reason to do so.

That's an unbased assumption, of course, but for the sake of argument, sure. But why bother loving an unknown and unseen God when we can just love one another and be done with it?

I dont take any issue with anyone who personally chooses to do so, provided that they dont believe in God. My main position is that I dont see why we cant do both.

Christianity, in the true sense of the word, does not promote the idea that the religious are "better" than the non-religious.

And that may be true, but in practice, that's not how it usually plays out.

I agree, but dont believe that is really the point. Rather than recommending that religious people abandon religion due to their attitudes of superiority (which I doubt will really fix the problem), I choose to recommend that they actually practice what they preach. Its much harder for them to argue with that approach.

Do you know the derivation, though?

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com):

whit "smallest particle," 12c., in na whit "no amount," from O.E. nan wiht, from wiht "amount," originally "person, human being" (see wight).
That seems to be related to "naught":

naught O.E. nawiht "nothing," lit "no whit," from na "no" (from PIE base *ne- "no, not;" see un- (1)) + wiht "thing, creature, being" (see wight).

I would presume, based on that, that "not giving one whit" would be equivalent to not caring at all, or to something being utterly unimportant.

Hope that helps.

Thank you. It really does help, and is fascinating (that its derived from a term for a human " I like that).

[Confused]

MODERATOR ACTION:

Under the assumption that any future posts in this topic will remain within the rules of the forum, we have unlocked this thread. Please, keep to the rules.

[Flail]

IMO,the focus on individual subjective notions of civility vs hard hitting debate, is misplaced and amounts to interference and censorship. Are moderators trained to stifle debate or encourage it; to cool off the passions or foster them?

Perhaps we should hand out hankies to the thin skinned?

[Fallibleone]

Moderator note: Flail, please stick to the topic for debate. That is the burden of proof.

[Confused]

MODERATOR ACTION:


That was short lived. Cephus and Jester, you two have a very good debate going on. Might I suggest you start a new thread based on where you currently stand. This thread is locked.