Burden of Proof

[cnorman18]

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

There is a God = positive claim; requires proof.

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

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

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

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

Well, not quite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions for debate:

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

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

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

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

[Zzyzx]

.
Hi Fisherking,

It is good to see you drop in and attempt to defend Christianity (or dispute Non-Christian views).

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

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

It is interesting to see a supernaturalist becoming concerned about "objective means" when supernatural beliefs are pure subjectivity and emotion with no objectivity.

Does this represent a new attitude, Fisherking, in which you will furnish objective evidence to support religionist claims? To do otherwise henceforth would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?

Or is this an example of expecting or requiring others to answer with objectivity while retaining one's own subjective "arguments"?

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

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

Notice the "I suggest" in my statement. I have not claimed objective truth for my statements.

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

Are these percieved negative effects objective?

They are perceived and clearly identified as "high on MY list of negative effects.

Is your newfound apparent concern for "objectivity" an indication that YOU will consistently provide objective information to validate your (or Christian) claims?

I will consistently remind you of the concern you exhibit for objectivity in this thread if you attempt to express subjective views.

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

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

I make no claims regarding characteristics of "those who do not worship any gods". I clearly recognize that those who do not worship any "gods" do not have an organized or commercial structure that teaches and indoctrinates. There is no unified group of "non-believers" and no representative body of "teachings".

In contrast, organized / commercial religion DOES have organizational structure, a certain amount of group identification / unity, and a body of teachings. Christianity is centered upon a book which very clearly shows favoritism toward those who worship the "right" god and clearly condemns or demeans "infidels" and other non-believers as though they were less worthy or inferior.

As a bible supporter you are surely aware of scriptures that convey that attitude. If you plead ignorance I and others will identify for you such passages in the bible(s).

[Jester]

I love this topic (kudos to cnorman on this one). I thought Id throw a hash of thoughts at you (and one to cnorman). Ill try to be organized, but apologies in advance if this one gets a bit off-track.

(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

I would actually say no to this one.
I tend to separate impossible from moot, meaning that our inability to answer the question of God with certainty does not diminish its importance. I personally react by answering it as best I can.
To further the point, I feel that there is no objective discussion of the level of toxicity of a religion until we establish a claim about the truth of religious ideas. Simply put, ethics are purely subjective unless we can establish a meaning of life via some divine means. (Note: I understand that this is simply an assertion. Feel free to request further discussion on that one, but for the sake of keeping this to the point, Ill omit it here).

It is interesting to see a supernaturalist becoming concerned about "objective means" when supernatural beliefs are pure subjectivity and emotion with no objectivity.

I am personally unaware or Fisherkings theological positions. That said, however, I would like to oppose the statement that supernatural beliefs are necessarily any more subjective than natural beliefs. To that end, I mean to say that there is a great deal of uncertainty and judgment call in any belief, but I dont see that this is particularly true of supernaturalism unless it also contradicts logic. The latter test would refer only to very specific types of supernaturalism.

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

I would add that any reference to negative behaviors on the part of those who practice Christianity and Islam must be sociologically established to be more frequent than those who practice Buddhism or Judaism. Beyond that, I would suggest that we require reasonable criteria for determining who is practicing these religions. Simply defining practitioners as those who claim to be seems inadequate.

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

I completely agree that this is unacceptable.
I do not, however, consider this to be a result of the religions youve named so much as a result of arrogance expressed in a religious way.

I make no claims regarding characteristics of "those who do not worship any gods".

Such claims are inherent to determining the toxicity of a religious belief.

I clearly recognize that those who do not worship any "gods" do not have an organized or commercial structure that teaches and indoctrinates. There is no unified group of "non-believers" and no representative body of "teachings".

The fact that the structure that teaches and indoctrinates the non-religious is informal is, in my view, irrelevant.

Christianity is centered upon a book which very clearly shows favoritism toward those who worship the "right" god and clearly condemns or demeans "infidels" and other non-believers as though they were less worthy or inferior.

This is only true if we ignore all the major teachings of said book. It, very clearly, argues that practitioners are not to consider themselves superior to non-practitioners because (as it claims directly) they are not. I fully agree that many practitioners have a superior attitude, but do not see that the Bible defends this position.

As a bible supporter you are surely aware of scriptures that convey that attitude. If you plead ignorance I and others will identify for you such passages in the bible(s).

I will claim ignorance myself. I am sure that there is a matter of interpretation here, but would love to discuss it. I also feel the need to reassert that we cannot deny the passages to the contrary if we are to discuss the matter in any objective way.

[cnorman18]

I knew this would lead to an interesting discussion, and so it is.

Here's a note, just for the record; the state of Israel and its policies are wholly irrelevant to any discussion of modern liberal Judaism.

Israel is a secular state, the majority of its Jewish citizens are nonreligious (often militantly so), its policies and practices are not determined on a religious basis except in certain domestic matters (e.g. marriage), and where the Jewish religion impacts life and law in Israel at all, that impact is limited to Orthodox Judaism, for which I do not speak and in which I do not believe.

The Israeli Rabbinate is entirely and exclusively Orthodox. There are more "Messianic," i.e. Christian, synagogues in Israel than those of my own Conservative branch (which is known in Israel as Masorti Judaism). Reform Judaism does not exist to any significant degree in Israel whatever.

Orthodox Judaism is analogous to Christian fundamentalism. When I speak of "Judaism" here, as I have said many times, I am referring to modern liberal Judaism and not to Orthodoxy. Even Orthodox Judaism has little influence on Israeli policy - if it did, the West Bank and Gaza would have been annexed in 1967 - and modern liberal Judaism has none at all. Israel is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.

Just to avoid muddying the waters here. A liberal American Jew is no more responsible for Israel than a liberal American Muslim is responsible for Iran.

[FinalEnigma]

I love this topic (kudos to cnorman on this one). I thought Id throw a hash of thoughts at you (and one to cnorman. Ill try to be organized, but apologies in advance if this one gets a bit off-track.

(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

I would actually say no to this one.
I tend to separate impossible from moot, meaning that our inability to answer the question of God with certainty does not diminish its importance. I personally react by answering it as best I can.
To further the point, I feel that there is no objective discussion of the level of toxicity of a religion until we establish a claim about the truth of religious ideas. Simply put, ethics are purely subjective unless we can establish a meaning of life via some divine means. (Note: I understand that this is simply an assertion. Feel free to request further discussion on that one, but for the sake of keeping this to the point, Ill omit it here).

So you place the question into the category of 'impossible' but not 'moot'? I can agree with that. But you also suggest that we continue to search for the answer to a question that is impossible to answer? is there a purpose to that?

Edit-Nevermind, I misread your statement. should have known better than to expect to catch you in something that apparently irrational.

[Cephus]

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

If such a God exists, then yes, it is absolutely possible to objectively prove the existence of such an entity, in fact it must be possible for someone like me to acknowledge that entity is real. Anything that interacts with our reality on any level must, by definition, leave evidence. That evidence can be discovered and rationally evaluated. If there is no evidence, then there is no reason to believe in said God.

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

No, for the same reason we cannot objectively and definitively prove the non-existence of unicorns and fairies and pink elephants. But the burden of proof doesn't rest on those who do not believe in these things, but on those who do.

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

None 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. It's like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Since we don't know if angels exist, who cares about their dancing habits?

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

I'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. Certainly there are some that are more toxic and more dangerous than others, but the idea that you can throw rationality and intelligence out the window entirely because it makes you feel better is utterly foolish.

All religion is bad, without exception.

[Jester]

Jumping in (hope you dont mind):

If such a God exists, then yes, it is absolutely possible to objectively prove the existence of such an entity, in fact it must be possible for someone like me to acknowledge that entity is real. Anything that interacts with our reality on any level must, by definition, leave evidence. That evidence can be discovered and rationally evaluated. If there is no evidence, then there is no reason to believe in said God.

Ill mostly agree with this. My major stipulation is that we refrain from looking for God in the wrong manner, then count our lack of evidence as in any way telling. Specifically, we cannot use a naturalistic study (such as science) to inquire about something that, if it existed, would reside in a completely different layer of reality.

No, for the same reason we cannot objectively and definitively prove the non-existence of unicorns and fairies and pink elephants.

Fair enough. Though again, Id point out that a pink elephants, unicorns, etc. would be natural phenomena (if they existed), whereas God would not necessarily be.

But the burden of proof doesn't rest on those who do not believe in these things, but on those who do.

Pointing out the burden of proof is often times useful. In general, however, I dont feel that it should carry weight until we begin attempting to look for evidence in the correct manner.

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

None 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?

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.

Certainly there are some that are more toxic and more dangerous than others, but the idea that you can throw rationality and intelligence out the window entirely because it makes you feel better is utterly foolish.

I do want to point out that this does involve a certain amount of speculation about cnormans intentions; nor do I think it is fair to conclude that his is throwing out rationality and intelligence. Please be careful about that.
More to the point, however, Id like to question our scale of determining the toxicity of a given religion. By what objective means are we determining which actions/beliefs are positive, and which are negative? Thus far, I have found no reasonable basis for such a scale unless we are accepting the existence of a deity as a premise.

All religion is bad, without exception.

Here, I simply wanted to throw out one more request for sociological support of this claim.

[Nameless]

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.

They are both 'positive claims'. "There is..." is a positive affirmation (of an, in this case, 'absence').

Questions for debate:

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

It is not possible to 'prove' anything, much less a 'god'.
Science does not 'prove' anything, it tests and experiments in attempts to 'disprove'. If something cannot be disproven/refuted, yet, it is tentatively accepted.
Nothing is 'once-and-for-all' ever proven.
The demands for, concepts of, proof seem to originate in the isolated artificial tautologies of logic, and the unsound assumptions upon which they are built.

So, that is one reason I'd say no.

[FinalEnigma]

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.

They are both 'positive claims'. "There is..." is a positive affirmation (of an, in this case, 'absence').

Actually, they are not both positive claims. the direct opposite of a positive claim cannot logically be also a positive claim. And placing a 'not' into a statement generally makes it negative.

There is a... is a positive claim.
There is not a... is a negative claim.

PS. You're not Twobits, are you? I had this exact argument with him once before, and he is the only person other than yourself whom I have seen dispute the validity of logic.

[cnorman18]

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

If such a God exists, then yes, it is absolutely possible to objectively prove the existence of such an entity, in fact it must be possible for someone like me to acknowledge that entity is real. Anything that interacts with our reality on any level must, by definition, leave evidence. That evidence can be discovered and rationally evaluated. If there is no evidence, then there is no reason to believe in said God.

Those are all theoretical statements. Back 'em up. Give a specific, concrete example of an objective proof of God that cannot be explained away or refuted. I say there are none even possible. Prove me wrong.

Saying "There must be a way" means nothing. Tell me what that way specifically is. What you said here holds no more water than the First Cause argument.

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

No, for the same reason we cannot objectively and definitively prove the non-existence of unicorns and fairies and pink elephants. But the burden of proof doesn't rest on those who do not believe in these things, but on those who do.

If I want you to change your mind, the burden is indeed on me. But if you want ME to change MY mind, then telling me I can't prove that God exists isn't enough. I already know that.

I acknowledge that I can't prove God and that I believe anyway, in some sense that I haven't even worked out for myself quite yet. Nothing intellectually dishonest about it; it's right out front, I can't prove anything.

I am under no obligation to prove anything to you or to anyone in order to retain my belief for myself only. If anyone wishes me to abandon it, though, they are going to have to show me why it is definitely false, not merely that I can't prove it. That's not news. .

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

None 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. It's like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Since we don't know if angels exist, who cares about their dancing habits?

What characteristics of God am I trying to make claims about?

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

I'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.

First we have to establish that it's actually untrue, as opposed to unproven, assuming that we're not trying to proselytize anyone (as Jews don't).

Certainly there are some that are more toxic and more dangerous than others, but the idea that you can throw rationality and intelligence out the window entirely because it makes you feel better is utterly foolish.

Who's doing that?

All religion is bad, without exception.

Again; isn't the refusal to acknowledge differences and exceptions a petty good working definition of bigotry?

Can you think of any other set of beliefs or convictions as varied and various as "religion" that you are as willing to condemn out of hand?

[Nameless]

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.

They are both 'positive claims'. "There is..." is a positive affirmation (of an, in this case, 'absence').

Actually, they are not both positive claims. the direct opposite of a positive claim cannot logically be also a positive claim. And placing a 'not' into a statement generally makes it negative.

I understand your opinion, it is obviously similar to the OPs.
I see it differently as shown. You have not 'refuted the logic and rationality of my offered Perspective merely by gainsaying it.
They are both positive affirmations. That which is positively affirmed happen to be relative opposites.
That in no way refutes the 'positive' affirmations in both quotes.

PS. You're not Twobits, are you? I had this exact argument with him once before, and he is the only person other than yourself whom I have seen dispute the validity of logic.

No, I am not.
My how presumptuous of you. Anyone with a differing view than yours is "disputing the validity of logic"! And yes, I can rather successfully refute any claims to the 'universality' of 'logic'. It is a very local and rather artificial thought construct.
That aside, you cannot refute the 'logic' of that which I presented.

"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." -Robert Anton Wilson

And you are dissembling! The point is that 'proof' of anything is not possible.