The Burden of Proof

[manlian]

In the question of God, where does the burden of proof lie?

I'll give my opinion to start it off:

I feel the burden of proof is upon believers. This is because you cannot "prove" a negative. How do you find evidence of non-existence? Find something that is "not-God?" Find something that is "not-the-spirirt-world"?

If there is no evidence, then that fact alone warrants dismissal. Anything beyond that, you might as well argue economics with Stalin.

Anyway, thoughts, opinions?

[SubmissMe]

Its funny, you pretty much summed it all up. However I would suggest you look towards the Ontological argument. It aims to prove to us that God simply HAS to exist.

The question should be this, Is existance a great making quality?

[manlian]

Yeah, I'm familiar with the ontological argument, though as you can probably guess unconvinced by it.

I didn't want to open the thread with sort of abstruse philosophical language, not that I'm saying that your post is abstruse, I just wanted to make the terminology accessible to everyone. Perhaps I'm underestimating the people here . =p

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by is "existence a great making quality?". I'll give you my interpretation, and then you can tell me if I'm barking up the wrong tree or not.

If you mean does something have to exist independent of subjective experience to be great, then I would imagine (no pun intended) that the answer is no. Though I don't want to stray too far offtopic here. =p

[Mallic]

I didn't know what the Ontological Argument was, so I looked it up on wikipedia. Here is what they said about it.

1) God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.
2) The concept of God exists in human understanding.
3) God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).
4) The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.
5) If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).
6) from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 An entity can be conceived which is greater than God, the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).
7) Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true).


If I have read this correctly, then this assumes that god exsists in the first place. How does that prove the exsistance of god?

[SubmissMe]

I'll give out a better version.

Ok, a german philosopher called Anselm said that the definition of God was "that of which nothing greater can be concieved". Anselm said that an existant God was better than a non existant God so therefore, by sheer definition, god MUST exist (stop me if i'm going too fast).

Kant however, argued that existance is not a great making quality. In his own words, "A hundred real thalers (thalers were a german coin) do not contain one coin more than a hundred possible thalers." To put this basically, existance doesn't make an object better but just gives it a place in time and space.

Now that that's sorted out, I would be very grateful if anyone could help me with the morality topic.

And yes, I guess you did underestimate the philosophical knowledge on here. I know I did.

[SamiBoy]

In the question of God, where does the burden of proof lie?

I'll give my opinion to start it off:

I feel the burden of proof is upon believers. This is because you cannot "prove" a negative. How do you find evidence of non-existence? Find something that is "not-God?" Find something that is "not-the-spirirt-world"?

If there is no evidence, then that fact alone warrants dismissal. Anything beyond that, you might as well argue economics with Stalin.

Anyway, thoughts, opinions?

It falls on the claimer. In law the proof of guilty falls on the accusing side. The people who follow accuse the others of being of the "Wrong Religion" therefore if we look at it as relative to the legal world. It falls on the religious.

Furthermore, if they ever do prove there is a god, he better have a pretty damn good explanation of all the parts of the bible telling you to murder people.

[SDoll]

I think god was made up by man because of superstition and lust for power. Human beings are very odd creatures. A person can't really change my mind about this because they're just like me, a regular person. If I saw proof of some kind of higher power I would accept it, depending on what it is.

[mistschaufel]

In the question of God, where does the burden of proof lie?

I'll give my opinion to start it off:

I feel the burden of proof is upon believers. This is because you cannot "prove" a negative. How do you find evidence of non-existence? Find something that is "not-God?" Find something that is "not-the-spirirt-world"?

If there is no evidence, then that fact alone warrants dismissal. Anything beyond that, you might as well argue economics with Stalin.

Anyway, thoughts, opinions?

It falls on the claimer. In law the proof of guilty falls on the accusing side. The people who follow accuse the others of being of the "Wrong Religion" therefore if we look at it as relative to the legal world. It falls on the religious.

Furthermore, if they ever do prove there is a god, he better have a pretty damn good explanation of all the parts of the bible telling you to murder people.

Amen! (my play on a word for the day, but I mean it and wholeheartedly agree), but I believe there is a partial fallacy in the statement that "proof of the guilty falls on the accusing side". The logic holds for American law, but I think that British law holds the precept "Guilty until proven innocent".

[VeryGnawty]

The burden of proof always lies on the person making the assertion, because they are the ones trying to prove an argument in the first place. Nobody else need do anything.

For example, someone may say that there is an invisible insubstantial all-powerful God ruling the universe. In this case, it would be up to them to prove such a being exists.

I might reply that their God is an immature figment of their imagination. It would be up to me to prove that this is the case.

They may reply that I am merely wrongheaded and need God's love. It would be up to them to prove that it would help.

I might reply that there is no love and the world is suffering. It would be up to me to prove this is true.

[FrozenRose]

I was flipping through the channels and it saids in 2012 Jesus is coming again, it will be his second coming, plus in the code book of that guy that knew what was to become of the world has been true to this day least what I saw and heared in a real doc show with the real one, not the dumb movie the real book, it also says earth destroyed in 2012 by metor, another part they found says 2012 earth saved, so that makes it a 50% thing.

Example: I may eat the cake I may not eat the cake, which out of 100% is 50%. lol.

Well you know what? Only time can tell when the year 2012 comes a knocking, we all shall find out together and as a whole if any of this holds any truth and any meaning at all. Makes me kinda sad if its the end. I'll still be in my 20's if the world ends lol. Unless we are spared or so.

[MN_FriendlyGuy]

I was flipping through the channels and it saids in 2012 Jesus is coming again...

If I remember correctly - when someone gives a prophecy that doesn't come true, their message was not divine and the false prophet is to be put to death.

Less than three months after Pat Robertson forecast "serious hurricanes" for Orlando, Fla., Hurricane Bonnie, the first major Atlantic storm of 1998, struck Virginia Beach, Va., home of the televangelist's Christian Broadcasting Network. Bonnie downed trees and powerlines throughout Virginia's Tidewater region, leaving 250,000 people without power and causing $25 million in damage.

Robertson had predicted storms for Orlando as God's punishment for Disney World's hosting of Gay Day. The annual, privately sponsored event draws thousands of gay men and lesbians to the amusement park, which is decked out with rainbow flags for the occasion. That year was the first for the City of Orlando to also fly gay-themed banners from light poles to mark gay Pride.

"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you," Robertson said June 8 (1998).

Although both Florida and North Carolina are susceptible to hurricanes during the late summer and early fall, Bonnie was unusual in that after its arrival on the North Carolina coast, the storm slowed to a virtual crawl. It spun wind, rain and heavy surf throughout eastern North Carolina for more than 24 hours, killing at least two people and causing an estimated $1-$2 billion in damage. Then it veered off to Virginia Beach, regained some of the strength it lost over North Carolina and delivered what local reports called a "sucker punch" to the area.

In the past, Robertson has claimed to have successfully "prayed" hurricanes away from the Virginia coast.

[steve14]

i used to be an atheist but could not think of any thing good to say while getting a blow job "oh random chance ohh random chance"

"quote" R A Willson

[VeryGnawty]

i used to be an atheist but could not think of any thing good to say while getting a blow job

Oh Primordial Goo, Oh Primordial Goo.

[steve14]

i used to be an atheist but could not think of any thing good to say while getting a blow job

Oh Primordial Goo, Oh Primordial Goo.

lmao good answer!!

[FrozenRose]

suprised more arnt talking about what I written before hand lol oh well

[VeryGnawty]

suprised more arnt talking about what I written before hand lol oh well

Actually, Jesus is coming again, probably in 2012.

But not everybody is going to recognize him when he comes. I don't think it's going to be the "end of the world" but more of a change in the world. Although, greedy bastards might think it's the end of the world, because Jesus's proposals have never been good for tyrants and thieves.

We'll just have to see. All this hubbub may be for nothing.

[FrozenRose]

if he does come again its not going to be on my side of the world, I am in canada, hes going to be on the other side of the world more then likely

[stephiebaby]

"In the question of God, where does the burden of proof lie? "

This isn't actually a question. The FACT is that the burden of proof lies with believers. If it was any other topic than religion (bigfoot for example) no one would ask this question. The only reason to try and disput this fact is if one is a believer because this burden is always too much for them. They would rather reject reason and logic, and insist all others do the same, to keep their fragile beliefs intact. But only for their own religion. Ask them about another religion and they will require proof.
The fact is religion is very old, and as a species our very concept of god comes from old dead religions. So old they most likely do not even come from our species, there is evidence of religion in protohumans. And who were these gods? The sun and the moon, fire, the dark. Simple things primitive people encountered but did not understand. So they made up meanings so they could pretend to understand, because if you understand something it can't hurt you, and you can use it. Pretending to understand won't keep you safe, but it will keep you blissfully ignorant, unafraid. This is the basis of all religion. There is nothing in any religion to suggest there is more to the concept of god than what was handed down from our primitive ancestors.

"It aims to prove to us that God simply HAS to exist. "

This is religion, whatever name it hides behind. Anyone who says god HAS to exist, instead of proving god DOES exist, is preaching their beliefs and nothing more. In this case they are starting with the assumption god does exist, because of their religion or culture, then they try to convince themselves and others that their assumption HAS to exist, simply because it's theirs.
When it comes to proof of gods, one does not first assume something which has no proof. One must begin with the universe as we know it, including the social historical origins of the concept of god. With everything we know, there is no evidence of any gods of any kind, and no reason to even assume any gods exist. The only reason a person would even consider the concept of a god is because they have been exposed to it through their culture (or indoctrinated through their religion).

"A hundred real thalers (thalers were a german coin) do not contain one coin more than a hundred possible thalers."

Take this idea to a racetrack and see if it works in real life. Take $10000 to the racetrack and bet it all on the first even money bet you can find. I doubt anyone will do that, because the 10000 you have contains 10000 more dollars than what you could possibly win, and favourites don't always win.

"For example, someone may say that there is an invisible insubstantial all-powerful God ruling the universe. In this case, it would be up to them to prove such a being exists.

I might reply that their God is an immature figment of their imagination. It would be up to me to prove that this is the case. "

Actually you would not have to prove that. Unless they could prove their claim then that is exactly what their god is. You don't have to prove where a person started, they already did that.

"They may reply that I am merely wrongheaded and need God's love. It would be up to them to prove that it would help."

No, you are jumping ahead. Just because you correctly told them their god does not exist (because they had not proven it's existence) does not mean they can ignore the first step and start defending their god. If they mention love or acting a certain way, or needing to believe, then you remind them that their god still does not exist and it is up to them to prove it's existence before the conversation can proceed.

"I was flipping through the channels and it saids in 2012 Jesus is coming again, it will be his second coming, plus in the code book of that guy that knew what was to become of the world has been true to this day least what I saw and heared in a real doc show with the real one, not the dumb movie the real book, it also says earth destroyed in 2012 by metor, another part they found says 2012 earth saved, so that makes it a 50% thing."

This is some nut trying to connect the dots with the Mayan calender which runs out in 2012. It's just another doomsday theory, they are everywhere. 2012 is a popular date because of the romanticised view of the Mayans, but 2000 was also popular simply because of all those 0's. In fact years that end in 5 or 0 are the most popular for doomsday predictions. As for religious docos, watch them carefully. Most are just people preaching their beliefs, not actually proving anything. The good ones tell the myth story with some nutters giving their opinion, then they have a voice of reason explaining why it's all just mythology. None provide proof of the supernatural.

"i used to be an atheist but could not think of any thing good to say while getting a blow job"

Ooh (insert name here). The person giving it to you deserves the praise, not an imaginary creature.

"Jesus's proposals have never been good for tyrants and thieves. "

Are you kidding? Any and all gods are good for tyrants. You may want to take a closer look at the biblical jesus, and the wrathful god standing behind him, and the lake of fire below him. Fear and control are the main components of christianity, not peace and love.

[Madeira]

We've basically already proved the negative beyond a reasonable doubt, but people who want to believe will always continue to because they'll just keep putting him where we haven't looked yet.

[mutatedbunnyboy]

Ok, a german philosopher called Anselm said that the definition of God was "that of which nothing greater can be concieved". Anselm said that an existant God was better than a non existant God so therefore, by sheer definition, god MUST exist

Could this not be applied to unicorns aswell?

[stephiebaby]

Yes. Gods, unicorns, easter bunnies, bunyips, magic, fairies, it's all superstition and believers will always make special rules for their own beliefs.