|
Post by gadreel on Mar 31, 2023 0:47:16 GMT
I am saying that if you say "God does not exist" then you are making an extraordinary claim simply because there is no evidence either way, therefore you need to provide evidence to back up your claim. I am making the distinction between a truth claim and a statement of position ("I do not believe in a god" ) and saying one requires evidence and one does not. I am only making what sounds like an extraordinary claim, but I am not. I am talking the physical universe which is ordinary, it is the supernatural world God comes from that is extraordinary. If God exists then he should have existed before the Big Bang. The Higgs Boson has been dubbed the “God” particle. There’s an ordinary place to start. Can you prove the Higgs Field is God. It’s a good candidate. So far all God is, is an literary character who only who walked the earth in a supernatural setting. All gods share this attribute, I can prove that God is simply another version of those mythical characters and his possible mythical evolution from several Mesopotamia and Egyptian myths. So, God as a mythical figure is quite ordinary because there are so many versions. I think we can agree, none of those other gods existed, therefore it is unlikely the God in Bible stories at least, does exist. So, no I do not believe in any mythical beings and neither do you, I’m betting. If I say Jesus never existed, then I do have some burden of proof since historically he has been accepted as someone who actually walked the Earth since the entire modern Western Civilization owes its existence to him. But what proof is there he is also God other than more unprovable literary narratives? I think that the interpretation of this is where we differ. I think that because God is supernatural, any claims to it's existence are extraordinary. Where as I believe that these are simply cultural interpretations of the same thing. So in fact in a lot of ways I believe these gods existed just as much as God god (actually not practically true, although for the purposes of this conversation it makes no difference). I do see your point, and I do see that atheism is a clear choice when all the gods differ so much but only one can be true, then clearly that is in itself an extraordinary claim, and in fact is more extraordinary than the simple claim that god exists.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 31, 2023 2:09:38 GMT
"Brother, why don’t you stop with the constant silly atheist cliches?" So don't make cogent, sound arguments. Got it. "Hard atheism is the assertion ”there is no God”." Well no, "hard atheism" isn't necessarily an assertion perse, it's rather how unconvinced you are of the concept of a God. "Soft atheist" would say "Well maybe there is a God, I'm not sure, but I currently don't believe in one, while a hard atheist would say "I find it very unlikely there is a God". What you're probably thinking of is "gnostic atheist" (" I know there is no God") which while I do think is a philosophically unattainable position (unfalsifiable position), I'm pretty sure most atheists are agnostic (which isn't a knowledge claim) Hard/positive atheism is gnostic atheism. If you say your position is based on a lack of evidence, the onus then falls on you to explain what evidence you would expect. greatdebatecommunity.com/2017/11/12/atheists-and-the-burden-of-proof/It’s still a position that requires justification to be rational. Again. If I say “God exists” and you say “I don’t believe you”. You have a burden of proof as to why not believing me is rational. It’s basic epistemology. BoF falls on anyone with a position. You are aware there are different types of burden of proof, right? "If you say your position is based on a lack of evidence, the onus then falls on you to explain what evidence you would expect." I dunno how this contradicts what I said. Again I could apply that same principal to leprechauns. Again you're very dishonestly trying to misconflate "justification" with "belief" (they're not the same thing) "https://greatdebatecommunity.com/2017/11/12/atheists-and-the-burden-of-proof/" Again I'm not sure how this contradicts anything I said "It’s still a position that requires justification to be rational." Yes in the same way not believing in leprechauns requires some sort of justification (which isn't a belief), I've already addresed this. "Again. If I say “God exists” and you say “I don’t believe you”. You have a burden of proof as to why not believing me is rational." Well no again, imagine if our legal system worked that way. If you accuse someone of being a murderer but had no actual proof, you wouldn't turn around and say "You have the burden of proof as to why not believing me is rational" and then that person would get thrown in prison because he couldn't prove he didn't commit murder. That would be very silly and absurd. "BoF falls on anyone with a position." Atheism isn't a position, unless you wanna argue not believing in leprechauns is also a position. This has been explained to you several times.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 31, 2023 3:04:39 GMT
This forum is stuck on slavery, proof/evidence, and the definition of atheist. It's like one person without imagination arguing with themselves.
Zzzzzzzzzz
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2023 22:18:04 GMT
I am saying that if you say "God does not exist" then you are making an extraordinary claim simply because there is no evidence either way, therefore you need to provide evidence to back up your claim. I am making the distinction between a truth claim and a statement of position ("I do not believe in a god" ) and saying one requires evidence and one does not. I am only making what sounds like an extraordinary claim, but I am not. I am talking the physical universe which is ordinary, it is the supernatural world God comes from that is extraordinary. If God exists then he should have existed before the Big Bang. The Higgs Boson has been dubbed the “God” particle. There’s an ordinary place to start. Can you prove the Higgs Field is God. It’s a good candidate. So far all God is, is an literary character who only who walked the earth in a supernatural setting. All gods share this attribute, I can prove that God is simply another version of those mythical characters and his possible mythical evolution from several Mesopotamia and Egyptian myths. So, God as a mythical figure is quite ordinary because there are so many versions. I think we can agree, none of those other gods existed, therefore it is unlikely the God in Bible stories at least, does exist. So, no I do not believe in any mythical beings and neither do you, I’m betting. If I say Jesus never existed, then I do have some burden of proof since historically he has been accepted as someone who actually walked the Earth since the entire modern Western Civilization owes its existence to him. But what proof is there he is also God other than more unprovable literary narratives?
"I am only making what sounds like an extraordinary claim, but I am not." I'm glad that's cleared up.
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Apr 12, 2023 19:49:18 GMT
Depends on the situation.
I have no problem with people saying they believe in [insert deity/deities here]. But if they claim they know said deity are real, I'm going to need proof. Especially trying to convert me at the time (which is more often than not).
The problem with people trying to convert me is that when I'm listening to them making some argument, I am obligated to say why that argument doesn't work with me and then they get offended.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 15, 2023 18:15:05 GMT
Who do you think has the burden of proof? The person who says God exist. The person who says God don`t exist Both Neither Anyone making an assertion has a burden of proof. However, if this is some attempt to contrast the theistic burden of proof with an atheists, then theists always have a burden of proof whereas atheists only sometimes do. The default state of belief is atheism!
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,654
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 16, 2023 10:42:22 GMT
I think a problem with this question is the focus on proof. It's pretty much impossible to prove there is no God. While it may in theory be possible to prove there is a God, certainly no-one has managed it thus far.
Those on the atheist side sometimes try to break the deadlock by saying because the theists are the ones positing an entity, they have the burden of proof. Atheism since it proposes fewer entities is the default.
I think the problem with that argument is that while we may well be born as blank slates, by the time we consider these issues, we have very ingrained views, often fundamental to our identities. Pointing out to a theist that at some time before they can remember they were atheists is very weak sauce. As for those who became theists later in life, they've already been convinced by some argument in absence of proof.
So I think the burden is really on anyone trying to change the other's opinion. But it's not a burden of proof but a burden of sound argument.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 16, 2023 18:10:08 GMT
When you claim the existence of The Invisible Man, the burden of proof rests squarely upon yourself to prove that existence. I fail to see how there's any question regarding this.
|
|