|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Rational argument for God, and where the burden of proof lies?
What rational argument is there for a belief in a God(s) and why does the burden of proof seem to lie with atheists/agnostics rather than those making the claim?
If there is no actual evidence then, while 'God' may still be falsifiable, it might be taken as falsifiable as Zeus (etc.) for all practical purposes; if there's proof though, provide it before our fellow Hubbers! I'm sure we're all interested to hear your insight.
And lastly, why does the burden to prove something's non-existence lie on atheists/agnostics instead of theologens and religious figures?
Be friendly ?_?
The way you've worded your questions provides the basis for explaining why this argument is kind of pointless. Athiests and agnostics base most of their beliefs on evidence. The belief in God is not strictly evidence based. It's faith based. Believing in God is about one's faith.
It is a mistake for athiests and agnostics to ask believers for proof and it is a mistake for believers to offer it because each gets in a debate with the other that is flawed from the start.
Why should an atheist bear his side of the burden of proof? It’s a bit like me asking someone to provide proof that there is no Russell's teapot orbiting Mars, or even no Santa Claus. All atheists are happy to conclude that there is a god, just as soon as they are presented with good evidence to back up that assertion (and I don’t mean the incoherent blabbering of ancient goat herders who thought it moral to kill their own children for disobedience, rape virgins captured during war, keep slaves or stone adulterers...
I think the Hitchens vs. John Lennox was a great debate on this topic. I'm sure it's on You Tube if anyone is interested...
The error made by the theist is assuming "god is" as the recognized default position, when the default position can only be "existence exists". How existence exists is the basis for propositions such as, god dun it! The one offering the proposition then has the onus to substantiate that claim.
Now, there are those who like to muse that even existence may not really exist, and they may even be right, but who cares? If existence does not exist as our aximomatic basis, then no amount of reasoning matters as every conclusion becomes totally speculative and no idea is better or worse than another.
Therefore, the reasonable default is we and the universe are here - existence exists. Anyone who wants to add to that default position then has the responsibility to argue their case, to show not logically, but rationally explain how any other condition preceded the default and how that change to the default was accomplished.
One is not required to disprove an unwarranted assertion; it is enough to point out the fallacy.
Frankly, my faith is of utmost importance to me, but I really could care less if someone believes and needs proof. There is no burden of proof--it is what it is. As a believer I am happy and I am sure if you are an atheist you are happy with your beliefs.
Shall we just let each other sit happily in the park and enjoy the sun without argument.
to me proof is irrelevant. i don't believe in god and it's that simple. even if there was such a thing i wouldn't call him a god or worship it because he wouldn't deserve it.
by wordscribe418 years ago
The following post is in response to a statement made by another hubber and the many posts I've read using logical fallacies:"the burden of proof" is NOT on the believers. There is no burden to prove He exists...
by christiananrkist4 years ago
its said that the person who makes the claim bears the burden of proof. I believe this to be true, however doesnt the person objecting to the claim also share some burden? afterall, can a profitable and fruitful...
by ahorseback5 years ago
Look at the general similarities in all of the inter- related Anti- God posts and you see a huge underling motive ! For one ; Finding proof is not the same as the seeking of ,or having of - faith...
by mischeviousme6 years ago
"I am not an atheist. I have a rational fear of God, and yet the common sense to ignore it." The Bible gives us an idea about how to be accountable for our actions, while also giving us a pair of scapegoats....
by Matthew Kirk5 years ago
Researchers have found microbial life at the depths of a 4km deep frozen lake in the Antarctic. Proof that life can survive and potentially thrive in environments outside of our planet such as Europa (one of jupiters...
by Kiss andTales2 years ago
Why do atheist and other none believers not accept as proof human existenceIncluding them ?I ask this question because atheist are persistent with this line prove that God existBut as they are given proof they...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.