jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (6 posts)

Rational argument for God, and where the burden of proof lies?

  1. FreeThoughtist profile image60
    FreeThoughtistposted 6 years ago

    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 ?_?

  2. crankalicious profile image93
    crankaliciousposted 6 years ago

    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.

  3. Jezebel28 profile image58
    Jezebel28posted 6 years ago

    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...

  4. profile image0
    AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago

    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.

  5. duffsmom profile image59
    duffsmomposted 6 years ago

    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.

  6. nightwork4 profile image61
    nightwork4posted 6 years ago

    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.

 
working