Does the burden of proof lie on the atheist to disprove God or on the theist to prove God?

Does the burden of proof lie on the atheist to disprove God or on the theist to prove God?

Or it could be equal.

Remember you can't prove a negative.

Remember you can't prove a negative.

Never the less, athiests should be able to provide an alternative to the notion that some higher beeing set things in motion.

Remember you can't prove a negative.
how so ?

Never the less, athiests should be able to provide an alternative to the notion that some higher beeing set things in motion.

This is one of those definitional issues that seems to crop up a lot. If you define an "atheist" to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence of God, then you may have a point. If I make the following statement:

The capital of Massachusetts is not Albany.

Well, haven't I just made a positive statement on some level or other? One that I should be prepared to defend? Whether I do it by providing evidence that Albany is the capital of New York and only of New York, or by showing that the capital of Massachusetts is Boston and only Boston (which would by definition exclude Albany) I guess is up to me. But I should be able to do it when I'm making such a statement. In that sense I agree with Shane...assuming my laughably poor grasp of Logic is correct. And if I also flat out say God does not exist.

The problem is that most atheists do not define themselves in terms of a categorical statement. It is more that they are saying:

I admit I cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, anymore than I can prove or disprove that there are pink unicorns romping through fields of purple grass on a planet circling a sun on the other side of the galaxy. However, the latter seems as unlikely to me as the former, and I am going to live my life on the assumption that neither are probable or reasonable, in the absence of proof.

I don't think such people are agnostics about God any more than they are agnostics about the pink unicorns cited above, though perhaps they may be.

There's also a whole issue about how the meaning of the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" have morphed through the years. Unfortunately I can't lay my hands on the link at the moment, but the term agnostic as coined by Thomas Huxley meant only someone who disclaimed that they had knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God, not that they believed or did not. Under this definition it would be perfectly reasonable to speak of an agnostic-theist or an agnostic-atheist. The term as used nowadays is quite a bit different, and it would not be reasonable to speak of such things. I'll see if I can't find it a bit later. It is quite a good read.

The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. The theist makes the claim that god exists, not the atheist.

Never the less, athiests should be able to provide an alternative to the notion that some higher beeing set things in motion.

They do.

They do.

None of which that I've ever read absolutely rule out an uncreated Creator. Nor do I think it possible to do so. You might be able to deny or at least create a lot of doubt about certain characteristics that most deists posit to their Deity (Absolute Goodness, etc.), or disprove that creation went the way a lot of deists think it did (Great Flood, Tower of Babel) but I'm skeptical you can provide proof that denies at least the possibility that an uncreated Creator got the ball rolling at some point or other. How would you even frame such a theory? That the universe spontaneously created itself? That seems to require at least as much faith as any creation story I've ever heard.

This definition of burden of proof is really odd. The existence of some deity or another has never *been* proven. Atheists don't *have* to provide another story. The burden of proof is upon those who are claiming something.

This definition of burden of proof is really odd. The existence of some deity or another has never *been* proven. Atheists don't *have* to provide another story. The burden of proof is upon those who are claiming something.

however, atheists *claim* that God does not exist, and the non-existence of some deity or another has never been proven ...

Until a reasonable standard of evidence has been applied to the proving, no disproving can take place.

This definition of burden of proof is really odd.

How so?


The existence of some deity or another has never *been* proven. Atheists don't *have* to provide another story. The burden of proof is upon those who are claiming something.

Exactly. If I make the statement "God does not exist," I have made something that amounts to a positive claim, as I understand these things. Therefore it is incumbent upon me to show how I arrived at this position. It is NOT the responsibility of a deist to rebut the claim with a positive proof of God's existence. That happens when they make the affirmative statement "God does exist," not before.

IOW, I don't think you can say God does not exist because you're able to disprove to your own satisfaction any proof or empirical evidence that has ever been offered that God does exist.

It has been my experience that the atheist cannot prove a god does not exist, but can only argue against the proofs that the theist places. It is impossible to argue a negative, it is only possible to argue the opposite positive that would prove to exclude the negative. To use an example already shown, the only way that I can prove the capital of Massachusetts is NOT Albany is to prove that the capital of Massachusetts IS AND ONLY IS Boston. By showing that it is Boston is the the capital of Massachusetts proving an exclusive positive, and therefore excluding the negative(That Albany is the capital).

If you apply this to a god, there is no exclusive positive to exclude the negative (God does not exist). There is nothing that the atheist can prove the existence of that would rule out a god, or at least I have yet to see one.

Until the existence of a deity is proven, it should be assumed that no deity, in fact, exists. Belief does not = proof.

The proof that no deity exists basically is, it's never been proven that a deity does exist. The burden of proof is on the affirmative, not the negative.

Until the existence of a deity is proven, it should be assumed that no deity, in fact, exists. Belief does not = proof.

The proof that no deity exists basically is, it's never been proven that a deity does exist. The burden of proof is on the affirmative, not the negative.

Couldn't it then be that a god exists but there is a lack of sufficient evidence to defend the existence of it. A lack of evidence should not yield a disbelief in, just skepticism because not all the evidence in the universe has been examined. Until all the evidence in the universe has been examined and none of it shows the existence of a god, then a claim can be made based on the lack of evidence. Until that time, you cannot have true knowledge that there is not a god, only a skepticism based on the lack of proof. Yet the atheists says "There is no god." Claiming not skepticism of the existence of god. Claiming not sufficient proof of the existence of god. But claiming there is no god. This statement is saying "I have knowledge that there is no god." This begs the question, what is the knowledge that the atheist has? It cannot be lack of proof, because lack of proof without all the evidence only begets skepticism. It has to be some supportive proof of the non-existence of a god. As I claimed earlier, the only supportive proof for a negative claim is an opposite exclusive positive claim. Since there is no such opposite exclusive positive claim against a god. The position of a strong atheist cannot be taken.

I see nothing wrong with people believing in God, or a god. I think that religion is a part of societies, for good or bad.

But if there's no proof, there's no "disproof".

I am probably an atheist, because all signs point to all religions being created, often over time, by people who are crazy, people who make things up for various reasons, and combinations of the two. There is about as much reason to believe in the Jewish Yahweh, the Christian God, and the Muslim Allah as there is to believe the North American Aboriginal stories of the first humans being tricked out of a giant clamshell by a raven, or something, or to state that Ahura-Mazda exists and is locked in an endless battle with Angra-Mainyu.

None of which that I've ever read absolutely rule out an uncreated Creator. Nor do I think it possible to do so. You might be able to deny or at least create a lot of doubt about certain characteristics that most deists posit to their Deity (Absolute Goodness, etc.), or disprove that creation went the way a lot of deists think it did (Great Flood, Tower of Babel) but I'm skeptical you can provide proof that denies at least the possibility that an uncreated Creator got the ball rolling at some point or other. How would you even frame such a theory? That the universe spontaneously created itself? That seems to require at least as much faith as any creation story I've ever heard.

Big bang cosmology and Natural Selection sans a god work just fine by me. When we observe evolution in action for example, do we subscribe the powers of certain resistant bacteria or parasites as something caused by a supernatural being? I certainly don't. I don't see anything supernatural going on there, do you?

You're correct. I cannot prove that there isn't a Yahweh, a Christ, an Odin, or an Invisible Pink Unicorn.

I'm just about to crack open a book entitled Atheist Universe: Why God Didn't Have A Thing To Do With It. Let me brush up on some of the arguments and I'll get back to you in more detail.

By the way, Deism is different from theism. I'm assuming you mean theism here, as Deism believes in a god that set things in motion, and then retreated back into La La Land and let Natural Law do the work. I'm not going to argue against deism, mainly Christian theism.

A creation story as fantastical as one in Bible must be taken on faith, whereas the cold reality of big bang cosmology which has been proven thanks to Edwin Hubble, Einstein, and others does not, due to the evidence which supports it. A literal belief in the Bible will net you a universe that is around 10-15 thousand years old or so. Either way, such a belief is ludicrous in the face of undeniable geologic evidence.

however, atheists *claim* that God does not exist, and the non-existence of some deity or another has never been proven ...

Some do. Others say that they merely don't recognize an existing god or gods. Better yet, they lack the belief in any of them.

But if there's no proof, there's no "disproof".

I am probably an atheist

To be an atheist you must believe that there is no god. Either you base that belief on nothing, or it is based on evidence.

If it is based on nothing, the belief is not worth having.

If it is based on evidence, As discussed in pervious posts, it can't be done.

To be a strong atheist requires blind faith, otherwise your an agnostic.


By the way, Deism is different from theism. I'm assuming you mean theism here, as Deism believes in a god that set things in motion, and then retreated back into La La Land and let Natural Law do the work. I'm not going to argue against deism, mainly Christian theism.

My question stated theism, but it could be applied to both theism and diesm.

A creation story as fantastical as one in Bible must be taken on faith, whereas the cold reality of big bang cosmology which has been proven thanks to Edwin Hubble, Einstein, and others does not, due to the evidence which supports it.

A creation story as fantastical as one in Bible must be taken on faith, whereas the cold reality of big bang cosmology which has been proven thanks to Edwin Hubble, Einstein, and others does not, due to the evidence which supports it. A literal belief in the Bible will net you a universe that is around 10-15 thousand years old or so. Either way, such a belief is ludicrous in the face of undeniable geologic evidence.


This is an example of what I was talking about. The "atheist" can only argue against an argument that a theist presents. A definite stance cannot be taken on a belief based solely on the fallacies of the opposing views arguments. It must have credentials of its own, which atheism does not have.

To be a strong atheist requires blind faith, otherwise your an agnostic.


exactly

To be an atheist you must believe that there is no god. Either you base that belief on nothing, or it is based on evidence.

Incorrect. I have already made the assertion that some atheists do NOT make the statement that there is no god. Are you a fundy?




My question stated theism, but it could be applied to both theism and diesm.

I was addressing Patrick. Didn't you see the quote from Patrick?


This is an example of what I was talking about. The "atheist" can only argue against an argument that a theist presents. A definite stance cannot be taken on a belief based solely on the fallacies of the opposing views arguments. It must have credentials of its own, which atheism does not have.

This is incorrect. Atheism is a lack of belief in any and all gods. I don't see how that has anything to do with credentials. In other words, what you're saying is that unless atheism asserts a positive belief in something, it doesn't have credentials. This is an absurd notion in which to base a belief in theism on.

exactly


To be a strong theist requires blind faith, otherwise you're an atheist. Gee, that's easy. :222

Incorrect. I have already made the assertion that some atheists do NOT make the statement that there is no god. Are you a fundy?

Atheism
Noun
1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

If an atheist doesn't make the claim that there is no god, they aren't an atheist.


This is incorrect. Atheism is a lack of belief in any and all gods. I don't see how that has anything to do with credentials. In other words, what you're saying is that unless atheism asserts a positive belief in something, it doesn't have credentials. This is an absurd notion in which to base a belief in theism on.

Any sort of belief requires credentials, otherwise it is unfounded. You cannot have a definate belief about somthing based only on the dismissal of the opisite sides arguments.

To be a strong theist requires blind faith, otherwise you're an atheist. Gee, that's easy. :222

False. Becuase the theist can offer evidance to back up his claim, whatever the athiest dimisses it or not, he has postive evidance. The athiest has no postive evidance for his claim, just the denial of the theists arguments.

What evidence? I haven't seen any evidence. Oh, there are arguments for the existence of a deity, but they usually involve a lot of givens.

If something cannot be proven, the negatives win. It's only their job to disprove anything if the affirmatives actually offer up any proof. You can't find evidence that 1 doesn't exist when all there is is 0.

What evidence? I haven't seen any evidence. Oh, there are arguments for the existence of a deity, but they usually involve a lot of givens.

If something cannot be proven, the negatives win. It's only their job to disprove anything if the affirmatives actually offer up any proof. You can't find evidence that 1 doesn't exist when all there is is 0.

You can be extremely skeptical with just rejection of the oposing sides proof, but you cannot have true knowledge based, which atheists claim to have, without proof.

Atheism
Noun
1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

If an atheist doesn't make the claim that there is no god, they aren't an atheist.



http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

"What is atheism?"

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.


Any sort of belief requires credentials, otherwise it is unfounded. You cannot have a definate belief about somthing based only on the dismissal of the opisite sides arguments.

Atheism isn't belief, but a lack thereof. What about this don't you understand? Just because one lacks a belief in any and all gods doesn't mean that his philosophy is without credentials. How so? Please explain why a person lacks credentials for refusing to assert a positive belief about gods.

False. Becuase the theist can offer evidance to back up his claim, whatever the athiest dimisses it or not, he has postive evidance. The athiest has no postive evidance for his claim, just the denial of the theists arguments.

I disagree completely. What evidence does the theist assert to back his claims that a god or gods exist? Also, which god are you talking about?

Atheism isn't belief, but a lack thereof. What about this don't you understand?

If you don't belive in somthing, that means you belive in the oppisite. I don't belive in Santa = I belive Santa doesn't exist. They are eqivulent. I don't belive in a god = I belive no god exists.

Just because one lacks a belief in any and all gods doesn't mean that his philosophy is without credentials. How so? Please explain why a person lacks credentials for refusing to assert a positive belief about gods.

To hold the negative view of a argument requires more then just the dismanteled claims of the postive view. Otherwise it is just skeptism. When someone says "There is no god" that is not skeptism, that is claimed knowledge.

I disagree completely. What evidence does the theist assert to back his claims that a god or gods exist? Also, which god are you talking about?

Theists can go on and on about the evidance they have for the existance of a god. Atheists can only go on and on about why that evidance is wrong. They have no evidance of their own. I am talking about a general monotheistic god, i.e. Allah, God etc.

If you don't belive in somthing, that means you belive in the oppisite. I don't belive in Santa = I belive Santa doesn't exist. They are eqivulent. I don't belive in a god = I belive no god exists.



To hold the negative view of a argument requires more then just the dismanteled claims of the postive view. Otherwise it is just skeptism. When someone says "There is no god" that is not skeptism, that is claimed knowledge.


Do me a favor: stop asserting a strong atheist stance in reference to my views. I have provided you with an ample definition of the two basic stances of atheism, strong and weak.

As far as I'm concerned, I can't prove there isn't a deity or deities, just like your average Christian can't prove there isn't an invisible pink unicorn either.

Theists can go on and on about the evidance they have for the existance of a god. Atheists can only go on and on about why that evidance is wrong. They have no evidance of their own. I am talking about a general monotheistic god, i.e. Allah, God etc.

What evidence is that, Jason? Atheists can go on and on about how this "evidence" isn't really evidence at all, and then point to scientific discoveries and laws that militate against supernatural monotheism.

I can't help it if the theist's position in terms of evidence is weak--that's the theist's problem.

What evidence is that, Jason? Atheists can go on and on about how this "evidence" isn't really evidence at all, and then point to scientific discoveries and laws that militate against supernatural monotheism.

I can't help it if the theist's position in terms of evidence is weak--that's the theist's problem.

But that is all the atheist can do, is refute the theists evidance, and since no-one has all the evidance in the universe a definate claim cannot be made about atheistism. One must just remain skeptical.

Does the burden of proof lie on the atheist to disprove God or on the theist to prove God?

Who ever makes the assertion. Personally I think both do.
The theist doesn't 'have to' because he relies on faith (ie, belief without proof). The atheist does because he bases his beliefs on proof. The theist can always out the atheist with the simple "god is greater than us" type argument, about how we can't or won't understand him or his purpose. In the end, it doesn't matter either way.

I find it funny that the atheist must disprove someone elses personal beliefs.

I also find it funny when theists try to convert people from their personal beliefs.

Both sides are hilarious.

If God exists and under the jurisdiction of US law, he would be serving multiple life sentences right now for having prior knowledge to countless acts of murder, rape, and child molestation and failing to report them to the proper authorities before their commission.

But that is all the atheist can do, is refute the theists evidance, and since no-one has all the evidance in the universe a definate claim cannot be made about atheistism. One must just remain skeptical.

What good is evidence if it can be refuted? I guess the quality of their evidence--by your own admission--is bunk?

Atheists don't claim to have all the evidence in the universe. This is a straw man argument on your part.

I don't see what definite claims have to do with atheism. I'm not understanding your point here.

Of course atheists are extremely skeptical--as skeptical as your average xtian is about Greek and Roman gods existing.

If God exists and under the jurisdiction of US law, he would be serving multiple life sentences right now for having prior knowledge to countless acts of murder, rape, and child molestation and failing to report them to the proper authorities before their commission.






LOL! :D

Who ever makes the assertion. Personally I think both do.
The theist doesn't 'have to' because he relies on faith (ie, belief without proof). The atheist does because he bases his beliefs on proof. The theist can always out the atheist with the simple "god is greater than us" type argument, about how we can't or won't understand him or his purpose. In the end, it doesn't matter either way.

I find it funny that the atheist must disprove someone elses personal beliefs.

I also find it funny when theists try to convert people from their personal beliefs.

Both sides are hilarious.

I wish Christians were as honest as just admitting that their entire belief system rests solely on faith, rather than pretending that there is all this empirical evidence that exists for Christianity.

I also wish they'd stfu when it comes to their creationist views.

Does the burden of proof lie on the atheist to disprove God or on the theist to prove God?

These sorts of metaphysical questions are superfluous; they cannot be proven either way.

I wish Christians were as honest as just admitting that their entire belief system rests solely on faith, rather than pretending that there is all this empirical evidence that exists for Christianity.

I also wish they'd stfu when it comes to their creationist views.

There is evidance. It depends on your worldview on how it is interperted. When you start out beliving that no God exists when you start to examine the evidance, of course it isn't going to point to God.

But there isn't any physical evidence that God exists. Somebody hearing voices in their head, or seeing something, is only proof that they were off their rocker.

I'd love to believe in God, I really would, it would give my life more meaning and yadda yadda, but I can't just create belief in something.

The burden of proof lies on the idiot.

There is an esoteric and exoteric aspect of religion. The exoteric (common moron) will always have some form of superstition, or something irrational they believe in. Let us give them gods, tell them to fulfill their duty, and hand them a religion that functions essentially like Plato's "pious fraus" (holy lie). Here, belief serves a pragmatic purpose.
Esoterics (spiritual men), on the other hand, could not care one way or the other if their deities exist. For anyone with true understanding, the external world means nothing--meaning that the existence of some great being looking down on mankind is irrelivent. What does matter is the existence of divinity within the esoterics' spirit. The esoterics are concerned with transcendence, not the existence of god.

As for burden of proof that spirit exists, that transcendence is possible, we still find that none is required. Those who take scepticism to an irrational level should know nothing (and indeed do know nothing) of transcendence.

There is evidance. It depends on your worldview on how it is interperted. When you start out beliving that no God exists when you start to examine the evidance, of course it isn't going to point to God.

False. False. False.

What you're saying is that evidence is all dependant on your world view, and is thereby subjective. I'm saying that evidence for any chosen religion should have sufficient objective evidence to support it. Since Christianity does not, there is no reason to believe that a loving, caring deity exists. Since evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is ziltch, there isn't any reason to conclude that he was raised from the dead. Since objective evidence doesn't support Jesus Christ even existing, there is no reason to believe he even existed in the first place.

Let's say I wrote a little story about an Invisible Pink Unicorn existing. In that story, people claimed to have experienced many miracles that proved it's existance. Let us say they claimed that this Pink Unicorn spoke to them, performed miracles such as healing the sick and what not. Many years later, a bunch people who read this story made up their minds that it was true. They come to you and assert that an Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, and this book they have proves it, because it was inspired by IPU. Furthermore, absolutely everything in the book they claimed took place. Would you take their word for it? Yes or No?

But that is all the atheist can do, is refute the theists evidance, and since no-one has all the evidance in the universe a definate claim cannot be made about atheistism. One must just remain skeptical.


I'll ask you again, as you've been asked many, many times. What evidence?