The Atheist's Burden of Proof (Exposing Intellectual dishonesty)

[Dhabaal]

Yes you do. If all you were hanging on was personal experience than many people have that.. doesn't necessarily make them true. Your experience will be subjective and therfore out of the bounds of what can be scientifically quantified

Its a BELIEF not a KNOW we are talking about

What i am referring to when i say that you don't need arguments or evidence to have rational belief in God. In this regard belief in God is like belief in other minds or belief in the past. Belief in God is grounded in experience, or in sensus divinitatus which is a term for inborn inclination to form beliefs about God in variety of circumstances.

 

[Dhabaal]

I have to give/loan my computer to someone else. So folks should hang tight until i comeback and i will respond to rest of the responses made.

Let us continue this discussion when i get back.

PEACE and BLESSINGS!!

 

[The_Cosmos]

I have to give loan my computer someone , so people should hang tight until i comeback and i will respond to other people who are left..

PEACE and BLESSINGS!!

 

[Dhabaal]

LET'S RESUME!!!

I've establish to you where I stand but you seem to take no interest in it.

I do i even addressed your standing and others.

The fact of the matter is if anyone wants to make claims about God they have to provide evidence.

Yes, however, the overwhelming majority of theists are gnostic theists. They state that they know God exists. It's only ever a matter belief because the question of God's cannot be backed up. We know that the overwhelming majority of atheists don't make such claims.

Theists state they BELIEVE in God and or practice FAITH. What you are doing is super imposing your assumptions, it is equivalent to stating that overwhelming majority of Atheists are gnostic Atheists. Who state they know that God doesn't exists.

Its only ever a matter of belief because atheists cannot back up their lack of belief in God?

Wow, you are absolutely a dishonest person. This is a question of God's existence and we clarified that we don't assert god's existence but since that doesn't suit your narrative, you're dismissing it as 'trivial' and 'meaningless'?

You are the one who intellecuall dishonest like i highlighted in my opening posts. You cannot make claims relative to God then fall back on saying we don't we just lack belief when you are confronted

Agnostic Atheism and or Agnostic Theism is ultimately meaningless when we discuss burden of proof , because you have to make distinctions between claims and beliefs.

We are not debating your supposed Agnostic atheistic beliefs but on the claims you make relative to God.

I could easily just dismiss that by presenting what is in their supposed 'faith'. Allah claims to be the one and he demands people do Dawah. Why would Muslims do Dawah unless they knew god exists? Agnostic atheists only demonstrate the inconsistency of what they believe in. We simply ask for evidence. Also, if your God promises eternal hell for everyone who doesn't 'believe', this being clearly isn't presenting a system of just faith but a system of Gnosticism.

You attacked me earlier with your pre-assumed suggestion of being Philosophical student. But you don't have to be philosophical student to see how you essentially proposed a non-argument.

How does calling people to the way of God make it less about belief in God. Muslims make deductive arguments for Gods existence to convince people to believe in the Faith, they do not make any affirmative claims.

Secondly why do you want to switch this into a theological argument about scripture (which is outside the topic). Belief in God's existence has no correlation to gnosticism. Which is something entirely different.

 

[Dhabaal]

I am an agnostic atheist. I don't make any claims about gods existence. I can't say if he does or does not exits, but personally i will go with that he doesn't. Based on the lack of evidence.

Again you are showcasing the all to common yet trivial. ''Agnostic Atheist'' , as ive explained this is trivial and meaningless to state when it comes to the debate about the Burden of Proof. It doesn't matter what your beliefs are but the claims you make relative to God.

Not believing should be the default positions to hold, when no evidence has been provided. I could tell you there was a flying unicorn in my room right now, but you would't believe me. Why? cause i have provided no evidence... Same with god. People claim he exists but where is the proof? The only difference between my unicorn and god is that the belief in god is held by millions whereas only i believe in the unicorn. There is non, and has never been an evidence suggesting that there ever was a creator. So believing there was, with no evidence is just like believing me when i told you had a flying unicorn in my room.

I will refer to the Chamberlain's argument i gave @Jujuman all truth claims bear a burden of proof, and the burden of proof is even greater if it takes the shape of notions like the teapot or the unicorn , the parody form of it, not because of their negativity but because of the extent of their triviality.

Just because we have not being able to solve a related problem doesn't follow that we have automatically settled the problem we set out to solve in the first place. Neither can two unknowns be equated beyond the fact that they are unknowns. Attempts to remove the first cause or negate the need to know the "cause" ends up violating everything else in our aggregated knowledge base. One would think from purely a logical perspective that the starting point for any investigation should have focused on the "cause" or the "first cause", even if the exact nature of that cause necessitate waiting. After all we know next to nothing about nature of gravity but use it extensively as a cause in order to understand everything around us.

And as i told @McLovin you can have rational belief in God for several reasons, whether it be one rooted in experience, or cosmological argument or fine tuning deductive argument etc.

A delusion held by one person is a mental illness, held by few is a cult, held by many is a religion

Well can you prove this delusion for me?. Can you prove the non existence of God ? Otherwise the only one suffering from delusion is you my friend.

See what i mean when i say many Atheists are hypocrites? You state the your Agnostic Atheists as some defense mechanism or cop out to avoid the burden proof when you make claims relative to God.

If we are delusional for believing in God provide proof or shut f*ck up. No need to dish out rhetoric you can't back up.

 

[Dhabaal]

Where is the ''Evidence'' for the non-existence of God?

 

[NoName]

Following the exchange i had with the Atheists crew the other day. I noticed how some of them relied on a very cliche standing, which is common in the Atheists-Theists debates, that the burden of proof remains entirely on the Theists. @The_Cosmos argued that the theist has to provide evidence for God in order to be rational, but the atheist does not have any burden of proof because they are not making a positive claim.

So you reiterate that the position you're arguing against is that atheists don't have to provide evidence for God's existence because they are not making a positive claim. So far so good. It's good to remember this at this stage.

Everyone on this forum can testify to how most Atheists endorse that "it is true that God does not exist". And they continue to state things like "there is no evidence that God exists". If this is the case, why can't the theist reasonably argue that "there is no evidence for God's nonexistence"? The atheist fails to realize that they too must provide evidence for God's nonexistence if that is a claim that they make. It doesn't matter whether the claim they make is negative or positive , they still have to provide evidence.

Now this paragraph is a classical example of a strawman argument. First of all, you're readjusting the atheist's position here by means generalising what type of statement the typical atheist makes. This type of readjustment is not permitted in philosophy. Secondly, testimony has no bearing on falsity or the truth of the position you're arguing against. Hence the anecdotal evidence from "everyone on this forum" is irrelevant. You've to attack the argument itself.

Given this, one can see that the theist can argue that "there is no evidence for God's nonexistence", and the atheist would need to provide evidence for God's nonexistence. The atheist can not reasonably argue, "It is not rational to believe that God does exist, because there is no evidence for God's existence". The theist could reply, "It is not rational to believe that God does not exist because there is no evidence for God's nonexistence". I encourage theists and Muslims on here to reply in such a way.

Now this paragraph just runs on the strawman fuel created in the preceding paragraph. You're pretty much arguing against statements that you yourself have made at this stage, masquerading it as the position you're arguing against. But by your own admission in the first paragraph this is not what you intended to argue against. Secondly, your argument against the strawman you created is wrong. The statement "It is not rational to believe that God does exist, because there is no evidence for God's existence" is perfectly valid from a rationalist's viewpoint because rationality requires sufficient reason for any belief to be considered rational.

The counter argument doesn't work for rationality because the absence of any evidence is enough to warrant a rejection of the statement on the atheist's behalf. Don't confuse truth with rationality: the atheist would remain rational but might be wrong. This is a good distinction to remember. It also fails to acknowledge that one might only cast rationalist judgement while suspending the metaphysical judgement in which they will simply shrug off the second statement. So even if you were granted the false rationalist position you have given, you would have still achieved nothing.

Now when many atheists come to this realization that they are unable to provide evidence for God's nonexistence. They end up making false propositions such as stating that they do not have a burden of proof in their claims, or they assert that they simply "lack" a belief in God and make no claims about God. They don't assert that God doesn't exist, but they instead just say they don't have belief in God. The theist could also reverse the argument as well. The theist could reply that they simply "lack" the belief in the nonexistence of God. These arguments are relatively equivalent.

This realisation is never achieved because, for one, to put colourfully, you're a critic of your own art at this stage; and for another, because you got what the rationalist position would be wrong. So both the method and means are misguided here. Also, this further provides proof that you really don't know much about the burden of proof. It operates as a construct that protects arguments from descending into the chain of claims upon claims you're trying to create here.

Also it should be noted that most atheists who "lack" a belief in God become very hypocritical and continue to make affirmative claims relative to God. They continue to state that God does not exist, and only assert that they only lack a belief in God when it becomes convenient. When they actually have to provide a burden of proof, they shy away and state that they are not making any claims about God.

Again, you would do much better just to concentrate on the argument here instead of painting the position you're arguing against in a certain way as a way of aiding your own attack. This has been a constant theme throughout your post. You haven't even at one point attacked the argument itself. As for atheists picking this line of thinking when it suits them, I address why this is irrelevant below.

This is not a reasonable approach that demonstrates intellectual honesty. The atheist's who follow this type of discourse are simply intellectually dishonest and there is no way to reason with these types of people.

I think this demonstrates naivety for thinking it's that simple. Even if the atheists were intellectually dishonest here, why would that be an issue? If the position itself is philosophically untenable as you seem to believe, then surely the intentions of the atheist don't matter as the argument itself is refutable? The trouble is not the intentions of the atheist; it's that the position itself is as unbeatable as it gets in philosophy.

Another type of defense mechanism that atheists use when they want to avoid their burden of proof, is to assert they are agnostic atheists like @The_Cosmos and @Jujuman did here http://www.somalispot.com/threads/i-have-come-back-to-the-fold-of-islam.15407/page-13#post-342183 They don't know if God exists, but they lack the belief in God. They endorse atheism, but don't deny theism. This is trivial and meaningless. If they make any claims about God, those require evidence. It doesn't matter what their beliefs are. All that matters are the claims they make. Yes it is true that an agnostic atheist who makes no claims do not require a burden of proof.

But how often have you seen one like that? i have yet to encounter any atheists that doesn't make claims nor hold any positive or negative beliefs about God.

Almost all atheist philosophers of the last century or so have taken that position when it comes to questions of existence. The fact that you haven't encountered any shows how limited your knowledge of philosophy is. The classical arguments on God's existence had a massive shift since the dawn of analytic philosophy. Now the same philosophers who have taken this approach might make positive claims when it comes to say the philosophy of morality. This is not intellectually dishonest because the question is then often concerning a particular God, where there is a basis to make such judgement. But as I've remarked on above, the intentions are irrelevant anyway.

Atheists simply use these defense mechanisms to avoid their burden of proof, likely because they do not have any evidence to substantiate God's nonexistence. They lack tangible evidence that supports holding the nonexistence of God. They always heavily rely on cop outs, because they are cowards.

Now you are just throwing insults. It appears you have frustrated yourself with your own argument. Regarding that atheists lack evidence to substantiate God's nonexistence, they don't have to. So your argument is moot. The simple lack of evidence is sufficient for them to not have a belief in God, or to simply suspend judgement.

Imagine if scientists relied on defense mechanisms that Atheists use and frequently used these types of cop-outs. Imagine if scientists would propose their negative statements, conclusions and theories do not need supporting evidence because supposedly the claims they make are negative or that they simply ''lack'' belief in the opposite conclusion and therefore don't need to provide evidence to support them. There is an actual reason behind why scientific literature requires the use of supporting evidence to substantiate negative claims.

Scientists deal with falsifiable claims. Metaphysical claims like the one in concern here are inherently unfalsifiable. Therefore what you have written is a false equivalence. So a simple syllogism destroys your whole paragraph. Furthermore, you demonstrate ignorance as to how science works. Even if the concerned claim was falsifiable, scientist's approach wouldn't be to collect evidence trying to prove it. This is called confirmation bias. In fact, a scientist would do the opposite of what you seem to think he/she would do.

Finally, I'd like to remark on that of all the possible ways to attack atheism, you have chosen the hardest one. I've remarked earlier in this post that the position you're arguing against is very hard to beat. Ask entire theories that stood for thousands of years whose grave have been dug by the skeptics of the analytic tradition. Have you ever heard of the tripartite theory of knowledge? I would advise you to take a course in modern epistemology just to see what you're up against. The power of skepticism borders on being as unbeatable as one could get in philosophy. People whose intelligence far surpasses yours have tried and acknowledged it. It's laughably naive that you think you can argue against this.

 

[The_Cosmos]

LET'S RESUME!!!



I do i even addressed your standing and others.

The fact of the matter is if anyone wants to make claims about God they have to provide evidence.



Theists state they BELIEVE in God and or practice FAITH. What you are doing is super imposing your assumptions, it is equivalent to stating that overwhelming majority of Atheists are gnostic Atheists. Who state they know that God doesn't exists.

Its only ever a matter of belief because atheists cannot back up their lack of belief in God?



You are the one who intellecuall dishonest like i highlighted in my opening posts. You cannot make claims relative to God then fall back on saying we don't we just lack belief when you are confronted

Agnostic Atheism and or Agnostic Theism is ultimately meaningless when we discuss burden of proof , because you have to make distinctions between claims and beliefs.

We are not debating your supposed Agnostic atheistic beliefs but on the claims you make relative to God.




You attacked me earlier with your pre-assumed suggestion of being Philosophical student. But you don't have to be philosophical student to see how you essentially proposed a non-argument.

How does calling people to the way of God make it less about belief in God. Muslims make deductive arguments for Gods existence to convince people to believe in the Faith, they do not make any affirmative claims.

Secondly why do you want to switch this into a theological argument about scripture (which is outside the topic). Belief in God's existence has no correlation to gnosticism. Which is something entirely different.

Ok, now that we have established that the burden of evidence lies on those that make the claim, what are you arguing now? My entire point was that agnostic atheists don't have to back up their position as they aren't making any claim about the existence or the nonexistence of god. Of course, you changed your stance and accused me and atheists (without evidence, how ironic) of switching positions.

What is the evidence for God?

 

[Dhabaal]

So you reiterate that the position you're arguing against is that atheists don't have to provide evidence for God's existence because they are not making a positive claim. So far so good. It's good to remember this at this stage.

No, what i am arguing against is that the Atheists shifting the burden of proof onto the Thiests . Arguing that their claim is negative, and negative claims require no justification. This is an extremely inaccurate position. Even within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, negative claims are studied, analyzed and evaluated. Several scientific studies reach negative conclusions and they justify such using evidence.

Many scientific papers are published solely to provide evidence for a negative conclusion that is against previously held conclusions and theories. If an atheist argues that negative claims require no justification, then they are in disagreement with much of the peer-reviewed academic literature who all require evidence to substantiate negative conclusions.

Secondly exposing the fact that some Atheists use defense mechanisms like Agnostic Atheism , which some fall back on when confronted after they make claims relative to God which they can't prove.

Now this paragraph is a classical example of a strawman argument. First of all, you're readjusting the atheist's position here by means generalising what type of statement the typical atheist makes. This type of readjustment is not permitted in philosophy. Secondly, testimony has no bearing on falsity or the truth of the position you're arguing against. Hence the anecdotal evidence from "everyone on this forum" is irrelevant. You've to attack the argument itself.

First of all that is not a straw man argument because i am not misrepresenting someones argument either. I am not generalizing by saying all atheists or using anecdotes as my premise to my argument as i put ''If'' as in case.
Surely it would be incorrect ''IF" you were to claim that no atheists makes claims against God.

Secondly. You didn't deal with the point i was making. That if Atheists make a claim against God they have to provide evidence and if an Atheist for examples states ''There is no proof of evidence against God'' to this a Theist can just state ''There is no evidence for the non-existence of God''.

Now this paragraph just runs on the strawman fuel created in the preceding paragraph. You're pretty much arguing against statements that you yourself have made at this stage, masquerading it as the position you're arguing against. But by your own admission in the first paragraph this is not what you intended to argue against. The statement "It is not rational to believe that God does exist, because there is no evidence for God's existence" is perfectly valid from a rationalist's viewpoint because rationality requires sufficient reason for any belief to be considered rational.

I don't think you know what a Strawman means since you are using it very incorrectly because you affirmed what i was saying but just worded it differently to make it appear as if the Atheist argument is more plausible. What i essentially did was flip the argument

Kind like stating for example ''It is not rational to believe that God does not exist , because there is no evidence for the non-existence of God'' is perfectly valid from a rationalist viewpoint because rationality requires sufficient reason for any belief to be considered.

Do you see how all you are doing is shifting the burden of proof and committing fallacies.

The reason why i reverse the argument against the atheist is not to frustrate them or discourage intellectual debate, but to show the atheist the deficiencies in their reasoning skills.

The counter argument doesn't work for rationality because the absence of any evidence is enough to warrant a rejection of the statement on the atheist's behalf. Don't confuse truth with rationality: the atheist would remain rational but might be wrong. This is a good distinction to remember. It also fails to acknowledge that one might only cast rationalist judgement while suspending the metaphysical judgement in which they will simply shrug off the second statement. So even if you were granted the false rationalist position you have given, you would have still achieved nothing.

But that wouldn't make you Atheist but Agnostic. Anyways you can just reverse the argument and ''Becaus there is absence of any evidence to support the belief that god doesn't exist'' You see it doesn't warrant any dismissal or rejection because that would violate the fact that ''We don't know''.

Like i stated before when i replied to @Jujuman and @You using Chamberlains argument.

''Just because we have not being able to solve a related problem doesn't follow that we have automatically settled the problem we set out to solve in the first place. Neither can two unknowns be equated beyond the fact that they are unknowns. Attempts to remove the first cause or negate the need to know the "cause" ends up violating everything else in our aggregated knowledge base. One would think from purely a logical perspective that the starting point for any investigation should have focused on the "cause" or the "first cause", even if the exact nature of that cause necessitate waiting. After all we know next to nothing about nature of gravity but use it extensively as a cause in order to understand everything around us.''

Overusing the word ''Rationality'' will not make anything you say sound more rational or logical. What kind of psuedo-intellectual mumbo jumbo is this. Less rhetoric and more coherent arguments aimed at the substance of the opponents argument.

This realisation is never achieved because, for one, to put colourfully, you're a critic of your own art at this stage; and for another, because you got what the rationalist position would be wrong. So both the method and means are misguided here. Also, this further provides proof that you really don't know much about the burden of proof. It operates as a construct that protects arguments from descending into the chain of claims upon claims you're trying to create here.

Rationalist, Rationalist, Rationalist bla bla bla. Repeating Rationalist/Rationality over and over or using ad hominems is not an argument nor is it a valid rebuttal.

Walahi You are are a psuedo intellectual you don't make any argument or address my points. You just repeatedly emphasize that your standing is correct and that somehow makes it automatically correct by default

Again, you would do much better just to concentrate on the argument here instead of painting the position you're arguing against in a certain way as a way of aiding your own attack. This has been a constant theme throughout your post. You haven't even at one point attacked the argument itself. As for atheists picking this line of thinking when it suits them, I address why this is irrelevant below.

Its every bit valid painting the position i am arguing against. The point of this thread was to expose the fact that creating defense mechanisms and using cop outs are intellectually dishonest and arguing against the Atheists burden of proof..

The point i am making is straight forward, if you actually care to read it instead of concocting ways to obfuscate it.

I think this demonstrates naivety for thinking it's that simple. Even if the atheists were intellectually dishonest here, why would that be an issue? If the position itself is philosophically untenable as you seem to believe, then surely the intentions of the atheist don't matter as the argument itself is refutable? The trouble is not the intentions of the atheist; it's that the position itself is as unbeatable as it gets in philosophy.

Nativity is your condescending remarks that neither attacks my points or my arguments intellectual manner. Because creating intellectual dishonest positions are invalid and exposing them is every bit as reasonable if we are going to have an plausible intellectual discourse.

Creating deceptive tactics by intentionally committing fallacies is unwarranted.

I will paraphrase myself in the opening statement.

The atheist's who follow this type of discourse are simply intellectually dishonest and there is no way to reason with these types of people.

Almost all atheist philosophers of the last century or so have taken that position when it comes to questions of existence. The fact that you haven't encountered any shows how limited your knowledge of philosophy is. The classical arguments on God's existence had a massive shift since the dawn of analytic philosophy. Now the same philosophers who have taken this approach might make positive claims when it comes to say the philosophy of morality. This is not intellectually dishonest because the question is then often concerning a particular God, where there is a basis to make such judgement. But as I've remarked on above, the intentions are irrelevant anyway.

Almost all people in the new Atheists camp of this century have taken intellectual dishonest positions when it comes to the questions of existence. Thats why i have never encountered one and says more about the so called Atheist philosophers camp then it does me.

Firstly some Atheists make claims relative to God then , falling back on their defense mechanism stating they are Agnostic Aheists, when that is trivial and meaningless. The only thing that matters is the claims you make and not your belief. If you make a negative claim against God you have to provide evidence.

Or frequently shifting the Burden of proof by postulating that the burden of proof like you just did lies solely on Theists and not the Atheists. Because the fallacious notion ''negative claims'' don't need proof which just utter rubbish and any lay-man philosopher can pick that apart in seconds.

Now you are just throwing insults. It appears you have frustrated yourself with your own argument. Regarding that atheists lack evidence to substantiate God's nonexistence, they don't have to. So your argument is moot. The simple lack of evidence is sufficient for them to not have a belief in God, or to simply suspend judgement.

I made an accusation not an insult. Its more likely you are frustrated considering the fact that you took offense to that. Atheists have to provide evidence for the non-existence of God. Because all truth claims bear a burden of proof.

'Just because we have not being able to solve a related problem doesn't follow that we have automatically settled the problem we set out to solve in the first place. Neither can two unknowns be equated beyond the fact that they are unknowns. Attempts to remove the first cause or negate the need to know the "cause" ends up violating everything else in our aggregated knowledge base.

Lastly my argument isn't moot i could just reverse what you are saying. The simple lack of evidence is sufficient in having a belief in God or to simply suspend Judgement.

At end of the day all you are doing is shifting the burden of proof.

Scientists deal with falsifiable claims. Metaphysical claims like the one in concern here are inherently unfalsifiable. Therefore what you have written is a false equivalence. So a simple syllogism destroys your whole paragraph. Furthermore, you demonstrate ignorance as to how science works. Even if the concerned claim was falsifiable, scientist's approach wouldn't be to collect evidence trying to prove it. This is called confirmation bias. In fact, a scientist would do the opposite of what you seem to think he/she would do.

Yes it is unfalsifiable metaphysical question but how does that make disbelief or lack of belief in God more scientific then Lack of belief in non-existence or belief in God.

Its not a false equivalence there is nothing scientific about Atheism.

Furthermore something being unfalsifiable just means its outside of science, it doesn't mean its disproof or evidence of anything.

Finally, I'd like to remark on that of all the possible ways to attack atheism, you have chosen the hardest one. I've remarked earlier in this post that the position you're arguing against is very hard to beat. Ask entire theories that stood for thousands of years whose grave have been dug by the skeptics of the analytic tradition. Have you ever heard of the tripartite theory of knowledge? I would advise you to take a course in modern epistemology just to see what you're up against. The power of skepticism borders on being as unbeatable as one could get in philosophy. People whose intelligence far surpasses yours have tried and acknowledged it. It's laughably naive that you think you can argue against this.

It is a complete straw-man to think it was a attack on Atheism. If you still don't understand let me just summarize my points in one sentence.

Atheists and Theists have to provide evidence for the non-existence of God or existence of God , their beliefs don't matter only the claims they make.
Lastly what the hell are you rambling on about, what the hell does these ''mysterious entire theories'' which you don't disclose have to do with my arguments or topic of ''Burden of Proof''. Whether you are a Skeptic or not you still have to provide evidence if you are going to make a claim about the non-existence of God.

 

[Dhabaal]

Ok, now that we have established that the burden of evidence lies on those that make the claim, what are you arguing now? My entire point was that agnostic atheists don't have to back up their position as they aren't making any claim about the existence or the nonexistence of god. Of course, you changed your stance and accused me and atheists (without evidence, how ironic) of switching positions.

No my argument against you guys is the fact that you are trying to shift the burden of proof squarely on the Theists. You and others did this.

When in reality both sides share the same burden and both sides cannot make relative claims about the non-existence or the existence of God.

Now you cannot ask people for evidence of God without providing evidence for the non-existence of God.

What is the evidence for God?

Where is the evidence for non-existence of God?

 

[Dhabaal]

The reason why i reverse the argument against the atheist is not to frustrate them or discourage intellectual debate, but to show the atheist the deficiencies in their reasoning skills.

 

[Ferrari]

I'll make it simple for you, Atheists cannot provide evidence for the non-existence of God, because frankly there isn't any tangible evidence. Most "Atheists" identify with being Agnostic Atheists for reasons that are rational. As soon as irrefutable evidence which is non falsifiable emerges, you can bet that most would change their beliefs regarding the existence of God.

You can't be serious. Atheists do not just challenge God's existence by merely asking for proof that he does. They believe God does not exist which is a claim and the moment you make a claim you NEED to prove it. When you say God doesn't exist what is making say and believe that? I'd hope you have your reasons and that is the proof that theists want.

@Dhabaal unless you have some time to spare, you should not waste your time on these people. Most of them have no idea why they are atheist,hence why they use the whole burden of proof is on the believer.

 

[Dhabaal]

@metamorphosis They are atheists because they don't want God to exist. Not because they have evidence against God.

Einstein Said it best:

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

― Albert Einstein


The Atheists only rely on cop outs like the ones displayed in this thread because they think it will give them more autonomy when in fact they become bitter grudgling slaves.

 

[The_Cosmos]

No my argument against you guys is the fact that you are trying to shift the burden of proof squarely on the Theists. You and others did this.

When in reality both sides share the same burden and both sides cannot make relative claims about the non-existence or the existence of God.

Now you cannot ask people for evidence of God without providing evidence for the non-existence of God.



Where is the evidence for non-existence of God?

Wow, you're clearly just arguing for arguments sake now. How on earth could you require me to provide evidence for the nonexistence of god when I have not made a claim that he doesn't exist? I am not the one who is shifting the burden of proof, you are. You're clearly derailing from a well established scientific and philosophical standing which states that the he who makes a claim must provide proof for that claim. There is no obligation on the skeptic to disprove that claim. You're honestly showcasing how little you know of philosophy and basic logic here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Russell's teapot is by far the best analogy to illustrate the fallacy in your claim. I don't think you've read it.

Where is the evidence for non-existence of God?

How cynical and fallacious of you to switch the question. What burden is there on me to provide any evidence? I haven't made that claim. It's just a vain attempt to switch the burden of evidence so that it can stand on equal footing. The philosophical position is that the proponent must back up their claim and skeptic is in no obligation to disprove anything.

 

[The_Cosmos]

The reason why i reverse the argument against the atheist is not to frustrate them or discourage intellectual debate, but to show the atheist the deficiencies in their reasoning skills.

The deficiency lies in your reasoning. You're shifting from the philosophically established position of the burden of proof and creating a false narrative that both theists and atheists must provide evidence. That not only goes against the philosophical standing but also goes against reason. It's like demanding the accused of a crime to provide evidence of their innocence.

 

[The_Cosmos]

You can't be serious. Atheists do not just challenge God's existence by merely asking for proof that he does. They believe God does not exist which is a claim and the moment you make a claim you NEED to prove it. When you say God doesn't exist what is making say and believe that? I'd hope you have your reasons and that is the proof that theists want.

@Dhabaal unless you have some time to spare, you should not waste your time on these people. Most of them have no idea why they are atheist,hence why they use the whole burden of proof is on the believer.

That's straw man, we have already established that we lack belief in God. We don't actively claim that God doesn't exist. When I ask you to provide proof for your God, the burden of evidence is not on me but on you. You made the claim god DOES exist and therefore you must back it up. The accuser must back up their claims in court. This is exactly the same.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

Stick to believing that a man flew to heaven on a flying horse, don't question us in what you clearly lack knowledge in.

 

[Dhabaal]

Wow, you're clearly just arguing for arguments sake now. How on earth could you require me to provide evidence for the nonexistence of god when I have not made a claim that he doesn't exist? I am not the one who is shifting the burden of proof, you are. You're clearly derailing from a well established scientific and philosophical standing which states that the he who makes a claim must provide proof for that claim. There is no obligation on the skeptic to disprove that claim. You're honestly showcasing how little you know of philosophy and basic logic here.

Then why are you asking the question ''Do you have evidence''? and i will just reverse the argument ask ''Do you have evidence''?

Do you see how redundant is to ask such a question? especially when you prove nor disprove anything. Its a fault reasoning.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Russell's teapot is by far the best analogy to illustrate the fallacy in your claim. I don't think you've read it.

Russels tea-pot is a fallacy in it of itself. it has been picked apart by several philosophers like Chamberlain, Alvin Plantinga, Garvey and Reitan among others.

For example Chamberlain's argument is pretty straightforward, all truth claims bear a burden of proof, and the burden of proof is even greater if it takes the shape of notions like the teapot or the spaghetti monster, the parody form of it, not because of their negativity but because of the extent of their triviality.

How cynical and fallacious of you to switch the question. What burden is there on me to provide any evidence? I haven't made that claim. It's just a vain attempt to switch the burden of evidence so that it can stand on equal footing. The philosophical position is that the proponent must back up their claim and skeptic is in no obligation to disprove anything.

Its a redundant question to ask because all you do is shift the burden of proof. Which is a fallacy Because all truth claims bear a burden of proof.

'Just because we have not being able to solve a related problem doesn't follow that we have automatically settled the problem we set out to solve in the first place. Neither can two unknowns be equated beyond the fact that they are unknowns. Attempts to remove the first cause or negate the need to know the "cause" ends up violating everything else in our aggregated knowledge base.

 

[Dhabaal]

The deficiency lies in your reasoning. You're shifting from the philosophically established position of the burden of proof and creating a false narrative that both theists and atheists must provide evidence. That not only goes against the philosophical standing but also goes against reason. It's like demanding the accused of a crime to provide evidence of their innocence.

Its not a central philosophically held position, it has been invalidated by several big time philosophers i mentioned some of them like Chamberlain,Alvin Plantinga,Garvey, Reitan many many others.

All truth claims bear a burden of proof it doesn't matter whether something is negative or positive. If Atheists want to make a claim or ask for evidence, then they need to provide evidence themselves.

 

[Dhabaal]

That's straw man, we have already established that we lack belief in God. We don't actively claim that God doesn't exist. When I ask you to provide proof for your God, the burden of evidence is not on me but on you. You made the claim god DOES exist and therefore you must back it up. The accuser must back up their claims in court. This is exactly the same.

No all you guys do is shift the burden of proof. By repeatedly asking people for evidence. When people can just reverse this and ask you for evidence.
Where is the evidence for the non-existence of God?:siilaanyolaugh:

Stick to believing that a man flew to heaven on a flying horse, don't question us in what you clearly lack knowledge in.

This is just empty rhetoric.

This doesn't prove or disprove of the existence of God.

 

[The_Cosmos]

I

Then why are you asking the question ''Do you have evidence''? and i will just reverse the argument ask ''Do you have evidence''?

Do you see how redundant is to ask such a question? especially when you prove nor disprove anything. Its a fault reasoning.



Russels tea-pot is a fallacy in it of itself. it has been picked apart by several philosophers like Chamberlain, Alvin Plantinga, Garvey and Reitan among others.

For example Chamberlain's argument is pretty straightforward, all truth claims bear a burden of proof, and the burden of proof is even greater if it takes the shape of notions like the teapot or the spaghetti monster, the parody form of it, not because of their negativity but because of the extent of their triviality.


Its a redundant question to ask because all you do is shift the burden of proof. Which is a fallacy Because all truth claims bear a burden of proof.

'Just because we have not being able to solve a related problem doesn't follow that we have automatically settled the problem we set out to solve in the first place. Neither can two unknowns be equated beyond the fact that they are unknowns. Attempts to remove the first cause or negate the need to know the "cause" ends up violating everything else in our aggregated knowledge base.

That doesn't even make sense? Why would I need to provide evidence against the existence of God when I have not made a proposition in favour of it? I ask the theist for evidence because they support the proposition that god exists. It's logically absurd to demand evidence to disprove something with which whom you have shown no inclination or support. For example, if someone came to you and said "whenever People aren't around I could fly," would you demand evidence for such a claim or not?

Its not a central philosophically held position, it has been invalidated by several big time philosophers i mentioned some of them like Chamberlain,Alvin Plantinga,Garvey, Reitan many many others.

All truth is claims bear a burden of proof it doesn't matter whether something is negative or positive. If Atheists want to make a claim or ask for evidence, then they need to provide evidence themselves.

It hasn't been invalidated! A few philosophers disagree which is the case for everything but it's still a well held position. The reason why it's so strong is because it follow basic judicial and scientific standards. He who makes a claim must provide evidence. This is the case on science and the judicial system and I see no reason why this can't also stand here.