You are right. It would be a totally pointless exercise.
Burden of proof
- Thread starter Killian_1_4
- Start date
You are right. It would be a totally pointless exercise.
Killian_1_4
Registered Senior Member
Naming the evils done by both atheists and theists has no bearing on the existence of God or an afterlife. These are ad hominem attacks not welcome here(though the "theist" list is much longer 
. Also, I made this post like six months ago.
. Also, I made this post like six months ago.Naming the evils done by both atheists and theists has no bearing on the existence of God or an afterlife. These are ad hominem attacks not welcome here(though the "theist" list is much longer
Try again in another six months. I wish you luck.
i would say that experience is the only way to true knowledge, but also that deductions could be proposed based upon evidence, and that deductions can be incorrect regardless of evidence, because they're based on interpretation.
i wonder though, why is this important to you? what difference does it make to you what happens when you die? why don't you wait until the experience and see for yourself? then you'll know for sure because you'll have the proof.
The real question is not who has the burden, but who gets to set the standards of proof.
Those who have no belief in god, or even a belief in no-god, often seem to think the proof has to be scientific in nature.
I do not see how this is a given.
The god believer can offer much evidence, even proof, but it is not acceptable to the unbeliever.
Who has the burden is immaterial when the methods of acceptable proof differ.
To convince or change the mind of an individual's belief, one is obligated to use the opponent's standards.
To merely show ones own claims have merit, they get to use their own standards. The opponent will, expectedly, remain unconvinced.
Those who have no belief in god, or even a belief in no-god, often seem to think the proof has to be scientific in nature.
I do not see how this is a given.
The god believer can offer much evidence, even proof, but it is not acceptable to the unbeliever.
Who has the burden is immaterial when the methods of acceptable proof differ.
To convince or change the mind of an individual's belief, one is obligated to use the opponent's standards.
To merely show ones own claims have merit, they get to use their own standards. The opponent will, expectedly, remain unconvinced.
The evidence the believer has must be the sort that can withstand scrutiny, verification, testing, replication, or some other quality that provides demonstration of existence in reality.
That's why the "proof" has to be scientific in nature, since no other method has ever been shown to demonstrate existence in reality. All other "ways of knowing" are nonsense.
That's why the "proof" has to be scientific in nature, since no other method has ever been shown to demonstrate existence in reality. All other "ways of knowing" are nonsense.
So, to you, God MUST be a physical being, in order for such scrutiny and testing to take place. No one believes in a physical person/being known as God (not through scriptures anyways), so your request falls by the weyside.
The person/being known as God in every scripture is described as the source of everything, so how do you think it could be possible to conclude existence using science (the source of which is....)
Jan.
Then the question becomes how you rationally claim to know he exists? - given that everything we currently know to exist is physical, whether it be as a solid object or as images within our brain caused by some neurological process etc.
Sarkus,
The question is only relevant to the claimant.
And we 'know' this only in relation to others who have the same or similar knowledge, and even then we don't really know that. I know that orange juice is nice, my neighbour knows that it is foul, who is right?
The correct position (IMO) of a theist is that he/she believes God exists, and knows why he/she believes, and the opposite can be defined as atheist.
Jan.
The question is only relevant to the claimant.
And we 'know' this only in relation to others who have the same or similar knowledge, and even then we don't really know that. I know that orange juice is nice, my neighbour knows that it is foul, who is right?
The correct position (IMO) of a theist is that he/she believes God exists, and knows why he/she believes, and the opposite can be defined as atheist.
Jan.
Why? There might very well be some sentient being living clear across the universe with the unlikely name of Santa Claus. Hell, i know severla Santa Clauses that are living in the US.
You have to be more careful how you put things.
No - it is relevant to those wishing to understand the position of the claimant. To accept the claimant on his word is to commit a logical fallacy.
Both are right as like/dislike is purely subjective.
Existence is not.
The correct position (IMO) of a theist is that they claim God exists - but can not provide the evidence to support this claim. Theists know why they believe, but "knowing why they think something exists" is not evidence for that thing existing.
I know why I thought England would beat Wales in the 6-nations the other week. But they didn't.
Sarkus,
If the claimant claims he/she knows that God exists, then your question is relevant, otherwise, in the case of theism it has no bearing.
Also, to claim to know that God exists, doesn't mean one believes in God.
All conclusions are subjective, some more than others.
To my knowledge there is not one definition of theism which asserts a claim to know that God exists. Theism is a position of belief in God.
I don't recall saying it was, and in the same breath knowing why one doesn't believe is not evidence for that thing not existing.
Hardly the same thing.
Jan.
If the claimant claims he/she knows that God exists, then your question is relevant, otherwise, in the case of theism it has no bearing.
Also, to claim to know that God exists, doesn't mean one believes in God.
All conclusions are subjective, some more than others.
To my knowledge there is not one definition of theism which asserts a claim to know that God exists. Theism is a position of belief in God.
I don't recall saying it was, and in the same breath knowing why one doesn't believe is not evidence for that thing not existing.
Hardly the same thing.
Jan.
Some Deists claim to know there is a god.
Whether Deism is form of Theism, I will let ou decide.
Deists are not an organized group so certainly there are a great variety of beliefs within the group.
Some would claim to use reason to know there is a god.
Some would use personnel experience as a means to know there is a god.
Some would intuit a god.
Many (most) Deists reject the supernatural. God the creator is just part of the system, a primal cause.
Deists are all products of the Enlightenment (historically), and have a fondness for reason.
Thomas Jefferson was a Deist based on his beliefs, although he made no public pronouncements that he was Deist.
He rejected all supernatural events, did not believe Jesus ever meant to declare himself a god, that all religions are of equal value, and he had little good to say for the clergy of most churches. He favored the Unitarians as an organized religion.
To my knowledge he never made a rational argument for the existence of god, he just assumed, whether a priori or intuitively.
I see some who favor the scientific type of evidence. This is one viewpoint, but a choice among many. I believe god is knowable by scientific methods, although I doubt that we are close to having that skill in the near future. I expect science to break a lot of new ground in the next few hundred years.
Scientifically based knowledge has the advantage of being easy to transfer, from one person to another.
Other types of knowing are more personal, not as easily transferred.
I would say that knowledge is based on what actually exists. Others would insist that we add, “yes, but it must not only exist, we must have convincing scientific evidence that it exists.”
This position is based on the assumption that science today is mature, and has all of the tools and knowledge it needs to detect or make contact with god. This is a very large assumption.
I would say a more reasonable assumption is that science is in its infancy, and there will be many new discoveries in the coming centuries, discoveries that are not even speculations at this point. This is certainly not an argument for god, merely an argument for agnosticism.
Using the standards of science for convincing evidence, there is no convincing evidence that there is no god. Most atheists would say there is no evidence for god, so they have no belief in god. This is an easy position to defend.
Less easy to defend is the position that science demonstrates that there is no god. I have never seen this position successfully defended, from a scientific, rational or empirical position.
If one argues from a scientific position, I think it is easy to argue against any one particular religion, except Deism. Actually, calling Deism a religion is using the term freely. Under stricter definitions, Deism does not meet key elements of a religion.
Buddhism is also not a religion under traditional usage of the word. Many Buddhists are atheists, so unless we consider atheism a religion, Buddhism is not a religion.
Some would say if it cannot be substantiated by scientific evidence, there is no way to know if it is true.
Certainly this is a rational approach, and appeals to many.
Others would say they can know by personal experience. That which we experience, is certainly real to ourselves. Convincing others of what we experienced is a different matter. Others can always deny the authenticity of our experiences. This does not make it any less real, only lacking evidence that convinces some others.
Some people believe if they cannot convince like-minded people something is truthful, then it must be mistaken.
They are not comfortable accepting as true, something which does not have convincing evidence, according to their belief system. This group would include the vast majority of persons, including myself.
If we experience Truth, this is not changed by the beliefs of others. The Truth, or actual existence, of something is not dependent on the belief of individuals.
The others can of course, claim it is not Truth, rather some subjective perception, perceived to be Truthful, when it is not. Their evidence will be that it cannot be substantiated by scientific means. From their position, they are of course correct. For them, something is not true, unless it can be shown to be true, using scientific verification.
This can lead to not believing true things, not due to reality, not because they are false, but due to the limited available knowledge or verification process.
So theists generally don't claim to know God exists? Are you therefore claiming most theists to be Agnostic Theists?
If by "believe in" you mean "accept the word of" etc then sure - I can believe that the King of Denmark exists, but I don't "believe in" him.
But the question here is that theists "believe God to exist", not whether they merely "believe in" God.
Conclusions are, objective truth is not.
How can one "believe in" God without claiming "belief in the existence" of God. It's like saying that you believe in the television programme Eastenders, but you're not claiming that television exists.
One implies the other.
I apologis if the implication I read in your statement was not intended.
Of course it isn't - and I have not said it is. I am an atheist, and like many others I do not believe God to either exist or not-exist.
Is this the extent of your rebuttal of the analogy? You'll have to do better.
Sarkus
(and others)
Can you point out disagreement with any of these statements below?
I consider them to be characteristics of belief, and am looking for additions or corrections.
I realize there are many words which might have several meanings, so just apply your own meanings as you see fit.
Belief:
Something the mind accepts as true.
It may exist only in the mind.
It may be representative of reality.
It may be consistent with existence, actual things or events.
If enough other people share the same belief, it might be considered, by the group, to be knowledge.
If the belief has a lot of scientific supporting evidence, it might be considered by some groups, to be knowledge.
If the belief has enough supporting evidence, as accepted by a particular group, that group will consider it to be knowledge.
The difference between belief and knowledge, is the amount of acceptable supporting evidence that can be provided
(and others)
Can you point out disagreement with any of these statements below?
I consider them to be characteristics of belief, and am looking for additions or corrections.
I realize there are many words which might have several meanings, so just apply your own meanings as you see fit.
Belief:
Something the mind accepts as true.
It may exist only in the mind.
It may be representative of reality.
It may be consistent with existence, actual things or events.
If enough other people share the same belief, it might be considered, by the group, to be knowledge.
If the belief has a lot of scientific supporting evidence, it might be considered by some groups, to be knowledge.
If the belief has enough supporting evidence, as accepted by a particular group, that group will consider it to be knowledge.
The difference between belief and knowledge, is the amount of acceptable supporting evidence that can be provided
Not all these can be characteristic of the same understanding of "belief" or "knowledge".
If it exists only in the mind, there is no scientific supporting evidence, etc.
Furthermore - why is "knowledge" only a group based attribute?
If an individual doesn't have knowledge but has a belief, but a group of people with the same lack of knowledge (on an individual level) but the same belief come together - why does it suddenly become "knowledge"?
And if they are not claiming to know, then their statement of "belief" must be one of probability based on the evidence.
And, as far as I am aware, there is no rationally-attributal evidence for God - hence "blind faith".
Which is why we ask the question: please provide the evidence.
Almost. Knowledge is more commonly understood to be a "justified true belief" (although even this has its critics - such as Gettier) - i.e. a belief that is not only true but able to be justified. The level of acceptable supporting evidence certainly helps with this, but it is not the only thing.
My contention is that most religious adherents don't merely have a belief that God exists, but claim a knowledge of God - sufficient for them to know that God exists.
i.e. most theists will not be agnostic on the matter.
And those that claim knowledge - my challenge to them is show how their belief is (a) true, and (b) justified - to thus qualify as knowledge. And the easiest way to do this is to put forward the evidence so that we may justify the belief.
It also begs the question of what one means as "true".
But that's another matter.
I don't think you can actually prove it wrong. The only way to prove that there is an afterlife, is to prove Islam, Christianity, or another religion that believes in them.