Proof of the Existence of God

[BayBuck]

The burden of proof lies on you to substantiate the existence of God, not for others to disprove God's existence.

No, that burden doesn't lie on anyone, for the same reason that it is indeed a meaningful statement to claim that "God works in mysterious ways" -- or, perhaps, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." You are rigging the game by demanding a scientific answer to a theological question, and your definition of "unknowable" seems too limited by purely-scientific expectations. Clearly Christians feel they can "know" much about our ineffable God through the human example he provided in Christ as well as the stories and parables and letters of the Bible.

 

[Brewtus]

No, not really. The burden of proof does not fall on him to substantiate his own beliefs, any more than it falls on you to prove them false. The problem with Russell's analogy is that while to you God may be a thing, like a teapot. Belief is not.

Assuming that JBaney claims his beliefs are true, then yes - the burden of proof does fall on him to substantiate those beliefs/claims. Such as if I believed the world was flat, the burden of proof would be on me to substantiate that belief if I wanted to be taken seriously.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

Remember Tibor?

Well, shit. Sometimes when you win, you really lose.

 

[BayBuck]

Assuming that JBaney claims his beliefs are true, then yes - the burden of proof does fall on him to substantiate those beliefs/claims. Such as if I believed the world was flat, the burden of proof would be on me to substantiate that belief if I wanted to be taken seriously.

Taken seriously where? Message boards, water coolers, academic conferences, business meetings, congressional hearings, presidential addresses? Where exactly is belief in a Christian God going to get you laughed out of the room? I think we live in a world, and in a nation, where people can be taken quite seriously even when stating their firm belief in something that they cannot prove.

 

[Brewtus]

No, that burden doesn't lie on anyone, for the same reason that it is indeed a meaningful statement to claim that "God works in mysterious ways" -- or, perhaps, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." You are rigging the game by demanding a scientific answer to a theological question, and your definition of "unknowable" seems too limited by purely-scientific expectations. Clearly Christians feel they can "know" much about our ineffable God through the human example he provided in Christ as well as the stories and parables and letters of the Bible.

Okay, then what method do you use to test claims about God and know what is true and what is not true? Let's assume that I was a completely impartial person (yes, I know that's a stretch ) who had never been exposed to religion or the idea of a God/gods before. In my quest for spiritual knowledge I traveled around the world, speaking to religious leaders representing hundreds of faiths. They all seemed equally convinced that what they believed about their God was absolute truth, yet there were so many conflicting beliefs between these religious leaders that only one could really be true (or none at all). What method should I use to determine which belief is the one true God?

 

[Brewtus]

I think we live in a world, and in a nation, where people can be taken quite seriously even when stating their firm belief in something that they cannot prove.

And I think that's at the core of so many of mankind's problems.

 

[AKAK]

Assuming that JBaney claims his beliefs are true, then yes - the burden of proof does fall on him to substantiate those beliefs/claims. Such as if I believed the world was flat, the burden of proof would be on me to substantiate that belief if I wanted to be taken seriously.

You made the assumption. He made a true statement, there is nothing that disproves the existence of God in the creation of the universe, you inferred, probably correctly (though, I don't know) that he believes in God. Russell's view is limited by the idea that the nature of God is in some way similar to a teapot, and it may not be. As such, the burden of proof as it relates to anything metaphysical is only dictated by point of view.

Now, is the burden of proof on those that claim that God causes earthquakes and hurricanes? Certainly more than an abstract belief, yes. But, at the same time is the "burden of proof" on Marx or Smith, on Hegel or Neitzsche, Kierkegaard or Goethe? I mean if you don't like subjective truth, that's cool. I'm just saying your view isn't the only game in town.

 

[JBaney45]

No, that burden doesn't lie on anyone, for the same reason that it is indeed a meaningful statement to claim that "God works in mysterious ways" -- or, perhaps, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." You are rigging the game by demanding a scientific answer to a theological question, and your definition of "unknowable" seems too limited by purely-scientific expectations. Clearly Christians feel they can "know" much about our ineffable God through the human example he provided in Christ as well as the stories and parables and letters of the Bible.

^^^ This

The belief is essentially a hypothesis that can't be tested. Trying to approach this in a purely scientific sense is a bit narrow minded.

I mean, one of these days we are going to croak and find out who was right..of course if it's the atheists there will be less gloating..

 

[Brewtus]

^^^ This

The belief is essentially a hypothesis that can't be tested. Trying to approach this in a purely scientific sense is a bit narrow minded.

But that doesn't mean that all beliefs are equally valid. If I believed that Bigfoot lived in my backyard and my neighbor believed that Bigfoot didn't live in my backyard, are you claiming that can't be tested? You might not be able to disprove one or the other belief with absolute certainty, but you could do some kind of investigation that could determine that one of those beliefs is more likely true than the other.

I mean, one of these days we are going to croak and find out who was right..of course if it's the atheists there will be less gloating..

And if the Muslims are right then the Christians will be forced to spend a lot of time with the atheists....

 

[AKAK]

I mean, one of these days we are going to croak and find out who was right..of course if it's the atheists there will be less gloating..

If the Mormons are right, I'm good with wrong.


(South Park joke adaptation, please don't be offended)

 

[Mac]

Okay, then what method do you use to test claims about God and know what is true and what is not true? Let's assume that I was a completely impartial person (yes, I know that's a stretch ) who had never been exposed to religion or the idea of a God/gods before. In my quest for spiritual knowledge I traveled around the world, speaking to religious leaders representing hundreds of faiths. They all seemed equally convinced that what they believed about their God was absolute truth, yet there were so many conflicting beliefs between these religious leaders that only one could really be true (or none at all). What method should I use to determine which belief is the one true God?

Let me ask you this...the events that take place in Revelations about the end of the world. The ones that talk about many wars, many disasters, the west power falling to its knees, those who wish to seek harm against Israel, but cannot. Do you believe that is just a coincidence about what is told in the book of Revelations or do you think there is some kind of connection? Those things are happening now. Just curious on your thoughts.

 

[JBaney45]

But that doesn't mean that all beliefs are equally valid. If I believed that Bigfoot lived in my backyard and my neighbor believed that Bigfoot didn't live in my backyard, are you claiming that can't be tested? You might not be able to disprove one or the other belief with absolute certainty, but you could do some kind of investigation that could determine that one of those beliefs is more likely true than the other.

You would just look in your back yard for footprints? How big is your back yard?

Your analogy just doesn't work, in that scenario there would be evidence clearly pointing one way or the other. In God's case or the case of the actual origin of the universe that evidence just isn't there.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Let me ask you this...the events that take place in Revelations about the end of the world. The ones that talk about many wars, many disasters, the west power falling to its knees, those who wish to seek harm against Israel, but cannot. Do you believe that is just a coincidence about what is told in the book of Revelations or do you think there is some kind of connection? Those things are happening now. Just curious on your thoughts.

There was no such thing as the United States when Revelations was written. What makes you think reference to this "Western Power" falling to its knees has anything to do with the US?

As far as wars go, if you look there have been plenty of wars going on for ... well.. every moment of mankind's history. I don't see 2012 as particularly unique, and.. in light of WWI and WWII ... not as grandiose as you're suggesting.

Disasters... we discussed this yesterday. Again, the only thing unique about our time is we know about them. They had floods and stuff in SE Asia back in the 1700s. We just didn't know about it with a click of a mouse.

As for those seeking harm to Israel... well.. hats off to the Israeli's for keeping their house in order. On the other hand, it seems to me no one is having much success overthrowing Australia either. Just sayin.

 

[BayBuck]

Okay, then what method do you use to test claims about God and know what is true and what is not true? Let's assume that I was a completely impartial person (yes, I know that's a stretch ) who had never been exposed to religion or the idea of a God/gods before. In my quest for spiritual knowledge I traveled around the world, speaking to religious leaders representing hundreds of faiths. They all seemed equally convinced that what they believed about their God was absolute truth, yet there were so many conflicting beliefs between these religious leaders that only one could really be true (or none at all). What method should I use to determine which belief is the one true God?

These are good questions, but I'm not sure I can answer in a way that will meet your standard for "knowing". The mystery of faith is a part of the religious experience that resonates deeply with me personally.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

But that doesn't mean that all beliefs are equally valid. If I believed that Bigfoot lived in my backyard and my neighbor believed that Bigfoot didn't live in my backyard, are you claiming that can't be tested? You might not be able to disprove one or the other belief with absolute certainty, but you could do some kind of investigation that could determine that one of those beliefs is more likely true than the other.

I will just say, as we discussed on a different thread, I still have no idea what constitutes proof for you Brew. If I could show you something that was stamped "Made By God" I think you'd say "OK, you win" but, I'm not likely to find such a thing. :p On the other hand, if I point to something that appears to be unnatural, you can easily retort, "Just because we don't understand what we're looking at as modern men does not mean it's unnatural" And on another, the idea that the Universe would exist as it does, and we'd find some sort of God fingerprints somewhere is patently absurd. (ie, I don't believe an all powerful/all knowing entity would create a thing, say a universe, where he'd have to ever do ANYTHING that would appear to defy the very rules he made up in the first place).

You're asking for the impossible and you know it. That's what, in my IMO, makes your question here disingenuous.