The debate "The burden of proof is more on the atheist to prove god don't exist" was started by
January 21, 2016, 6:09 pm.
17 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 48 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
AngryBlogger posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
progressive posted 1 argument, Sosocratese posted 5 arguments, Pictobug_1 posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 29 arguments, omactivate posted 1 argument, Alex posted 28 arguments, sloanstar1000 posted 1 argument, franciscotrejo posted 1 argument, waynemc15 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
AngryBlogger, DarkDerpy, ReadyToBegin, samreen, fLipp3r and 12 visitors agree.
progressive, Sosocratese, PsychDave, project_mayhem, Pictobug_1, aftermath, mandala, llemponen, omactivate, DiamondPerfect, sloanstar1000, thenbamatrix, futuremaster, debateisgreat, franciscotrejo, waynemc15, Alex, historybuff, SocialistRed, pajrc1234, openparachute, Jason9374 and 26 visitors disagree.
The reason why the burden of proof is on the theist is because they're making the positive claim. This is because simply asserting something exists without proof/reasoning is a fallacy known as proof by assertion. They can use their holy text to justify their claim, but whether or not is acceptable as a form of evidence depends on the argument. Usually, using scripture to justify the belief in some deity is considered circular reasoning or inverted reasoning.
If the atheist makes a truth claim about God, like God doesn't exist, then the burden is on the atheist. So the atheist must offer evidence against God. If the atheist makes a claim about a specific religion, then they must justify that claim in the context of that religion. If the atheist claims that God is not likely, then the atheist must simply make a case that there is a simpler more likely natural explanation to a given question than God.
So anyone making a claim must justify that claim. The problem comes to arguments that presume one position or the other. If you look at @Alex argument for God (earth being perfect) it presumes the existence of God as it doesn't address alternative theories. This kind of argument can only be used if you first establish the existence of God. The atheist can easily argue that it is no surprise that earth seems perfect to life that adapted to it. It's not so much in the conduct of the debate that the burden of proof is more on the theist, it's in the arguments they use to justify God.
someone said it is more up to the Christian to prove god exists. How? They have their bible and don't need to convince anyone else. I'm agnostic by the way.
that is why I disagreed, even though I'm a catholic.
It is impossible to disprove a negative. Nobody can prove that there isn't a God somewhere just like nobody can prove there isn't a flying spaghetti monster millions of miles away that created everything
Here are the counters to this argument.
1.Law of large numbers: If it can happen, given enough opportunity, it will happen. With trillions of planets in the universe, or would say that the law of large numbers apply and we would expect there to be a planet like ours somewhere.
2. Patsimony: all of this is satisfactorily explained without a god-thing. Meaning that you are failing to consider other viable alternatives. Therefore it's not an actual argument for the existence of God as it can't exclude other theories.
3. Inverted thinking/Circular reasoning: It didn't come about for us, we came about adapting to it. (it only proves god if we presume humanity was the goal, which needs a god to have a goal... See how that is circular reasoning?)
4. Reductio ad absurdum: So, god made the kitchen for cockroaches then?
1. Since Earth is not perfect, as you have already admitted, how does its "perfection" prove it is make by a God you cannot prove exists? You are stating your belief as fact without in any way backing it up.
2. Since you failed to demonstrate 1, this cannot logically follow.
Also, in spite of you denying it, this is circular logic. Earth is more perfect than other planets, so God must have made it. Since God made Earth, he must also have made other planets. How do you think that is not circular? If God made both, the contrast is meaningless, so the first argument fails. If the contrast proves God made Earth, that implies that God did not make both, God did not make all creation, just Earth.
don't accuse me of doing a circular argument.
1. the earth's perfection COMPARED to other planets proves there is a God
2. since there is a God we can logically say he made the other planets.
here is the natraul and logical process you speak of
fish growing legs
life comming from non life
non life comming from nothing
God isn't any more illogical then that.
I'm not saying how the earth proves God made other planets and earth, but it only proves he made earth. he did make the other planets, but I can't directly prove it. we can only use logic to point out that since God made earth he made other planets as well.
God is omnipotent, he doesn't need to focus on anything. Unless you are claiming that God can only pay attention to so much at once, but then he wouldn't really be omnipotent, would he?
I am not claiming that it disproves God, I am criticizing the lack of internal consistency in arguing that earth being better suited to life than other planets proves God made Earth, but also that God made those other planets.
Why do you keep trying to say that I'm not proving God doesn't exist? I'm not trying to. I am pointing out fundamental flaws in your argument that you keep ignoring. If you are claiming that God created the big bang and then allowed the universe to form through natural processes, your claim the the 15% of the planet that we can live on makes it "nearly perfect" thus proving God is contradicted by your belief that God stopped tampering after the big bang. If we can explain creation using logic and natural processes, why should we assume supernatural influences where none are demonstrated?
PsychDave i dont know, why do people draw random pictures for no reason?
Of God wants to make trillions of planets he can. it doesn't disprove him. God could have made the big bang, focused on creating, and shaping earth, while letting other planets form.
I believe this is the other way around. The burden of proof is on the believer. Because there is no god
Why? Why make inhospitable planets?
not at all, God did not try to make a masterpiece when making other planets.
There is the problem with your arguments. One painting (Earth) is a masterpiece. Every brush stroke is perfectly aligned to create a whole that flows together perfectly. The other is a bunch of globs of mud with no sign of skill or artistry. You claim that the masterpiece shows proof of an intelligent creator by comparison to the glob of mud, but simultaneously claim that the ball of mud was created by the same artist.
One argument defeats the other. Either earth being perfectly suited for life compared to other planets shows that God made it for us, or God created all planets. If he created both, you cannot claim earth supporting life is proof because Mars, which he equally created, does not.
of you painted two pictures, showed them both to me, one painting good, the other bad, then said you painted both, I would have to believe you, or someone painted the good one. you see how it works?
You avoided the question I asked in favor of answering one you would prefer. If God made creation for us, why are the other planets not capable of supporting life? If he did not make creation for us, how do you justify claiming the design as proof? If you believe he made both Earth and Mars, how does contrasting the prove that he made Earth unless you are saying that since Mars can't sustain life He didn't create it?
I'm explaining his analogy. just because you don't like me doesn't mean I'm wrong.
do you have something wrong with how I answered his question, and explained the analogy? if you do feel free to tell me what I got wrong
you didn't even bother trying to understand his analogy did you? because you just ignored it and spouted off some bullshit.
if you showed me two painting, one a good one, the other terrible and said they both happened by accident, I wouldn't believe you. because of the look of the good one, I would have to believe someone painted it. God is like the artist and earth is like the good painting. you can't say earth happened by big explosions by accident, just like you can't say nobody painted the painting.
If God created both this planet and those without life, how does comparing them prove God made this one? If I show you two paintings, does that prove I painted one of them?
I'm not saying there aren't any, if God wanted to he could create life on other planets.
firstly because you don't know there aren't other planets with life. we just haven't found them. statistically there are many of them out there waiting to be found.
and even if there weren't any, that still wouldn't be proof that God made this one.
my argument that there is only one planet that supports life, and no other planet comes close, so God must have made the planet is illogical how?
he could. but why would he. why make an infinite universe with trillions of planets if he only intended life to exist on one of them?
and criticizing him for not understanding you is stupid. your argument makes no sense. it is completely illogical. therefore no one who is logical would really know what you are talking about.
Dave why are you arguing like a child? God made earth for us, he made the other planets not for us, and not for any known life. he didn't try to make life on every planet. I know you know the answer, unless your insane, please don't ask questions like that again. wastes my time.
God made earth for us, why can't he also make planets different from earth that can't support life?
Your argument is that God must have made the earth since we can live here. Are you saying he didn't make all of the other planets that are incapable of supporting life, or that he failed whole making them? Your argument that the contrast between earth and other planets demonstrates God's design of it only holds if you are saying he did not make the other planets.
dude, your whole point is that the world was perfectly designed for life to exist, now you're saying it's not, make up your mind. There's no reason to think this world was designed for us. our bodies aren't even well designed.
I understand that usually Christians say the horrible things on the planet come from the fall of man, so basically, the reason I have to get my badly "designed" wisdom teeth pulled out of my head is because Eve ate an apple thousands of years ago... it's just lunacy.
where did you come up with 80%? Dave is right, humans cannot live on the majority of the planet.
and the fact that we can live on the planet we evolved on is not surprising. it is inevitable.
and just because we haven't found another planet earth that supports life yet, hardly means there aren't any.
Dave the world is NOT supposed to be perfect. God could have made a perfect world I'd he wanted. He didn't to put us through trials.
name another planet that is even close to supporting life. let's say the Erath is 15% right with land. land is only a small part, other factors are air, water ect. let's give earth a 80% grade. no other planet passes, only earth.
Also, this is a blatant lie. I will quote your entire statement, so that you cannot claim I took it out of context or removed anything.
"this planet is so near perfection the only answer is God. that's it. no other explanation."
At no point in this statement did you qualify it or hide behind comparisons, so to try to deny that you said it is completely false.
So God couldn't do any better than 15%? That seems a pretty poor result for an omnipotent being. Why is God limited to choosing from the planets we know of when creating everything?
Your argument could be likened to saying that shooting someone in the foot is a way of expressing love because it leaves them in nearly perfect health compared to shooting them in the face. Yes, less than 15% of their body is wounded, but that doesn't mean they are nearly perfectly fine. If 15% of the world being hospitable is nearly perfect, you need to brush up on your math skills.
that was never my argument so I can't concide it. my argument was.
earth is so near perfect COMPARED to other planets that God must have designed it for us.
So you are finally conceding the argument that the world's design proves God made it since it is not perfect for us?
God banished us out of the garden. he sure won't banish us to a perfect place if that's what your saying. if we didn't sin I'm not sure what would have happened.
I noticed that you never came back to this, so I will remind you that we are not debating whether we need oceans for the world as we know it to function, we are debating whether the design of the world proves it was made for us. Are you claiming that God couldn't create a world which was more suited to those he had intended to give it to?
If you were building a habitat for something, and 70%+ of it was lethal to the creature, would you say it is the perfect habitat? Would that habitat show that you love the creatures you largely condemn to untimely death?
I will await you debating like an adult.
in the morning I'll explain to you why we need oceans to live. or maybe you'll figure it out and stop your childish arguments.
No, I am saying only 10-15% of the surface of the world is hospitable to human life. In what way is that "nearly perfect" for us? Even if we went absurdly generous and called all 30% that is land hospitable (which some parts such as Antarctica really are not) that is still a failing grade on any test I have taken.
I hope you are not saying the earth only has 10-15% of the things nessary for life.
Then how can you claim that the earth is "nearly perfect" for us?
If you got 10-15% on a test, would you be able to claim you nearly got perfect?
ah, you missing the near part of near perfection.
But you just admitted that it is not. The vast majority of this planet is hostile to us.
this planet is so near perfection the only answer is God. that's it. no other explanation.
But your argument for proving God's existence is how perfectly creation is made for us, or have you forgotten that this started because your article claimed just that?
maybe if you argued what I said that would be nice. I can't imagine something better then a God could create. I said I can imagine a world better then the one we have now.
You are assuming God made it without justifying that assumption. You seem to have forgotten that this conversation was about creation being proof of God because of how perfectly it was made for us. Are you saying that you can imagine something better than God could create, or have you accepted that one of your 5 go to arguments is inherently flawed?
I can imagine a universe that is better. but I have yet to see it, and I don't assume things.
You are ignorant of another explanation, so yours must be correct. You can't imagine a universe better suited to us, so this one must have been designed for us. That is, by definition, an argument from ignorance.
I still don't see how it's an argument from ignorance.
Look up what an argument from ignorance is. I am tired of explaining fallacies to those who abuse them.
are not we're
how is knowing the earth is by far the only planet that we know of that can support life ignorance? since when we're facts ignorance
there are billions, trillions of planets out there. what are the odds that one of them wouldn't support life? astronomical. god is most certainly not the only answer. it isn't even a logical answer.
How do you think that proves God exists? Arguing from ignorance is neither effective nor attractive. The fact that there is so much more universe that is utterly hostile to life shows that it was not created tailor made for us.
name another planet that comes close. good luck. earth is so close to perfect that God is the only logical answer
We cannot live in the ocean, do while drowning, starving to death, and dying of dehydration are certainly hardships, your argument for it being created for us falls apart
it was created for us, but for us to have hardship too, along with being able to live.
Then since, by your own admission, the world we live in was not really created for us, how can you argue that it's design is proof of God creating it for us?
I'm not really sure on that. if anyone on this app has a good answer that would be great.
I'll try to find out.
So what was the purpose of the unoccupied world before Adam and Eve sinned? Why create oceans at all?
The garden was where the humans were and it was perfect. not sure what would have happened if adam and eve didn't sin, if the garden would have grown. that's my guess, I'll find out more about that, and tell you what I find.
So the garden of eden covered the whole world and at that time there were no deserts or oceans?
from an evolutionist the argument about the desert and salt water oceans seems childish.
you don't know what you saying here. I know you know how an ocean and desert is formed. they were not always there. rocks breaking up form deserts, salt water oceans are also formed.
God did create a perfect place for us- the garden of Eden. because of original sin, we had to be banned from the garden into a harsher world with death, yet enough good to survive. your argument proves how the banishment from Eden was a punishment, but we still can survive.
I am not attacking the church, I am attacking flawed logic. The reason they often amount to the same thing is because religious arguments are often based on fallacies and unsubstantiated assumptions. The church factors into it because the author holds scientific laws up as evidence that God created them, and therefore they prove the church is correct. If this is true, why has the church fought against us knowing the laws God wrote into the universe? To claim that science proves God exists after fighting against it for hundreds of years, and continuing to do so today, seems illogical in the extreme.
Why is a God necessary? The argument that is always refuting is that creation is so perfectly suited to our needs that it must have been created for us. The flaw is that isn't is mostly hostile to us. Most of the world is covered in undrinkable salt water, much of what is land is either to dry or too cold to be considered hospitable. Much of the land we can inhabit comfortably is also inhabited by animals and plants that can make us sick or kill us. Beyond the earth itself, nothing that we have found is able to support life, let alone designed with us in mind. If the argument that life on Earth proves God exists, the counter argument would logically be that every uninhabited planet equally proves that He does not. Neither of these arguments are valid because they both start with a false assumption that life necessarily required creation by God.
seems like your attacking the church for some reason. when I argue with an atheist generally I will argue fit there being a God. I won't jump ahead to the God being christian right away, cause then they will attack the church as you have done. not sure what your saying with Neptune. we know there is life on earth, and we know not of life elsewhere. no life on Neptune= no God who made people of Neptune. if there was no life in the universe you could say no God. but since there is only life hear we know life isn't common, so a God must be nessary.
It is interesting, but it is more of the same.
Look at the universe, life, earth, or our DNA and their complexity proves that someone made them to work the way they do. What that neglects is that, on millions of other planets, those conditions were not right, and so life is not viable. We don't look at Neptune and say "That proves there is no God because life can't exist there" so why must the reverse be true?
As to his using the laws of nature, we are determining the causes of those laws all the time. That is the point of science. One of those discoveries has been discovered is that the best equipped animals survive and pass on their genes causing something we call evolution. Mysteriously, the church has fought it for years only to now start to accept it. If God programmed the universe, shouldn't he have explained to the Pope at some point to avoid the church looking foolish?
Finally, the author claims Christianity is the one true faith because Jesus claimed to be God. It uses miracles to justify it, but we have already talked about the church's inability to reproduce the miracles, so while they make good stories they aren't proof. There are stories equalling that in nearly all deistic religions. The Greek pantheon performed many miracles and claimed to be God's, so by the author's logic they are also as true as Christ. They could be driving atheists to argue with Christians in the hopes of having people return to the one true faith, theirs.
Moses performed miracles to bring people to his faith. Jesus performed miracles to prove that he was the son of God. The disciples performed miracles to prove theirs was the one true faith. Jesus said that anything we ask for in his name will be done and that we could move mountains by commanding them to move. Why then does the church not do so? If miracles are to be the proof of Jesus divinity, and they are to be proof of the one true faith, why are they only used by charlatans and fake faith healers?
Obviously I don't believe that, but the author starts out by saying he will offer proof instead of vague "trust me" arguments, then goes ahead and makes the same tired arguments.
this is a good article on God and science, written by a former atheist.
Do you burden people to find proof bigfoot doesn't exist. No.
Science is very advanced. it help us a lot, it especially helps us to understand God.
We can actually measure oxytocin release among other changes in brain chemistry, we can look at various brain scans and determine which areas are affected by being in love, we can analyze it psychologically as well. I think a lot of people don't actually know how robust and expansive the scope of modern science actually is.
Physiological symptoms like change of heart beat or appetite los same as anxiety and obsession
love can be studied physically. there are physiological symptoms. no one has shown exactly what causes it and how, but it can be proven to exist. god has absolutely no evidence. every time science studies an aspect of religion it finds nothing or actually proves it wrong. heliocentricity, creationism, etc.
If we only base the existence of something that can only be seen physically then love doesnt exist aswell and all those married couples saying they love each other are all liars
It can't be disproven completely. You can't say 100% how the earth began. Its unlikely because its hard to imagine for a lot of people. There isn't complete evidence on both sides but in my opinion I believe God exist fully. Out of my opinion though. Science can't disprove God. A lot of the time Science ignores God because you can't really physically study that. I think mostly what science focuses is on things they can actually see feel or observe. But in general its a hard thing to imagine because how this generation sees things is that those kind of things are fairytales but how do you really know. There's compelling evidence on the supernatural. On spiritual things. So why ignore it? I've met athiest who were afraid of trying somethings but they didn't believe in it. Both Religious and Non religious can be ignorant.
This is sort of true. It depends on the type of claim the atheist makes. Most atheists will make the argument that it is unlikely/improbable that God exists rather than flat out denying God through argument. It's the only intellectually honest argument to make.
In this type of claim, the only thing you have to show is that evidence presented for God (anything biblical) isn't actually evidence for God (logical errors/circular reasoning of using the Bible to prove God) or that it is flat out false (the global flood, age of earth, Adam and eve, are good examples of claims that can be disproven), that there are plausible alternatives to God that have more evidence than God.
I am an atheist and I don't find it a burden. I also personally think there is more than enough proof the God doesn't exist...but that's just my personal opinion!
I can fly. What would be the best way to make everyone believe it? It's not up to you to prove I can't, is it? It's up to me to prove I can.
Unicorns exist. So burden of proof is on everyone else to prove they dont exist? Thats not exactly how we determine whether something is real or not.
if I say "God is real", I have to prove it
if an atheist says "God is fake because the bible is messed up" they have to prove it.
Usally an atheist will pick something from religion and try to prove it wrong. then they have the burdon of proof. right?
so it can go either way.
The onus of proof is always on the side arguing in the affirmative.
It is the oppositions side to offer more viable alternatives and disprove/call into question pros arguments.
That's the way arguments are structured by logic.
I'm pretty sure the burden of proof is on whoever makes a positive assertion
I'm agnostic but consider the burden of proof to be more so on th atheist since Christians got their bible. They don't really need to convince themselves and others and aren't going as far to prove god exists scientifically like atheist scientists. So yeah, I'd say the burden of proof is more so on the atheist.