• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The burden of proof

T

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
35,261
Reaction score
5,708
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SCIENCE SAID IT CANNOT PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXISTS.

However, atheists are practically saying, science is wrong. They say, God does not exists.



Various fields of science points favorably to Creation.

Atheists don't agree. They say, God doesn't exists.



As science advances, it even changed great minds and made converts out of numerous scientists -
from archeology to math to physics to cosmology to biology, etc.,

Atheists say, no. God does not exists.



Even Philosophy and Logic greatly supports the existence of God.

And yet, in spite of all these, atheists insists, God does not exists.




So now, let's put the burden of proof rightly where it belongs. To the atheists.

Atheists.....where's your proof? Give us your evidence that God does not exists.
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
SCIENCE SAID IT CANNOT PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXISTS.

However, atheists are practically saying, science is wrong. They say, God does not exists.



Various fields of science points favorably to Creation.

Atheists don't agree. They say, God doesn't exists.



As science advances, it even changed great minds and made converts out of numerous scientists -
from archeology to math to physics to cosmology to biology, etc.,

Atheists say, no. God does not exists.



Even Philosophy and Logic greatly supports the existence of God.

And yet, in spite of all these, atheists insists, God does not exists.




So now, let's put the burden of proof rightly where it belongs. To the atheists.

Atheists.....where's your proof? Give us your evidence that God does not exists.
Click to expand...

Atheists say no in response to theists saying yes.

So wouldn't it be thiests like ourselves who are really trying to shift the burden of proof.

Most atheists I know tend to respond rather than confront. I say God exists then they tell me prove it and I tell them "Can't, I simply believe. If you don't like that I don't give a singular ****."

Also, the lack of citations and such are just absolutely killing my analytical mind. I personally know some of the points you made to be true but many I'm not sure of, you need backing.
 
tosca1 said:
Atheists.....where's your proof? Give us your evidence that God does not exists.
Click to expand...

This issue is always going to exist, and the main problem is Atheists and Theists have plenty in common. They both make a deceleration of something based on systems of faith, and neither side can provide proof in a manner that would pass scientific process.

The various disciplines of Science all the way back to the birth of such thinking was designed to provide explanation for what previously was either unexplained or left to systems of faith to explain in their terms. In that sense, yes Science then became adversarial to systems of faith going back to Darwin. But that does not mean that God has ever been proved or disproved in terms of science, and it makes more sense that those in Science would then look at things the way an Agnostic would. Neither proof of existence of God or proof of nonexistence of God. And now that we have evolved to looking at things in terms like what Theoretical Physics and the various Quantum Sciences provide, we have more non-process completed (no matter if it is strictly mathematical or thought exercise) theory to support potential existence of things that even 50 years ago we did not even fathom was possible.

As such I'll stay firmly Agnostic, and enjoy looking at what sciences provide us. In another 50 years from now imagine what we will think. I suspect during that time there will still be little offered by Atheists that God does not exist, and there will be little offered by systems of faith to prove God does exist. Which makes sense, Atheists and Theists have always been flip sides of the same coin. Making declarations neither can prove by processes of science. Which also makes sense, the source for systems of belief (text, tradition, what have you) all precede the earliest forms of science by about 1000+ years.
 
Why shouldn't the burden of proof rest on atheists?

They're the ones going against the default position!


By saying that God does not exists, is contradicting science.
They're going against the very institution that they greatly rely upon!

Surely they've got something to support that claim. So, let's see it.
 
OrphanSlug said:
This issue is always going to exist, and the main problem is Atheists and Theists have plenty in common. They both make a deceleration of something based on systems of faith, and neither side can provide proof in a manner that would pass scientific process.

The various disciplines of Science all the way back to the birth of such thinking was designed to provide explanation for what previously was either unexplained or left to systems of faith to explain in their terms. In that sense, yes Science then became adversarial to systems of faith going back to Darwin. But that does not mean that God has ever been proved or disproved in terms of science, and it makes more sense that those in Science would then look at things the way an Agnostic would. Neither proof of existence of God or proof of nonexistence of God. And now that we have evolved to looking at things in terms like what Theoretical Physics and the various Quantum Sciences provide, we have more non-process completed (no matter if it is strictly mathematical or thought exercise) theory to support potential existence of things that even 50 years ago we did not even fathom was possible.

As such I'll stay firmly Agnostic, and enjoy looking at what sciences provide us. In another 50 years from now imagine what we will think. I suspect during that time there will still be little offered by Atheists that God does not exist, and there will be little offered by systems of faith to prove God does exist. Which makes sense, Atheists and Theists have always been flip sides of the same coin. Making declarations neither can prove by processes of science. Which also makes sense, the source for systems of belief (text, tradition, what have you) all precede the earliest forms of science by about 1000+ years.
Click to expand...


No. It's not the same flip of a coin between atheists and theists. Read the OP again.

But, the least logical position that atheists could do is become agnostics.
 
tosca1 said:
Why shouldn't the burden of proof rest on atheists?

They're the ones going against the default position!


By saying that God does not exists, is contradicting science.
They're going against the very institution that they greatly rely upon!

Surely they've got something to support that claim. So, let's see it.
Click to expand...

If they are going against the "default position" (which I assume is theism in this case) then that means they are in the right as of now. The default position has yet to prove God's existence and as such, the default position (your position as well as mine) is the one that is truly committing the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
 
tosca1 said:
No. It's not the same flip of a coin between atheists and theists. Read the OP again.

But, the least logical position that atheists could do is become agnostics.
Click to expand...

It is, both sides have yet to prove **** about **** about ****.
 
 
tosca1 said:
SCIENCE SAID IT CANNOT PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXISTS.
Click to expand...
It also says it cannot prove God DOES exist.
tosca1 said:
Why shouldn't the burden of proof rest on atheists?
Click to expand...
Because those who believe in a god or multiple gods are the ones making claims which cannot be proven.

Religious people claim there is a God (whether there is or not is not relevant to this discussion). There is no tangible evidence or observations humans can make which can prove the existence of a god. It is, therefore, up to those who make the claim to prove their statements, not up to those who reject a claim unsupported by evidence to prove a negative.

In other words, how can anyone prove something which doesn't exist? You claim God exists...now prove it. It's not up to an atheist to prove something doesn't exist, it's up to you to prove it does, as there is no real and concrete evidence to prove God does exist (regardless of what one believes).

They're the ones going against the default position!
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. The default position is to not acknowledge as fact anything beyond which can be proven or, at the very least, observed. By having a God, those who are religious are going against the default position.

By saying that God does not exists, is contradicting science.
Click to expand...
No more than those who believe in God contradict science, as science also says it cannot prove God does exist.
 
Luftwaffe said:
If they are going against the "default position" (which I assume is theism in this case)
Click to expand...

No. The default position is in the proposition. Science had said, it cannot prove that God does not exists.

Atheists are going against that proposition, by concluding that God does not exists.

The onus is definitely on atheists to give support to that claim.
 
Slyfox696 said:
It also says it cannot prove God DOES exist.
Because those who believe in a god or multiple gods are the ones making claims which cannot be proven.

Religious people claim there is a God (whether there is or not is not relevant to this discussion). There is no tangible evidence or observations humans can make which can prove the existence of a god. It is, therefore, up to those who make the claim to prove their statements, not up to those who reject a claim unsupported by evidence to prove a negative.

In other words, how can anyone prove something which doesn't exist? You claim God exists...now prove it. It's not up to an atheist to prove something doesn't exist, it's up to you to prove it does, as there is no real and concrete evidence to prove God does exist (regardless of what one believes).

This is incorrect. The default position is to not acknowledge as fact anything beyond which can be proven or, at the very least, observed. By having a God, those who are religious are going against the default position.

No more than those who believe in God contradict science, as science also says it cannot prove God does exist.
Click to expand...


Refer to my response to Luftwaffe.
 
Slyfox696 said:
No more than those who believe in God contradict science, as science also says it cannot prove God does exist.
Click to expand...

No, we're not on the same boat. Refer to the OP.
 
Slyfox696 said:
There is no tangible evidence or observations humans can make which can prove the existence of a god.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of tangible evidences that points to the existence of God. Just look around you.

You can start with the origin of life.
 
tosca1 said:
Refer to my response to Luftwaffe.
Click to expand...

Arguing with you over religion always seems to be a waste of time.

Slyfox's point was clear and has yet to be refuted, even if you try and apply your earlier joke of a refute towards me to him.

Your understanding of science is skewed. Science is simply the search for truth.

Science has searched but cannot find God, but has yet to search everything, so God is neither proved nor disproved by science, it's just a grey area. Atheists making absolute claims are wrong and theists making absolute claims are also wrong.

You have faith, not fact, drill that into that zealous head of yours.
 
tosca1 said:
Refer to my response to Luftwaffe.
Click to expand...
I've read every response in this thread. I'm telling you where you are wrong. Read my response.
tosca1 said:
No, we're not on the same boat. Refer to the OP.
Click to expand...
I've read your OP. Now respond to my post. You are most certainly not in the same boat, but only because you cannot provide ANY tangible evidence of the existence of a god. As such, the burden is on you to prove what you believe, not on others to disprove something you believe.
tosca1 said:
There are a lot of tangible evidences that points to the existence of God.
Click to expand...
No, there is not. There is a lot of tangible evidence which shows how mathematically improbable it is the world has evolved the way it has. However, there is NO tangible evidence to support the idea of a divine being guiding the world into how it exists today (and I say that as one who does believe God played a part in the creation of the world as it exists today).

Origin of life is evidence of something, but the belief God created it is an assumption not proven with any facts or tangible evidence, only belief.
Luftwaffe said:
God is neither proved nor disproved by science
Click to expand...
100% correct. However, as you've been saying, since there is no direct evidence of a God, it is on those who make the claim God exists to prove it, not on others to disprove a person's belief.
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
No, we're not on the same boat. Refer to the OP.
Click to expand...

And yet you are, now let's grab a rod and hang out with our atheist buddies who are no different than us in many ways.
 
Luftwaffe said:
And yet you are, now let's grab a rod and hang out with our atheist buddies who are no different than us in many ways.
Click to expand...

Who's talking about them being different from us in many ways??? :lol:

We're not talking about physical attributes, or morality (although objective morality btw, is another evidence for the existence of God).....
 
tosca1 said:
Merely saying nay, is not a rebuttal.
Click to expand...

Neither is merely saying yes it is, so what is your point?

You have faith, God will most likely never be proven and most likely will never be disproven either. For as long as the human race lives I doubt we will EVER find the answer.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Neither is merely saying yes it is, so what is your point?

You have faith, God will most likely never be proven and most likely will never be disproven either. For as long as the human race lives I doubt we will EVER find the answer.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about faith.

We're talking about burden of proof. The atheists' bold claim that squarely contradicts science.
 
Atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods (not just "God", whatever you might mean by that). It doesn't automatically imply an unconditional denial of the existence of gods. A few people do hold that position and they you could legitimately put the burden of truth to. Equally though, any position holding that there is some kind of god, and especially positions that hold a specifically defined god, also face the same burden. The default is "We don't know".

Science doesn't say anything. It's a concept and has no vocal cords. It is generally accepted that nothing can be definitely 100% proven, true or false, but many things can be proven to such a point that we treat them as true for practical purposes. If we didn't do that we'd go insane ("I know I can see the floor in front of me but is it really there!?!"). Nobody has presented anything like sufficient scientific evidence to take that position in relation to any very specifically defined god, with specifically defined consequences and expected actions on the basis of its existence. That's why individual religions typically base their positions on some element of faith.

The claim of some kind of external creator being, without specific details appended, remains a more neutral unknown which doesn't support presumption of existence or non-existence. At that level though, it's really only of academic interest. The truth wouldn't actually say all that much to us either way. It's only once you get in to those specifics that it has practical consequences.

That many "great" people have converted, from non-belief to belief, from belief to non-belief or from one kind of belief to another, doesn't say the slightest thing about any actual truth, especially given there has been movement in all directions and with all sorts of outside social influences upon them.

Your other two statements "Various fields of science points favorably to Creation" and "Even Philosophy and Logic greatly supports the existence of God" are definitive claims that, especially given the basis of your post, you have the burden of proof to support. :)
 
Luftwaffe said:
Your understanding of science is skewed. Science is simply the search for truth.
Click to expand...

Whose understanding is askewed?


Are you saying that science's declaration that it cannot prove the non-existence of God, is not a truthful answer?
 
HonestJoe said:
Nobody has presented anything like sufficient scientific evidence to take that position in relation to any very specifically defined god, with specifically defined consequences and expected actions on the basis of its existence. That's why individual religions typically base their positions on some element of faith.
Click to expand...

That would apply to evolution, too.


Science is clear though when it "says" (don't quibble with semantics), it cannot prove that God does not exists.
And I'm placing the burden of proof on atheists who clearly contradict that declaration.
 
tosca1 said:
Whose understanding is askewed?


Are you saying that science's declaration that it cannot prove the non-existence of God, is not a truthful answer?
Click to expand...

No, but you are omitting, so science's declaration is fine, YOUR declaration is dishonest as ****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom