burden of proof for belief in God

Get advice, tips, or help with science or religion debates that you are currently participating in.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, SCRawl, Thanas

Punarbhava
Youngling
Posts: 72
Joined: 2007-01-28 04:42pm

burden of proof for belief in God

Postby Punarbhava » 2010-09-02 07:45pm

I think I know where I wanna take this discussion, but I'm hoping for some input from the more experienced debaters here.

person2 wrote:
person1 wrote:Considering God doesn't exist is it possible to be a real christian?

PROVE IT BITCH.

person I will respond to wrote:
me wrote:the burden of proof is on the believer, bitch.

And do you not believe that there is no God? Aye, it's a negative statement, but still, to make the claim that there is no God definitively is just as much an act of "faith" that you know all there is to know about that particular subject.

Theists (in general) believe that everything sprang into being through the will and direction of an omnipotent entity. The evidence usually presented (by the intelligent, at least) revolves around the level of complexity inherent in the system of nature and the repetition of complex mathematical patterns throughout creation, particularly pertaining to the "living" world. Atheists (currently) believe that the entire universe sprang into existence in a single instant, at a single point, for absolutely no reason. The evidence for this is, so far as I can tell, all relate to the spreading of the energy outward...and the actual manifestation is left as an "unknown", as apparently when all the energy of the universe is at ONE point, the laws of physics break down, and it is "impossible" to tell what came before. Granted, I haven't trudged through the mathematical proofs for the BBT, as I'm not a mathematician, so I could be misinterpreting things slightly...but so far as I know, I am not.

Given that (for instance) Judaism, the first of the Abrahamic Religions, says not the God created the objects of the Universe, but that God SEPARATED the indivisible into the objects of the Universe, methinks that it's a bit premature to rule theism out.

And don't even get me started on Quantum, String, M, or Holographic Theory...

/End Rant

EDIT: I realize that this post isn't really directed at you, but at the Holier-than-thou attitude of Atheists in general. Science isn't a Meta-Theory. It's a way of explaining the observable world. Nothing more, Nothing less.

Junghalli
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5001
Joined: 2004-12-21 10:06pm
Location: Berkeley, California (USA)

Re: burden of proof for belief in God

Postby Junghalli » 2010-09-02 07:59pm

Parsimony says the hypothesis that includes the least unnecessary terms wins in the absence of other evidence. God is an unnecessary term.

If you want, you can turn his own logic back on him by suggesting alternate equally unfalsifiable models of how the universe came to be and demand he disprove them. You can demand that he prove that the universe wasn't created by a non-aware natural process, or show the absurdity of his position by making some blatantly absurd but non-falsifiable claim (like the whole universe was created by your sapient arse 5 minutes ago and faked to look older than it is) and demand he disprove it.

You can suggest a large number of possible unfalsifiable hypothesis about how the universe came to be, some absurd, and point out that without parsimony there is no way to tell which ones are less or more plausible, so all of them are just as plausible as God. You may also point out that the number of possible unfalsifiable hypothesis is infinite, so without a way to dismiss them we could never attempt to understand the world around us.

Really, shifting the burden of proof is a theist argument that is easily demolished.

User avatar
The Vortex Empire
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2006-12-11 09:44pm
Location: Rhode Island

Re: burden of proof for belief in God

Postby The Vortex Empire » 2010-09-02 08:16pm

And do you not believe that there is no Santa Claus? Aye, it's a negative statement, but still, to make the claim that there is no Santa Claus definitively is just as much an act of "faith" that you know all there is to know about that particular subject.

Toss that back at him for his first point, and Junghaili covered the rest. Of course, someone with logic that broken won't be convinced through reason.

Punarbhava
Youngling
Posts: 72
Joined: 2007-01-28 04:42pm

Re: burden of proof for belief in God

Postby Punarbhava » 2010-09-04 12:59am

Thanks guys, that helped. Now I'm just waiting for a response.

User avatar
Lagmonster
Master Control Program
Master Control Program
Posts: 7659
Joined: 2002-07-04 09:53am
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: burden of proof for belief in God

Postby Lagmonster » 2010-09-20 12:08pm

Split out the semi-tangent on the harm belief does to SLAM.
Image

User avatar
NDR-113
Redshirt
Posts: 49
Joined: 2009-09-28 07:24pm

Re: burden of proof for belief in God

Postby NDR-113 » 2011-01-11 12:51pm

Also, there's always the belief (supported by Carl Sagan and many other scientists) that the universe may be infinitely old, so no creator is necessary. It may even be in an expanding-contracting state, which is closer to what the Hindu believe, but it depends how much matter is in the universe, which is still open to debate.


Return to “Debating Help”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests