Hawkingfan

I agree. In order to prove the negative, one has to presuppose god's existance. In other words, god's existance must be proven FIRST before an attempt to disprove it can be made. Otherwise, there is NO NEED to disprove anything that cannot be proven in the first place.

AJ113

In other words your father DID brainwash you. Fathers generally being one of the two most influential people in one's life. What child thinks his father is lying or mistaken?

Really? What else could you name that requires blind faith to accept as truth despite the irrationality of such a faith?

Cipher Girl

Hi xianseeker

One could get a proof by reductio ad absurdum about the existance of god if you could get the theist to give a definition of said deity without changing the definition during the course of the discussion. But the theist will usually try to weasle out of the contradiction by changing the original definition of the deity.

Here's a simple example. Suppose you and the theist agree that god omni-x where x is powerful, knowing, and good. You show that because of evil existing on the earth god cannot have all three attributes at the same time. If he was all powerful & all knowing, he could stop it but didn't. If he was all powerfull and all loving, then he must not be capable of understanding that evil exists. And if he is all-loving and all knowing, then he must be powerless to stop evil since it exists. And if the theist claims that there is a devil doing the evil, then the all-powerful attribute goes flying out of the window.

But then the theist starts claiming that he didn't really mean that god was omni-x. Even though he claims he is a christian, and that is pretty much a standard christian definition of god. Then he starts to claim that god is only good and nothing else, then refuses to define what good is. :banghead:

That is the usual course of discussion. But I think a lot of theists like to pretend their beliefs are logical and rational. Especially when they've never had to think deeply about them before.

ex-xian

Only because they view is a dismissal, not a legitimate argument, and therefore that they have won the argument. See my above posts.
Apparantly you have no understanding of the type of argumentation that I'm talking about. A reductio ad absurdum assumes to truth of what is thought to be false for the purpose of proving it false. The fact that it cannot be proven is exactly the point.

No, he didn't.
None of this happened. It is possible to advocate a belief in something without forcing the belief. The fact that my father was tolerant of me when I did not hold to christianity is proof that I was not brainwashed.

You have missed the point. The people that we respect and look up to influence our beliefs about everything from politics to philosophical opinions. This is not brainwashing.

Why do people find it so hard to believe that people, myself included, have come to christianity (or other religions) based on reason. The fact that I left christianity for the same reason should, it seems to me, only re-enforce this fact.

AJ113

It is you who have missed the point.
To have a theistic belief is unreasonable. It requires faith. This means to trust in something without good reason.

It is not possible to come to Christianity based on reason. Christianity is an unreasonable belief.

So how is it possible that you still have a theistic faith of some degree when there is no rational reason for this faith?

Because you were conditioned and programmed to have a faith by your family when you were younger.

Think about it. If your family had all been atheists would you have arrived at your current beliefs through reason?

I know you will answer "yes" just like I used to, your position affords you no option but to do so, but the answer must logically be "no" because faith is not based on reason, it is based on acquired beliefs.

Tom Sawyer

I have to agree with the position that placing the burden of proof upon theists is the wrong way to go about it.

Although from a strictly logical point of view that position makes sense, the fact is that human beings are not totally logical and come into any conversation with their reason coloured by many pre-existing beliefs. When speaking of something that they take as a given, such as the existence of God, telling them that it's up to them to prove the belief seems as absurd as telling them that it's up to them to prove that the sky is blue. They can simply look up and see that the sky is blue just as they can simply look inside their heart and see that God is real. Starting out by saying that they are basing this on an incorrect premise and it's up to them to prove that their premise is valid is the same as saying that "the sky is blue" is incorrect when they can simply look up and see that it is, in fact, that colour. If one is having a discussion about the formal rules of logic it's a valid argument, but when one is talking about debating with a human being for whom logic is only one of the factors to base their positions on, it's a non-started that's not going to lead anywhere.

When an atheist brings up the burden of proof argument to counter the argument of a theist, the theist can have one of two reactions to it:

1) That's a good point. I'm going to reevaluate my entire worldview.
2) That doesn't answer my question. Why is this atheist changing the subject? He obviously can't answer the question and therefore my answer is correct.

Most theists choose the second option. Although it isn't logically valid, as I said, humans aren't completely logical creatures and it is those humans that we are talking to. So even though we may be logically correct, it doesn't help our argument in any way. All it really does is make us look like intellectual snobs and appear to be telling the theist that they are stupid to be holding their position, which will only bring cognitive dissonance into the equation and make them hold onto their position harder.

We are saying that the majority of society is totally wrong about something which has been accepted as true for thousands of years. As Asha'man said, since we are the advocates of change, the burden is on us to show that change should occur. The status quo must always be taken as the default position and anyone wanting to change the status quo must provide much more compelling evidence than simply saying that most everyone in the world except for them is wrong and that he has a logic textbook to back him up. Technically, we're right to be saying that but the fact that we are right doesn't help our argument all that much.

If we are to convince someone that they are wrong to be a theist, then we need more than saying that they and most everyone else they know are the ones who have to prove their point. Since the majority agrees with them, they feel their point has already been proven. That's not a correct assumption based on the rules of logic, but it is a valid one based onthe way that most people reason and it's the assumption that has to be challenged. Shifting the burden of proof to them does absolutely nothing to further our argument.

orac

First, the chosen propositions:
Christian: God (as presented in the Bible) is real!
Atheist: Prove it, then I'll believe you.

My (atheist) evidence:
My evidence that I want the christian to prove their God is real is that I have clearly stated that this is something I want. This can be summarised as "prove it, then I'll believe you", which is clearly a statement that I have just made. Therefore it is reasonable for you to believe that this is a statement I have made, and that it reflects a desire I have.

Any christians who can prove their claim?

Remember, that evidence has to actually hold up under critical examination. I don't mind anyone trying to prove that I did not request christians provide evidence for God before I will believe, so I expect to be able to challenge any christian evidence.

In case it isn't clear, the atheist position is not "god doesn't exist." It is actually "Without evidence, there is no reason to believe that God exists. Until such evidence is presented, I will not believe that God exists." Many people phrase this as "god doesn't exist" because after thousands of years, noone has been able to provide evidence that holds up under critical examination, and thus they consider it unlikely that any new evidence will turn up soon.

Curiously, this works out to "the burden of proof is on the theist", but only because the atheist hasn't actually put forward a positive claim about the existance or non-existance of God.

A more positive claim, such as "that evidence is not valid" requires the atheist to provide actual evidence that it's wrong. Oddly, this is where christians have the most trouble, which may explain why they'ld rather make atheists prove god doesn't exist, rather than have to prove that god does exist.

AJ113

Maybe so, but just as some people are prepared to live their lives harbouring illogicical beliefs, there are many who are simply not prepared to do so. For these people, tolerating the wacky, unproven, illogical beliefs of others in order to appear reasonable is a betrayal of their own principles.

Hawkingfan

I still don't think this would work, because once you've assumed that their god exists, you assume all the baggage that comes with it--namely that their god is above and beyond any contradiction you throw at them. You are assuming something illogical and then you are trying to argue against it with logic. Once that first assumption is made, all bets are off and the argument is in the favor of the theist. Every contradiction will be thrown back at you with a statement about how it cannot apply to the supernatural.

Harrumphrey

Wasn't it Thomas Paine who said, "Outrageous claims require outrageous proof"?

Every vertebrate has a mother; there is nothing extraordinary or logically suspect about claiming to have one.

Suppose I make a positive claim: the Easter Bunny exists. Do I really have the burden of proof for such a positive claim?

Fill in the blank. Allah exists. Santa Claus exists. Ra, Beelzebub and Dagda exist. What now? You don't believe me?