Where does the burden of proof lie here?

Question

Tom: God may or may not exist. I don't know either way.

Bill: Don't be a doofus, Tom. God can't possibly exist.

Tom: Can you show me why God can't exist?

Bill: You can't prove a negative. You have to prove to me that God exists.

Tom: But I didn't say God exists. I said he might exist. I also acknowledge that he might not exist. You are the one claiming certain knowledge that God doesn't exist. You must have arrived at that position through some reasoning process. Clue me in.

Bill: You are a brainwashed idiot!

Is the burden of proof on Tom or Bill?

Alan Turing: Not only am I not a Fundamentalist, but Tom isn't one either. Go back and check the dialogue again. Tom makes no Fundamentalist claims whatsover.

Answer 1

Bill

Answer 2

OK. This is a classic argument that fundamentalist use to attempt to turn the tables on other people. '

We clearly know that you cannot prove the existance of God. There is NO valid proof that exist or will ever exist.

It is the same thing for X, where X is some concept that no one has ever been able to show, validate, or prove the existence of.

Any entity for which you cannot prove exist, also has the attribute that you cannot prove that they do not exist. That is just the flip side of that coin.

Just like you cannot prove God exists, you cannot prove God does not exist.

The same thing is true about unicorns or fairies. You cannot prove they exist and you cannot prove they do not exist.

In general any entity, X, for which you cannot prove exists, you also cannot prove does not exist.

Now what should Tom and Bill do about that?

My take is that if you cannot either show that something exists or doesn't exist, that you are dealing with something irrelevant to the world we live in. Since things that would have any effect on the world would be easy to scientifically prove of their existence, it is clear that God does not have any effect on our world. Any of the alleged attributes of God either are scientifically provable or they are figments of people's vivid imaginations, the results of wishful thinking.

If I cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exist, I shouldn't waste any more time on the issue, except to share with others my understanding to try to wake people up from their destructive, confusing dreams and nightmares.

Consequently what Tom and Bill should do is talk about something that is relevant to their lives. Clearly God is not relevant. There burden of proof is the same burden no matter which side of the argument you are on.

Answer 3

The burden of proof is almost always on the person trying to prove that something DOES exist.

For example, if I say that I have a Babe Ruth rookie card, the obvious response is "Show it to me." If I don't show you the card, it's assumed that I was lying. The only difference here is the main concept of the burden of proof:

The person who believes an idea that is not accepted by the majority has the burden.

Statistically, the majority of people in the world have a religion, but I don't know how many actually believe in a God. To make things more confusing, few people have the same idea about who God is. Christians believe in the trinity. Jews believe in a God that's not in 3 parts. Because of the differences in views, we have to look at the religion of the majority. But no religion makes up a majority.

The best answer I can give is that BOTH sides have a burden of proof.

There are plenty of websites that show evidence of whether or not God exists. The only one I remember the name of is www.godisimaginary.com.

Answer 4

Exclusing other religious arguments, and given that Tom is saying "may or may not", the burden of proof here is on Bill.

Note, however, that this would be exactly the same if Tom were saying "undetectable unicorns keep jabbing me in the ear", or if Tom were to make claims about Zeus, or dwarves that eat, and then regurgitate and perfectly rearrange his socks while he sleeps, etc.

Thus, to avoid becoming the powerful man with the cat in Hitchhiker's Guide (read it), philosophers have a test called Occam's Razor, which says that, unless something is necessary to explain something about the world, we assume it doesn't exist. Otherwise, we could make things up infinitely, and never be sure of which are real and which aren't. The sock-eating dwarves would have just as much claim to reality as I do.

At this point, the discussion shifts to "must we posit God to explain the world or to explain something about it?", and that is a different question.

Answer 5

Bill and Tom both sound like doofuses (doofi?)

I get what you are doing here, but I don't think that agnosticism holds up. I do not acknowledge the possibility of the existence of God for the same reason that I don't acknowledge the possibility of magic, ghosts, fairies, dragons, etc. Such a concept is in direct opposition to all experience of the universe.

Yes, you can take the position that all things are possible. You can wonder if you should even be trusting your senses anyway. However, I find nihilism to be a paralyzing philosophy.

Answer 6

The fact that there is no proof of god is proof that there is no god. This works especially well because god is so ridiculous, and sheer logic proves it. If I am wrong, then you could use your conversation to prove ANYTHING. God, the tooth fairy, anything anyone can make up. I am trying to show you why god is so ridiculous to science. Let me show you another conversation:

Tom:Hey god

Tom:God are you there

Tom:God people tell me that because I have no proof of you, that talking to you may be strange.

Tom:I want you to please help my friend overcome his disbelief.

Tom:God are you there?

Silence:

Tom: Oh guess bill was correct.

The next day tom dies, and stops existing.

Now if you still believe in god, put the tooth fairy in the spot where god talks, or is mentioned, and tell me how it is less believable. It is not.

Answer 7

Bill's an atheist and Tom's agnostic. An atheist would never call an agnostic "a brainwashed idiot", that's reserved for fundamentalists. But the burden of proof is on Bill.

Answer 8

Actually, its on neither. It is up to Tom to take the time, and do some investigating in order to make a more reasoned answer, since he's the one sitting on the fence. If, after he does this research, he claims god exists, then he will have to prove it.

Answer 9

Bill, I suppose. I don't think Tom is trying to prove anything in the first place. Nor do I think he is asking for proof. "It is what it is"

But how do you proove something doesn't exist? I don't think either really have the burden of proof, they should just accept eachothers thoughts.

Answer 10

If proof is required, then it's required of both. If you say an absolute, as in A does or does not exist, then you must prove without a doubt that this is the case.

The exception for a personal belief system (i.e. God) is that you don't have to prove it unless you're requiring someone else to agree with you:

"God definitely exists for me" requires no proof, along with "I do not believe in God; he does not exist for me."

"God definitely exists, and you must believe in him" requires proof, as does "God definitely does NOT exist, and you can't believe in him"

Answer 11

Tom is stating an opinion, where as Bill is stating a "Fact" so the burden of proof would be on Bill and his '
"Fact". Facts must be backed up with evidence, otherwise they are mearly opinions!