Who Bears the Burden of Proof?

Answer 1

Evolution already has proof. So, now it's religions turn. So far, they haven't provided any.

Answer 2

"Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it."

I think that makes it rather obvious. If we're talking about atheist/agnostics and religious believers here, I think it's worth noting that if no one was making the claim that god existed, there would be no one claiming that god does not exist. The same cannot be said of the opposite. It's believers making the claim, not non-believers.

Edit: Search4truth (ugh, hurts to even type that name) you can't be serious. I mean look at this garbage you're spewing:

"[Newton’s second law of motion] whatever is moved must be moved by another."

"Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover which is moved by no other"

How the *$&% do you get from "Everything moved must have a mover" to "Therefor, the has to be something with no mover"? Gah! Listen, either the law is TRUE and there IS NO UNMOVED MOVER. Or the law is NOT true, and YOU CAN'T USE IT TO TRY AND PROVE GOD! You CANNOT have it both ways. It can't be both incorrect, and be used as "proof" of god.

"efficient cause"

Exact same argument as before. You know where you can put your special pleading, I think.

"Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence"

Yeah. If. Pertinent word. There is no reason to think that there was ever a time when nothing existed, ESPECIALLY in light of the first law. That's just guesswork, like everything else about god is.

"Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble, and the like."

"We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end"

Ugh... you know, I don't even have to talk about the problems with this. Anyone about whom I could possibly care whether they understand what's wrong with these statements or not will get it on their own. They're *that* blatantly wrong. There's really nothing to be said anyway. It's like you just said 1 plus 1 equals 3. I'm... speechless in the face of such... pure elemental ignorance.

Answer 3

It relies upon. If the declare is noticeably different from many times held, or broadly held perception, the the burden is on the single making the fact. as an occasion, if one makes assertions bearing directly to the properties of debris that return and forth speedier than easy (e.g., the meant tachyon) then the burden falls on the single making those claims. yet another occasion is the background of Newtonian physics. even nevertheless Einstein replaced into good it replaced into his burden (honestly the burden fell to others) as an occasion its correctness precisely because of the fact his view replaced into no longer broadly held. certainly, it in lots of cases comes as a marvel to non-physicists to locate that his Nobel Prize replaced into for neither particular Relativity nor well-known Relativity. those perspectives have been debatable until approximately 1930. Being good does no longer obviate the burden if one's perspectives are no longer broadly or regularly held. So, walk down your checklist and sweetness: is the perception that "Leprechauns do no longer exist" regularly and/or broadly held? if it is so then the burden of evidence is on the single that asserts that Leprechauns *do* exist. If, regardless of the undeniable fact that, you compromise on that the perception "Leprechauns do exist" is broadly and regularly held, that people who could deny the rationality of that perception would desire to exhibit why believing that Leprechauns do no longer exist is rational to hold. they do no longer look to be required (a minimum of on the commencing up) as an occasion that they do no longer exist, they only would desire to instruct why denial is rational. This take place, as an occasion, to be how non-euclidean geometries progressed. human beings began denying key factors of euclidean geometry to work out if a contradiction could take place. So, whilst a real atheist asserts that the burden is on the theist, the inventory theist respond is: "at present, the user-friendly and broadly held perception is that god does exist, so it isn't any longer the theist who bears a burden. fairly it belongs to the atheist to point why that's rational to be an atheist." That place, that atheism is rational, is fraught with problems; that's why atheists are so uncommon. HTH Charles

Answer 4

God burdens not any soul beyond its capacity. It shall have the reward it earns, and it shall get the punishment it incurs. Our Lord, do not punish us if we forget or fall into error, and our Lord, lay not on us a responsibility as Thou didst lay upon those before us. Our Lord, burden us not with what we have not the strength to bear; and efface our sins, and grant us forgiveness, and have mercy on us; Thou art our Master; so help us against the disbelieving people

Answer 5

The Chicago Bears. They are going to the Super Bowl!

Answer 6

Those that make extraordinary claims of course.

Answer 7

HERE'S THE PROOF!
SCIENCE AND GOD'S EXISTENCE:

The following evidence comes from THE GREAT BOOKS OF THE WESTERN WORLD vol. 2 & 19. St. Thomas Aquinas said:

ARTICLE 2. Whether It Can Be Demonstrated That God Exists?
I Answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways. One is through the cause, and... The other is through the effect... When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us, because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.

ARTICLE 3. Whether God Exists?
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion.... [Newton’s second law of motion] whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also must be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only because as they are moved by the first mover... Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover which is moved by no other. And this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the notion of efficient cause.... There is no case known (nor indeed, is it possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself, because in that case it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.... Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect.... Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity... [or] to be or not to be. ...If everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. [FACT: Matter can not be destroyed nor created; at most it changes form i.e. solid, liquid, gas. Physical Law: the first law of Thermodynamics.] Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence -- which is clearly false. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary.... Therefore we must admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble, and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things [like a match in comparison to the sun]... Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being [a Supreme Being], goodness, and every other perfection. And this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of things. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end... Hence it is plain that they achieve their end not by chance, but by design. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence, as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are ordered to their end; and this being we call God.

DEMONSTRATING EXISTENCE OF THE HOLY TRINITY:

The HOLY TRINITY is defined as:
A term used since A.D. 200 to denote the central doctrine of the Christian religion. God, who is one and unique in his infinite substance or nature, is three really distinct persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The one and only God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yet God the Father is not God the Son, but generates the Son eternally, as the Son is eternally begotten. The Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but a distinct person having his divine nature from the Father and Son by eternal procession. The three divine persons are co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial and deserve co-equal glory and adoration.

We need to know how we are created in God's image to grasp the concept of the Holy Trinity and I think your question is a good one.

To understand this better, chart it out or use a diagram of two triangles of equal proportions like the Star of David. This allows an easier understanding of the relationship between the Essence and Existence of a thing. The following words should be distinguished in the following categories: Physical, Mental, and Spiritual. These three words encompass everything in the Universe and make up the CREATIVE PROCESS to help describe the Creator, creatures, and creation.

God is spirit. He cannot be seen. If you were to examine all the creatures, the CREATOR has made a pattern emerges: angels and demons are intellectual creatures without a body; plants and animals do not have an intellect but a body and mortal soul. IT IS ONLY LIVING, HUMAN, BEINGS, that have a MIND, BODY, and SOUL. Only human beings have all three. Now, living, human, being is the existence of man. Those words describe the essence of man's mind, body, and soul. The Body is living, the Mind makes us human and distinguishing us from animals, and our Soul makes us the being that we become (good or evil).

Now, even Muslims will agree Allah is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and omnipresent (ever present). These words describe the existence of God. So, what is the essence of God? I will hold off answering this question till the end.

Now, if you think about the existence of a person they have a triple existence: physical (body), mental (mind), and spiritual (eternal soul). In fact, whenever we create something it has all three of these parts. When we cook we have a recipe (in our mind), we gather all the raw ingredients, and we cook (don't burn it, ha ha) what it is we are making. Cooking has the physical, mental, and spiritual parts. Same with engineering or technology it has three parts: the blueprints (to convey an idea), the raw materials (physical), and the workmanship (spiritual). If something goes wrong investigators will look for a design flaw, material flaw, or faulty workmanship. THIS DEMONSTRATES CREATION HAS THREE PARTS LIKE THE CREATOR.

Now, in the Bible it says Jesus is the visible likeness of the invisible God. (Colossians 1:15) The ESSENCE OF GOD IS: Father (mental), Son (physical), Holy Ghost (spiritual). ONE TRUE GOD IN THREE JUST LIKE A PERSON. THREE PARTS ONE PERSON. When you are sick you send for a doctor; when you are mentally troubled, a psychiatrist; when spiritually seeking you seek out a holy person.

Answer 8

Some things just are! They don't need proof to be true. I don't have to prove that gravity is there for it to be there. It is there whether you have proof or not.

Answer 9

Whoever is making the charge.

Answer 10

the claimant