2006-12-11 23:48:01 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Believer believe in god. It cannot be experienced with gross eyes. Its Experience is inner vision with bliss and bubbles of joy emitting within. Only one who has experienced it can tell that it cannot be explained in words. One who explains it doesnot know.
2006-12-12 00:10:06 · answer #1 · answered by dd 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
ok, properly, exciting question. This atheist cat will attempt to respond to right here. enable's bypass... you word, absolutely everyone can say some thing exists. i am going to assert that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Ramen!) is God and also you may't disprove it. I have arise with an theory this is previous human skill to disprove (this is why faith persists). hence, the load must be on ME to tutor it. C? also love exists not as a 'genuine' element yet as a fashion of experiencing truth. Christians are affirming God had a Son, performs actual miracles. So u c, u can not evaluate God to jealousy or love in that way. that is a pretend analogy. ultimately, i am going to tutor that the Christian god doesn't exist, in a fashion. Christians believe that God solutions prayers. If we may be able to tutor that prayer does not artwork, then we've shown that the Christian theory of God is fake. properly, wager what, a 10-365 days $2 million dollar learn confirmed only that. best of all, the learn replaced into commissioned with techniques from Christians themselves! Reference link lower than:
2016-11-30 11:36:04 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only with those who feel the need to prove it.
I don't.
But yes, those folks who need to make others agree with them about "God" have the burden of proof on them.
One cannot prove the non-existence of anything, really.
I think it's pointless, though, to require proof, because what is sure and certain proof to a believer won't satisfy those who do not believe.
So I think it's a waste of time.
And, frankly, I find the whole mind set of having to make others wrong in order to feel right oneself abhorrent, whether it's from a believer or from a non-believer. What does it serve, really, except ego?
2006-12-12 02:40:58 · answer #3 · answered by Praise Singer 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I was raised to believe in a personal God. I no longer do. What I "believe" now is irrelevant to you because my "beliefs" cannot be transferred to someone else. "I can only show you the door Neo; you're the one who has to walk through it." Bottom Line: The burden of proof is on the believers.
2006-12-12 00:27:51 · answer #4 · answered by Dwain 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An manner of proof is sufficient?
You are looking for some "form" (for evidence), but God is formless. Words are form, so how can it describe God?
You can accept or deny all the people who say they know that God exists (I did not say believe). But in the end, you have to find out for yourself. Not one can show you. So asking for believers for burden of proof is futile - you want someone to prove God to you but it can't be done.
Pick a dead friend or family member you cared deeply for - you can't prove you loved them. It would be futile to demand burden of proof with you to prove your love for someone who is dead.
~ Eric Putkonen
2006-12-12 00:15:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They don't seem to understand that the Burden of Proof lies with the one making the positive claim, as the positive claim demands supporting evidence. That's the way argumentation goes. The only way you can prove a negative is if you can demonstrate that the condition cannot possibly exist, e.g. "there are no married bachelors". (We know that there are no married bachelors... a bachelor, by definition, isn't married.)
If I said "there's a purple dragon in my garage", you would of course require me to give you evidence that my statement is true... like, say, walking into my garage and emerging with a purple scale.
I think it's funny when these half-@ssed apologists go "Can you prove there is NO God??"
"Can you prove that you DON'T owe me $10,000??"
2006-12-11 23:53:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the burden of proof is with believers - you can't prove a negative, such as God doesn't exist. Believers can only try to prove God does exist.
2006-12-11 23:50:09 · answer #7 · answered by Nowhere Man 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the stance taken. If you make an assertion, proof can be demanded of you. If you say there is a god, the burden's on you. If you say there is no god, the burden is also on you. If you say you don't believe in god, then the burden lies elsewhere.
2006-12-12 04:40:23 · answer #8 · answered by Phil 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No.
The burden of proof is with God.
2006-12-12 00:52:29 · answer #9 · answered by phil_the_sane 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It does. First rule of philosophy-it is correct to disbelieve in a proposition that isn't supported by any evidence. Believers try and shift the burden of proof but if they did belief in anything no matter how outlandish would be valid including Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot.
2006-12-11 23:53:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Of course, but that is logic...and since when did faith have anything to do with logic? The whole idea is that they have *faith* -- by definition, that means they do not require proof. But yes, logically speaking, the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the person making the assertion. I think a more appropriate question, though, would be -- why insist on someone giving you proof about something you know is based purely on faith?
2006-12-11 23:51:19 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋