Burden of Proof.......?

Question

I have looked at only a few questions, yet they all had a common theme. Prove He exists. You say He is there, so the Burden Of Proof is on you. Triumphant response.

I see it a little different. I have to know. Do you believe something is fact? Is it proven, can you show it?

Science has come a great way, over a relatively small span of time. Observation, then replication and consistency give us fact through discovery. An exciting event. Great men are given great honors.
Other observations, are a little bit out of focus. No clear evidence. Reproduction is not possible. Tools to help the research are created, then used in proving an observation, being reliable in showing fact. This creates a huge grey area, where it is really nothing beyond theory, but it is presented as fact. Your belief and conviction are proof enough to me of this.
But, tell me. Who made the rules of proving? What makes the tools absolutely zero'd in and precise? What evidence is so overwhelming?

Do you not have a similar burden to carry? Am I just closed-minded, or am I waiting for a clear, concise explanation, that does not base itself on me having to have faith in it's foundation, however discovered and presented. What holds up the foundation?

Is the fact based on any theory? Of course. Even simply, you have to believe the tools you use are precise. It can't be proven, but it dovetails neatly into the theory. Reconstruction of species, evolution, eras and events, are all based on theory. What.....what if a theory was wrong? Before answering, look and see if a 'scientifically' proven fact, tumbled down because it was based on an incorrect theory. It has happened many, many times, as better tools were developed. What is to say, that after 500 years, we see that the emissions we use in carbon dating, actually have a change in velocity, that can only be observed if it takes 500 years to see the curve form?

I can't believe that I am getting answers that are basically what I said would be said "Prove it", then I am called an idiot and stoned.

Get over it. Proof falls on every party involved. The Christian has an excuse. We are told to believe without proof. To have faith in what is unseen. You live in a world of black and white. So, will challenge you.

Prove it. I do not accept anything on faith. This includes any, any unproven theory, that has just observation that supports your evidence in any way. This is how you ask me to do it.

Lack of empirical fact means that it is not true? Do you understand that you are cutting your own legs off as well?

This war will never end. People, believe what they want. It makes them comfortable with themselves and their lives.

TRUE proof is non-existent in any case.

Answer 1

Good question, according to Atheists you can not prove a negative, wich is inclusive to the religious arguments.

If they cannot prove their claims, it is easier for them to change the focus by saying that, then it is to actually admit they have a need for proof as well.

"We arent making the claim, we say we have no proof", wich if that was the truth, they would also readliy admit their is no factual evidence of their own claims, negating any Atheist view, and making all of them Agnostics.

Answer 2

Three broad fields have emerged to explain the world in succession: religion, (natural) philosophy, and science. Much of logic was determined by the various Greek schools between the 6th century BC and the 2nd century AD. The only logic that was not solved was in the gray areas you talk about. Mathematics needed to evolve from the absolutes of theoretical geometry to the real world where measuments vary. The Renaissance and Enlightenment gave us many of the mathematical tools to deal with gray areas. We deal with concepts like 95% confidence interval and goodness of fit. The gray area is not as vast as you make it out to be. Many of the relative variations in the measurements in your gray area are smaller than the variation of the resistors in your computer. Even where absolute reproduction of observations is not possible, where a series makes a trend prediction, the next event tests the model. At what degree of certainty do you treat something as the best explanation such that it is fact and let the curious investigate further, 99%, 99.999%, 99.999999999%? Scientific papers include margin of error of measurements. The popular press often drops them. Accuracy and precision are critical issues and vast matematical techniques center on them. The Earth renews itself through volcanism, so we have new rocks to compare to the old ones. There are some volcanoes (e.g. Vesuvius) for which we have series of witnessed eruptions, so rocks can be dated to precise years. We extrapolate from there and the error increases, but we know by how far.

Answer 3

I love when people say they do not take anything on faith they need proof. Everyday, you get up you get dressed you get in your car to start your car, you don't pause and go, I hope it starts, you turn the key and it does, why because you had faith the car would start. You sit in a chair and and believe the legs will hold the chair up and you sit down, you don't first inspect the chair to make sure it won't collapse, why? because you have faith it won't. Be careful what you label as faith. Knowingly or not you use faith every single day in many things that you do. Just as you faithfully sit in your chair or start your car or any other numerous things I could list, faith to a Christian is the same thing. We don't inspect every single detail and hope their is a God, We have Faith that there is one. Tell me I am dumb for having Faith and I will tell you that you'd better check the legs on your chair again. ;)

Answer 4

Proof of the existence of God is as individual to each person as there are human beings. To me the beginning of proof was reading in the Old Testament, writings that existed prior to Jesus' birth or the invention of crucifixion, that foretold in explicit accuracy Jesus' death on the cross (see Psalm 22). When I read it (and I had no religious upbringing), I thought to myself - how could this be? How could people living prior to an event accurately depict that event. It was the start of a search that ended with my acceptance of Jesus' free gift of salvation. The proof to me was in God's written word. Others would point to the existence of this planet and the life thereon. Intelligent design as opposed to evolution - the mathematics involved were this to be an accident, and so forth.

There were some in Jesus' day, after seeing Him perform many miracles, still asked for proof. Some will never be satisfied because they don't want to believe - they don't want there to be something that would hold them to a higher standard. Others just want to think that they are the pinnacle of creation/evolution. The facts have been presented on this forum - Jesus' death, resurrection, the empty tomb. It is up to you now to choose either to believe or not to believe. My hope for you is that you look at the evidence of God with the same open mindedness you have used to embrace science.

Answer 5

Before you start talking about the burden of proof, you have to decide on a standard of proof. Do you want a cartesian proof, proof beyond a reasonable doubt or proof by a preponderance of the evidence?

If you want cartesian proof, then even God slapping you upside the head wouldn't suffice.

If you want proof beyond a reasonable doubt, well, by the nature and structure of your question, you have already ruled out this possibility as well.

If you're will to accept a preponderance of evidence, then, maybe, there's some room for discussion.

Answer 6

God does not prove Himself to the arrogant who demand answers on their terms. Neither should Christians try, because you only want to be agreed with. What happens between a believer and their God when Salvation occurs is not something one can explain through science, and you'll never dissuade a Christian of that transformation. You have chosen not to believe; we KNOW He is a very living God, because He communes with us. Period.

Answer 7

Atheists often challenge the theist to prove God’s existence only within the confines of science.
Science has served humanity well. Through it we have discovered countless natural laws of the universe and use that knowledge to make our lives easier in every area of our existence. But to limit a theist's proofs to the confines of what the atheist demands is terribly one sided. To a Christian, there are experiences that science and logic cannot explain. The atheist needs to recognize that we have experiences that are life changing. No mere psychological set of theories explains the changes in our lives. So please, don't mock them. Can science nail down all that exists in mind, body, and soul? No. Can it quantify the beauty of a sunset, the cooing of a baby, or the love of a man and a woman? Science and logic have served us well, but they are not the ultimate truth to all things.
Of course, that does not mean we ignore science. In fact, we use it in our proofs for God. But to limit the playing field to your set of rules is an improper way to start. It is mostly an attempt to initiate control and keep command of the conversation by setting the ground rules according to your criteria.

Though an atheist may not accept biblical evidence at support for God's existence, it does not negate the fact that the Bible is evidence. Whether or not the atheist wants to accept it, is another matter.

Answer 8

Bertrand Russell and the celestial teapot expose the absurdity of Christians denying the burden of proof is with them. If the burden of proof is with the non-believer then prove to me that I am wrong in believing there is a celestial teapot revolving around a distant planet. If you can't then it must be true? That is the logic that the Christians employ.

Answer 9

scientists, and spiritualists, work on different gears.

right brain vs. left brain.

the left brain involves logical, cohearant thought. So for scientists, seeing is believing.

For spiritualists, it is the opposite, lack of proof opens the mind. You will hear countless christians say "I can feel his presance"


it is something either you do or do not believe, but asking for proof is only pissing off the evolutionists, because no christian will give the proof they want, it is all spiritual proof, and miricles, incidents in our personal lifes that give us faith. But that is not what a science fanatic wants to hear, they want to see it, they want t6o touch it, smell it, they want physical proof,

And if you ask me, it just shows that spiritualists and christians are WAY more open minded that evolutionists, they are restricted by science, spirituality has no restriction,
My faith makes me free.

Answer 10

The proof of one God or more lies within the heart of the ones who believe.We can't explain our proof.It is not logical to the human mind. We know that a God exists because the God has shown itself to us on a spiritual level.