I feel Atheists will satisfy my question, but a question for christians it is?

Question

Shouldn't the proof of God's existence be found before the disproof of the disproof.

I'll rephrase, shouldn't the burden of proof fall on the people making the claim that something exists in the first place?

Sorry I didn't mean to lower case the word Christians.

Subliminal mistake perhaps.

Thanks "Arewethereyet" for your condescendingly ignorant, and sanctimoniously rhetorical answer.

Answer 1

Exactly. The person making the claim has to provide the proof. Why should life be any different than, say, a court of law, or a scientific journal?

Answer 2

That is true as far as it goes. Of course, you cannot disprove the existence of something that does not exist, or more correctly, you cannot disprove the existence of something that leaves no objective empirical evidence in the real world than can be detected.

The fundamental premise of science is that the natural processes that control the physical universe can be understood through the objective observation, collection, and analysis of empirical evidence that exists in the real, physical universe. There is no need or place for supernatural beings, forces, things, or faith-based belief in the scientific method.

Contrary to the nonsense put forth anti-science creationists and fundamentalist Christians, scientists have no evidence for any gods, and do not seek to prove or disprove the existence of any gods because it is outside the bounds of scientific inquiry. All claims of the existence of such scientific evidence by the anti-science groups are lies or distortions.

They attempt to get around the fact that they have no evidence by redefining what science is so that it can include their non-scientific speculations. It is clear that a vast majority of them do not have the slightest knowledge of the philosophy of science or the epistemology of human knowledge.

They cannot correctly define what a scientific theory is, but they think they know everything about it. When confronted with facts, they always fall back on either attacking people personally or they invoke a supernatural explanation in terms of god or the bible, which of course, is by definition not allowed in scientific arguments.

----------------

Deof Mov… -

The standard of proof is no different. If the level of proof cannot be met, the hypothesis is rejected. It's really that simple.

Answer 3

With the progressive evolution of a the larger 'Homo" brain, the ability to control and question their environment followed.
With the discovery of 'very' early burial sites, one could assume that this activity, unique in the animal kingdom, accompanied enough thought to consider the finality of death, and questions of what it all means.

In the absence of any scientific knowledge, deities might've been envoked as the culprits, although quite likely Earth centred beliefs worshiping the environment with intimate local environmental knowledge would've been the precurser to other worldy deities.

This is not a hard concept to fathom, and in light if it's logic, it's difficult to fathom how people could believe in god/gods today.
It must require a great amount of ignorance and denial to do so..

And in answer to the "why shouldn't I believe' camp, it's because each new generation of children that have this crap forced into their innocent little minds, are ultimately denied access to millions of hours of research and scientific data that could "accurately" answer their natural gift of asking questions about the world around them.

This is a terrible and cruel crime against children, and all in the vein attempt to foster ones divisive and secular deity belief system.
Shame on all of you..!!

Answer 4

Why should I be asked to prove the existance of The Invisible Pink Unicorn!
Let us just pass a law requiring Faith and Punish any who fail to worship Her with Torture and Death!

Dod Sneeze make a serious mistake and should read some History.
He might be interested in what the Ancient Greek philosophers presented in arguments about why God(s) don't exist and the commentaries of the Roman Emperors on atheists.

Answer 5

I don't see a burden of proof on Christians. In one form or another, people have believed in deities for all of human history. Atheism "as we know it" has only been around for about 150 years. Folks like Dawkins pretend to be surprised that people suggest God exists, but atheism is the historical anomaly. Various skeptics have put forth their views and they are worth considering. This doesn't mean theists owe anything to anyone.

Answer 6

No, because the non-theist is claiming that reality exists in such a way that God is not real, which is as much of a claim about reality as the theists claim that He does exist.
Furthermore, the standard of proof is so great that the theist could not meet it regardless of whether God existed or not. God is spirit and trying to prove Him by physical means is impossible by definition.

Answer 7

The Bible is clear that it's by faith me are saved through FAITH.. not proof.. When proof is given faith will no longer exist therefore salvation will no longer be available.. We have evidence that God exists in nature and in science. We have evidence in the Bible that Jesus is indeed the Christ. I will provide you with both if you wish the scientific report is quite long. The biblical evidence is in Psalms 22.. Jim

Answer 8

Really, yes. But there is no way to prove the theory that God does or does not exist so it's pretty futile..

Also, God was not an/the original idea. Christianity is not the oldest religion.

Answer 9

True Christians already have personal proof, they went seeking and found for themselves others have not done this and think they can demand proof, this is not how God does things.

Answer 10

Innocent until proven guilty. God untill proven otherwise
Proof should never be a burden. Besides why do I have to prove my beliefs? If you don't want to believe it don't.