English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

18 answers

If it is to be established that there is a God, then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is indeed so. Until and unless some such grounds are produced we have literally no reason at all for believing; and in that situation the only reasonable posture must be that of either the negative atheist or the agnostic. So the onus of proof has to rest on the proposition [of theism].

2007-05-16 21:56:01 · answer #1 · answered by Akimbo 4 · 0 1

Existence may lie outside the realm of empirical study, but the effects of things attributed to a deity do not. It is possible to study and test the things that the faithful say 'god did'; and usually in this arena, supernatural philosophies fall to natural explanations.

Logically, that would mean that the supernatural either cannot impact the natural universe, or it doesn't exist in the first place to do so.

2007-05-17 05:02:32 · answer #2 · answered by Bill K Atheist Goodfella 6 · 0 0

Both arguements rely on Faith....either in themselves, nothing, or God. How can you perform multiple experiments with Faith, either of them? You can't. It is all Theory, and that is how it should be taught. Scientifically speaking!

FIX THAT: to "PROVE" something, a theory: you must be able to recreate it in a controlled setting, over and over with the same outcome. So if you can do the "Flatliners" thing and come back from the Dead, with "proof", one way or the other, then there you go. Which, BTW there are THOUSANDS of documented cases of life after death, and none of them are a "black void" but some have seen Hell!

2007-05-17 04:45:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

That's what a religious person would say. Claiming that it cannot be proved because it's outside empirical study.....probability begs to differ.

the atheist position is: the non existence of god hasn't been proved YET though logical thinking and common sense show that there is no god.

2007-05-17 04:57:24 · answer #4 · answered by Stef 4 · 0 1

I pose a similar argument following the spirit of Schrodinger's cat- Many argue what might be the contents of a sealed box, who is right? We can not open the box, we can not lift the box, we can not see inside the box, we can not touch the box.
Theists read a book (or learn about the book from others) often written thousands of years before their birth, and tend not to ponder the box beyond that. Non-theists/atheists tend to be very curious about the box, and many try endlessly to discover more.

2007-05-17 04:41:36 · answer #5 · answered by wildbeardream 1 · 2 0

It's true, neither side can prove their position. However the question isn't proof, the question is what is reasonable to believe.

If there is no proof for a divine being, why should we believe in one? The default position is surely scepticism. You don't believe in invisible underpants elves just because there's no proof they don't exist. The same should apply for god: those who assert he exists should present positive proof, rather than rely on the impossibility of disproof.

2007-05-17 05:49:40 · answer #6 · answered by Daniel R 6 · 0 0

It's difficult to prove something does not exist but this does not make the issue beyond empirical study.

There either IS a God (or Gods) or their ISN'T. this is not a wishy washy 'what colour is nicest' question.

The burden of proof lays with the person or persons claiming the existence of something.

2007-05-18 05:08:43 · answer #7 · answered by David M 3 · 1 0

You of course are spot on, I'm atheist I have been trying to imagine any and all scenario's that would make me believe in God, there are non at all, no matter how fantastic they may seem.
I have also thought up many scenario's that would convince any religion that there is no God, it can't be done.
In fact I'm going to ask the question right now, in this section.

2007-05-17 05:38:04 · answer #8 · answered by budding author 7 · 0 0

Empiricism is a relatively modern day paradigm. Considering that people were much more intelligent before the Age of Reason came up out of the pit of hell, what has empiricism actually contributed to the state of man?

2007-05-17 05:02:53 · answer #9 · answered by hisgloryisgreat 6 · 0 0

What a very strange question! Surely, as there is no psychical evidence to prove the existence of, for example, the Christian God, then the onus lies with religious sorts to prove their position rather than those who decide "no proof = no belief"???

2007-05-17 04:41:13 · answer #10 · answered by flyingconfused 5 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers