You can't disprove god?

Question

Why do people insist on trying to shift the burden of proof do they not understand that this is a logical fallacy?

I am asking why people use the whole You can't disprove god exist argument its a logical fallacy in of its self.

Answer 1

They use it because they'll use any argument no matter how specious if it serves their ends. They have a belief, and they use rhetoric to try to defend that belief. The quality of the argument is irrelevant so long as they make their point, convince others (or at least shut them up) and convince themselves.

Do you really think that these people create these arguments because they've thought long and hard about it? Or because they've examined all the angles and done tons of research?

Answer 2

Theists and atheists have different standards for belief. So when they argue over proof, or the burden of proof, they're often talking past each other.

Theists often see belief in God as obligatory but atheists see it as gratuitous. Atheists would rather not believe what can't be proven while theists think it's important to believe based on faith.

The thing is, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God. You can't prove to an atheist that God exists and he can't prove to you that God doesn't exist. If either of you take on the job of proving one way or the other, you have taken upon yourself the burden of proof.

In other words, if on either side you say "Well this is what I believe, because it seems reasonable to me. But you may decide what seems reasonable to you." That's fine. But if you say "I believe -this-, and you have to also," then you are taking on the burden of proof. That's what the burden of proof -means-!

Answer 3

One might be asked How can you prove that a god does not exist? One can only reply that it is scarcely necessary to disprove what has never been proved.
— David A. Spitz

That which is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
— Christopher Hitchens

An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question.
— John McCarthy

If my interlocutor desires to convince me that Jupiter has inhabitants, and that his description of them is accurate, it is for him to bring forward evidence in support of his contention. The burden of proof evidently lies on him; it is not for me to prove that no such beings exist before my non-belief is justified, but for him to prove that they do exist before my belief can be fairly claimed. Similarly, it is for the affirmer of God's existence to bring evidence in support of his affirmation; the burden of proof lies on him.
— Annie Besant

Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.
— Dan Barker

No man should dogmatize except on the subject of theology. Here he can take his stand, and by throwing the burden of proof on the opposition, he is invincible.
— Elbert Hubbard

You might also be interested in my "best answer" to a related question: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ah9g1fS2_xGZA4FEoAK6lLTty6IX?qid=20070730125018AARebCM&show=7#profile-info-tuChBv6Eaa

Answer 4

You have a point, with a *major* 'but' attached to it.

I am agnostic. I won't say 'There is no God' but I don't believe in one either.

An atheist's goal in to disprove god. As yet, I've not seen it done. There are still questions science can't answer (though it might. Time will tell.)

Any religious person trying to convert, or even criticize, an atheist, agnostic or someone of another faith must prove that there *is* a god (or that his is the only god. Even harder). I've not seen this done either. (He might descend one day. Who can say)

The onus of proof is always on he who makes the arguement trying to convert someone from the other side. The onus here is, believe it or not, on both parties.

Just because Atheists have to do it doesn't mean the Church doesn't. And vice versa.

Answer 5

Well Atheists always say, "The burden of proof is on the believer" but then consequently they say the burden of proof for Evolution is the Creationist having to disprove it. I don't know though, I don't use either of these arguments.

Answer 6

It's all a question of faith and Choice. You may not be able to disprove the existance of god, but you also cannot totally prove his existance. It all comes down to what you CHOOSE to believe in. Just because someone Believes differently than you does not make them wrong and you right. It all comes down to your opinion and your point of view. What do you choose? Why did you choose that point of view? Did you Decide to believe, or are just Blindly following because you think it's the right thing to do? Is your faith anymore justifiable than someone elses faith or lack of it?

Answer 7

I'm also told that my belief in Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Muhammad, Vishnu, Kali, Mother Earth, Diana etc. are all fairy tales and you're right, no one can prove it either way but I would say that there are good arguments for why people do not believe. I respect the line of reasoning offered by atheists and those of all faiths.

Answer 8

No, they don't understand that the person making the claim has to provide the proof. Otherwise, I want any christian to disprove the existence of the invisible purple unicorn in my garage!

Answer 9

I've seen Theists come up with some good evidence.

I've seen Nature come up with some dandies.

What I haven't seen is Athiests coming up with anything except a specious application of the null hypothesis, paradoxes based on extreme assumptions and a Holier than thou attitude. Show me the equations.

Unless you want to include condescension, based on a presumption of intellectual superiority which their tortuous abuse of the English language doesn't appear to support.

Theists are just as bad with their circular reasoning. But Atheists are like blind men saying, "It ain't there 'cuz I can't see it."

Why don't we learn more about the Universe and it's laws before we make any final decisions? History has a way of making fools out of people who say that something is impossible.

Hog B. That's the first sensible thing I've read today.

Answer 10

The existence of god can be neither proved nor disproved. It provably follows from this that any belief in god is useless: it can predict nothing. But evidence can be examined; there is NO evidence supporting any theory of the existence of god, and a considerable body of evidence that there is no such thing. See: