Isn't the absence of god proof that he does not exist?

Question

The alleged counter argument - "Prove god doesn't exist." is the sign of a weak intellect that is unwilling to put in effort to find answers. They make a claim then go sit on their lazy azz and tell someone else to do the work.

When a person or a party makes claim about something like the existence of god, evolution, gravity or the tooth fairy they are the ones that carry the "burden of proof".

In other words their argument that "Well prove he doesn't exist" is completely contrary to standards of the scientific method and general inquiry.

Let's say I make the claim that I can cure cancer. I bear the burden of proof. It is up to me to publish my findings and evidence so that the skeptics can evaluate my evidence and attempt to duplicate my results.

So, those that claim god does indeed exist are the ones that bear the burden of proof and have to provide to the world their findings and evidence.

It is up to us, the skeptic, to review this evidence and then report our own findings.

True or false?

I used my answer to Monica's question as a question. I felt it needed follow up.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylc=X3oDMTB1a2x0anY5BF9TAzIxMTU1MDA0NDMEc2VjA3BlZXBfZQRzbGsDcQ--?qid=20070802154346AAOICIv

Answer 1

It's a pretty common logical fallacy. And when used only serves to give an impression of weak faith in one's own belief in the supernatural. To a superstitious person, ANYTHING can be used as "scientific" evidence of the supernatual. That is exactly what creationists have accomplished in society today. They have convinced many people that "God is everywhere if you just look". The problem with that is that it does not seem to be 100 percent faithful. Metaphysics and theology are two of the greatest cop outs when it comes to having faith. A quote: "Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.
Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn’t there.
Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn’t there and shouting “I found it!” - Unk The Unknown

Answer 2

That's about the way I would like to think about it.

At the same time as far as I'm concerned unified string theory is so far beyond our ability to prove - it by this logic might have to be considered philosophy. Yet, aside from the lack of a way to prove it absolutely - it would appear to be the perfect answer to everything. (eventually)

Does it make sense to have to prove god does NOT exist?: No.

Does it make sense to try to prove that he does exist?: Not in any practical manner.

The main question, refers to the absence of god. Well, according to the information I have, that's exactly how things should appear. It's not so much the absence of god, it's not even so much the lack of evidence. What about even being able to comprehend what that really means.

If we really treated the issue with the thoroughness and rigor of scientific theory - it may not hold up as well as some theories - but it may also not be entirely incompatible with others.

So at the end of the day I submit to you that the point is moot which is why I choose to move on to other, more potentially productive impossibilities! There are so many parts of science and physics that... Well we cannot prove the theory is correct, but it APPEARS accurate enough to allow us to predict reality well enough to accomplish the incredible.

For example. When NASA sends a rocket in space set to, over time, make a few minor adjustments and use gravity to fling it around the solar system they only need newton's theory of gravity.

At the same time, we've shown he didn't have it entirely right. The flaws were minor, but fundamental. If that even makes any sense.

So these days the physics we work with are far more accurate - still unproven. Yet the astronauts have faith in it, trust their lives to it.

See the parallels? Makes it a little tougher to flat bash religion. Not that it stops me, mind you! I still say organized religion is an all-crazies-only club or a crutch for the weak. But I still have to look over my shoulder before I say it if I don't want to get the crap knocked out of me by some zealot.

Nice story in those ol' books. Maybe some real history in them. Interesting stuff. But people should be capable of goodness, hope and faith without a religion. I would say there shouldn't be any religion at all except that it does seem that some people NEED a guide and they NEED the fear of god or hell - or they'd just be terrible people. Why is that? Why do people need control? They need laws. Without laws... people would still know they were doing bad things and they'd be even more likely to do it and get away with it!

So who knows, maybe it all serves a purpose. Maybe it's all so much more random and accidental than anyone could imagine. Just like string theory predicts. ;-)

Life sucks.

Answer 3

Does the absence of wind prove that there is no air? NO!

You want proof that God exists? WHo made the universe?
can something come out of nothing like what the "big bang" theory says? Absolutely not. Matter is not eternal. If everything around us is composed of matter then someone must have created it. Who? God did! You want to know who is God then read the Bible. Do you want to know where God came from or who created Him? Then read the Bible----Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

What is your evidence that you came from nothing? The answer is nothing. Add, subtract, multiply, or divide 0 by 0 the answer is ZERO!

Please! Repent and turn away from your sins! Accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour. Submit to His will. To God be the Glory! Forever and ever! Amen!

Answer 4

Christians believe, among many other things, that snakes and asses can talk, that virgins can give birth, and that when a person dies his or her 'soul' ascends out of the body and flies up into a kingdom beyond the stars to be serenaded by angels at the heavenly gates.

Their minds work entirely backwards. It makes perfect sense that they would insist a backwards burden of proof obligation.

Answer 5

I'm unaware of this alleged absence. Quite the opposite, the teleological argument suggests that there are some very troubling indicators that a deity of some sort might quite well exist... in fact, a deity is one of only three possible answers to the anthropic principle, each equally unfalsifiable.

So no - I would not posit that this non-established "absence" is proof of anything, since this "absence" remains undemonstrated.

Answer 6

Absence never proves anything. That's why the burden of proof is on the one who affirms the existence of God.

Answer 7

I'm honored.

That, or I like seeing my name in print. One of the two.


But yes, the burden of proof ought to be on the person asserting the existence of something for which there is no evidence.

Answer 8

In exploring the concept of 'God', we first must define exactly what/who that is. Is the Creator limited to the definition that Christianity provides?

The vast and expansive energy and spirit of a Creator cannot be contained within the limitations of most religions.

We are conditioned to believe that God is external, or outside of us, and we run frantically to find 'evidence' of the presence of God. What we don't understand, is that God is within us, as Creative Energy and we do have evidence of the Creative power, in the design and logic of our planet, our body, and our mind. As scientists begin to break down the pieces, we find energy at the core.......undestroyable, and vast.

Answer 9

Christians don't need to prove it to you. Most only want you to understand. Proving it to you would require you having an open mind, but like many on here, you just refuse arguments rather than refute them.

If you were to claim you had the cure for cancer, you would only have to prove it to the person who wanted to be cured. If you don't want to be cured, you wouldn't care what anyone claimed.

Answer 10

Exactly the point of Russel's Teapot and the Invisible Pink Unicorn.