It should be easy enough, I'm sure there is a study somewhere... I liked a question a little while ago about opinions...your position is just an opinion :-)
2007-09-09 05:48:21 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
They can't answer this because they say the burden of proof is on belivers. However, this is true in some respect, but when you specifically ask a question to them for proof that God does not exist they simply have nothing to say. Saying the burden of proof is on the believers, in my mind, is the easy, cowardly way out. They simply can't answer the question. Don't expect any real answers.
2007-09-09 05:59:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 6⤋
When the religious state that something exists, the burden of proof is on them. I mean, really... "it should be easy enough, I'm sure there is a 'study' somewhere... I liked a(n) [answer] a little while ago about opinions... your position is just an opinion"
If you state that god exists, it's your job to prove it. If you can't prove it after believing it for so long, I'm VERY comfortable saying that god does not exist.
Oh, and when you do try to prove god's existance, try NOT quoting an ancient storybook.
2007-09-09 12:56:39 · answer #2 · answered by {fiyerae}rox.my.world. 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Capital "G" god? Well that is easy enough by looking at the bible. A supposedly "holy" book it is full of contradictions. Wouldn't the word of a god be infallible? Since it is not that god is false. Let's also look at the events in the bible. The great plagues of Egypt have no historical record. There are many records of ancient Egypt but nothing of the plagues. As major events there would be some record of them if they happened. Finally let's look at jesus' miracles. Also major events with no record. The Romans kept very good records including censuses and jesus is no where to be found. If he were real there would be some mention of him in historical context.
So there's your proof. go ahead and ignore it.
2007-09-09 13:00:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a logical impossibility to prove a negative, no matter what subject you're talking about. But this is the common question Theist have posed to Atheists.
It is logically impossible to prove that an object or event does not exist. However, it is the essence and the backbone of science to provide evidence that something does exist. If something exists, such as energy, matter or space, it manifests itself to us by objective evidence. We can measure such manifestations or we can take objective images of them.
It is axiomatic in the affairs of man, and steeped in common sense that, whoever makes a claim, has to prove its validity. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
2007-09-09 13:17:54 · answer #4 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why don't YOU prove that God exists? I'm sorry, but I think it's unfair of you to challenge other people's beliefs like this. I know for a fact that if someone posted a question that said: "Prove God exists?", religious people would be rushing to attack people for challenging their faith. Just live and let live. I don't personally believe in God, because Science contradicts the Bible too much, but each person should be allowed to believe what they like, without being challenged about it. Live and let live.
2007-09-09 13:07:16 · answer #5 · answered by flamebolt666 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We exist in a world governed by probabilities, not absolutes. The simple fact is that the probability of some cosmic hobgoblin, such as god, existing is so low as to be commonly accepted as improbable. There is no credible evidence to suggest otherwise.
2007-09-10 13:28:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The burden of proof is on the Theists who make the claim that god exists. If the logic were reversed, I could say that subterranean squids live under Pluto's surface because no one can prove they don't, and that's just idiotic.
2007-09-09 12:55:57 · answer #7 · answered by Subconsciousless 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Easy, Earth, all it's creatures,& the galaxy around us. I'm afraid god is just an excuse that has been used far too long & if their is a god, why did he let that wacky Austrian chap toast so many of his chosen people?,why does he tell priests to finger babies?,why would he create mucus? & lastly, why would he make his followers such morons?
2007-09-09 13:03:42 · answer #8 · answered by MaxPower 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is not necessary to prove that invisible, magical sky-fairies (gods) do not exist, any more than it is necessary to prove that bridge trolls, garden gnomes and monsters under your bed do not exist. Science is doing OK all on its own, in seeking natural answers to questions about nature... so far, there has been no need to invoke the supernatural in order to explain something about nature. Quite simply... we have no need of that hypothesis.
Here's the thing... you folks believe... in the absense of all credible evidence... that a (fictional) cosmic Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced, by a talking snake with legs, to eat from a magical tree... (etc.)... and that there is something horribly wrong with people who ARE NOT so gullible and droolingly stupid as to believe such outrageously ridiculous codswallop.
Well... we happen to think that that is stupid and crazy... because it IS stupid and crazy. The fact that we are able to RECOGNIZE that as stupid and crazy makes us rational... and sane... and atheists. NOT being able to recognize that such beliefs are stupid and crazy makes you... what?... oh, never mind.
Anything else you'd like to know?
P.S.: Atheist... agnostic... unbeliever... humanist... secularist... rationalist... etc.. All of these are such unnecessary labels. Why don't you just lump us all together, and refer to us as "... those doggone sane people?"
"If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so." ~ Richard Dawkins
.
2007-09-09 13:02:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I can't prove that God doesn't exist, just as you can't prove that there isn't a Starbucks on the far side of the planetoid Pluto that serves coffee to interstellar travelers. I can prove, however that the Christian God does not exist if one bases their belief in God on a literal interpretation of scripture, or at the very least that he's a jerk.
2007-09-09 12:55:38 · answer #10 · answered by robert 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
You're right, except that you're not going far enough.
My opinion is that it's wrong to agree or assent to any assertion on the basis of faith alone, because that would be merely substituting someone else's words for your own thoughts. Therefore, I will neither agree with nor assent to the god hypothesis until someone comes up with evidence to support it.
Over to you.
2007-09-09 12:57:39 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋