Look at the universe. Look at how complex life is. Look at out of body experiences and miracles that happen everyday. Look at how incredibly complicated the eye is. Life is so improbable that it had to have come from a creator. No other explanation is satisfactory. The existence of a creator is self-evident.
Agree?
2007-10-01 22:31:42 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Not at all. Maybe (but just maybe) before Darwin it was difficult to say who had the burden of proof. On the one hand it was difficult to explain how a complex universe had appeared and on the other hand there was no evidence of communication or intervention from an almighty God but our belief that s/he has created the Universe.
The evolution and the big bang theory have showed that we can explain complex things from very simple origins and there is lots of evidence in favour of those theories. The burden of proof lie with christians now.
2007-10-01 22:43:44 · answer #1 · answered by Kaves L 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Believers claim there is a god, but the evidence (fossil, biochemical, geological, biodiversity, past and present evolutive processes) points out the other way. Complexity isn't irreductible, improbability isn't impossibility, and thanks to the direct and indirect evidence available the god hypothesis can be safely removed (until you can back up your claim with irrefutable evidence).
Because it is your claim, it is also your burden to prove it. Until it is done, and until you can prove it is more than wishful thinking, the theist hypothesis is inconsequencial. You have it easy: in order to prove that there is no god, the entire universe would have to be explored, but in order to prove there is a god, all you need to provide is just one verifiable proof.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is sorely lacking in the theist hypothesis.
> The burden of proof does NOT lie with Christians. Agree?
Look at the universe. Look at how complex life is. Look at out of body experiences and miracles that happen everyday. Look at how incredibly complicated the eye is. Life is so improbable that it had to have come from a creator. No other explanation is satisfactory. The existence of a creator is self-evident.
.
2007-10-02 06:07:39 · answer #2 · answered by par1138 • FCD 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Think about god.Think about how he made the universe with just a word.Look at how complex the life he created is.Look at how this incredibly complex god can make miracles happen.Look at how he was able to design such an incredibly complex eye.A creator is so improbable that he HAD to have come from a higher creator.No other explanation is satisfactory.The existence of a creator for god is self evident
2007-10-02 05:53:49 · answer #3 · answered by nobodinoze 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, you are still the one making the claim for the existence of some entity.
The fact that "no other explanation is satisfactory" TO YOU doesn't mean that "a big invisible man did it" has to also be the explanation for the rest of us. It means you can't be bothered to read up on any science from the past 200 years. I find much better explanations in science (who DO have the burden of proof for their claims, and still carry it through) for ALL of those things you listed. Some people don't even care about explanations one way or another. So once again, you have to come up with the proof.
If you want to be a Christian who says that it's just a matter of faith, and therefore realize it's useless to try to bug atheists and argue your position from a logistic standpoint, then there's no "burden" you have to carry. If however you make extraordinary claims, including claims that my well-being is dependent on my interaction with this deity, then the burden of proof is certainly on you.
2007-10-02 05:37:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
I say the burden of proof lies with both Christians and non-Christians (sorry to just lump all non-Christians together, but I hate trying to list out all the different major belief/nonbelief systems). The burden of proof lies with whoever is making a claim.
We Christians claim that God exists. That's an extraordinary claim, so we should present our evidence (which is usually spiritual, and includes miracles).
Non-Christians either claim that NO God exists (atheists), or that OUR God doesn't exist. So they're saying that all our experiences with God are delusions. That's a pretty extraordinary claim, so they should present THEIR evidence.
But nothing can be decided this way. A person has to make a decision: To believe or not to. If they decide NOT to believe, no evidence will make them believe. If a person decides to believe, no evidence will make them DISbelieve. Or at least, that's been my experience.
2007-10-02 05:50:49 · answer #5 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, don't agree. Burden of proof lies with those making the claim. We actually have some evidence and reasonable alternative explanations for the things you list as proof. These in my view make in many case far more sense to me than your explanation.
Near death experiences can be duplicated in experiments that stimulate the brain. Can be caused by natural phenomenon going on in our brain under stressful or certain specific situations. Evolution explains the diversity of life, including the brutality of it, God wasn't that nice if he designed some of nature. We don't know yet how life arose originally but all that means is we don't know everything. It is a leap to say it must be a God when its just what we don't know. Darwin wrote about the very plausible explanations for the evolution of the eye.
2007-10-02 05:41:32 · answer #6 · answered by Zen Pirate 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Technically.... the burden of proof lies with the Zoroastrians.... or at least the Jews.
But for what it is worth.... you talk about the complexity of the eye..... but I draw your attention to the fact that "eyes" are just slightly upgraded skin pores with fluid and a transparent bit on the outer surface.... not to mention that rather unwieldy blind spot at the back where the optic nerve gets in the way of any retinal cells. Honestly, I'm almost surprised something so shodily constructed works at all.... but then we wouldn't even have them if they didn't (and they don't work half so well on us as they do on eagles, owls, foxes or just about any other creature out there).
2007-10-02 05:47:50 · answer #7 · answered by Lucid Interrogator 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Look, if YOUR creator really exists, then where is He exactly. Why is He hiding himself. Either He's not as powerful as He claims and doesn't want to get laughed at (He does have to send humans and angels to do most of His dirty work) or He just doesn't exist. I'm going with the first one actually. I'm thinking He probably does exist but that He is mostly impotent and a coward.
Agree?
2007-10-02 05:50:17 · answer #8 · answered by Tea 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
So you're basically saying "OH hey! Look how awesome the universe is! I couldn't possibly understand it all so it MUST have been made by a conscious being of considerably higher intelligence than any other living being!"
Do you not understand why arguments from complexity are flawed?
And the answer to your initial question is obviously "No". If you claim something, it doesn't automatically become true until disproven.
2007-10-02 05:47:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No I do not agree.If christians are making the claim then they must supply evidence to back up that claim.
Nature is a wonderful thing,no other explanation is necessary.
The existence of a creator has never been shown.
2007-10-02 05:49:48 · answer #10 · answered by darwinsfriend AM 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋