Drink if you want to. I'm well aware that the question has been asked 327 times. But why does the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of believers? Why quote Dawkins religiously on this?
Yes, if one person says "There's a purple monster in my closet," the burden of proof rests with him to prove it.
But if a majority--indeed billions of people all say there is a God, and a small minority (about 10%) say there isn't, then the burden rests with the 10% to convince the 90%, does it not? Is that not one the very reasons we're here? So why use that illogical reasoning to cast aside a question rather than meeting it head on? Would someone care to illuminate?
2007-11-07 12:57:32 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
8-track mind, do you even read questions before you post? Did I even give the smallest impression that I was a believer?
2007-11-07 13:05:43 · update #1
Very well put, Sapient. It's really no wonder you're a top contributor.
Yes whomever is making the claim has the burden of proving it. You claim there is no God, it is on your shoulders to prove it. If you claim there is a God, it is on your shoulders to prove it.
2007-11-07 13:09:25 · update #2
I do think that many of us try more times than we would like to answer this, but it falls upon deaf ears. Plus, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Just like in court, innocent unless proven guilty. Not prove yourself innocent.... you can provide as much information as you can to support your innocence, but if the prosecution fails to prove any guilt than you are innocent. So, if the Christians fail to provide any proof, then why is it up to us to provide the opposite for it? Because we understand the importance of spreading the knowledge, that's why.
Like I said, some of us still try to anyways... when we are feeling patient .... that feeling fades quickly here though...I'm afraid.
2007-11-07 13:06:49 · answer #1 · answered by I, Sapient 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
At one time, a vast majority believed that the sun revolved around the earth, even though the evidence pointed to the contrary. The number of people who believe in an idea is not evidence of its veracity.
Those who do believe in God must have some reason for believing. I'd be very interested to know the basis of their beliefs, but the answers I usually see to requests for evidence have never been compelling to me.
So, I've never been able to find evidence of God on my own despite a sincere search for it, and I've never been able to get a believer to articulate a reason for believing that resonated with me.
Can I prove that there is no God? Nope. I just can't think of a reason why anyone would postulate that there is one.
2007-11-07 13:44:11 · answer #2 · answered by Let Me Think 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The theory is that since God can never be disproved the burden of proof must fall on the believer.
The failure of one does not force the other.
Besides, God does not have to be proven.
Yes the reasoning is illogical for the question to one of significance.
Get A Grip
2007-11-07 13:09:15 · answer #3 · answered by Get A Grip 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If a million people claimed there was a purple monster it still would not make it so.
The burden of proof always lies with the one claiming a fact.
I believe in God but realize that I cannot prove his existence to anyone but myself.
BTW the percentage who do not believe is far higher than 10%
2007-11-07 13:05:59 · answer #4 · answered by Sun: supporting gay rights 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Salam
Logic is not a process used by very many people, what they do use is goating as they hurd each other back and forth to work for those that bleed them dry. At the end of the year they say, why am I no further ahead. That is the plan against you all and you all better wake up before its too late. Those of the books are protected by the books and those with proof well we have shown it in over 5000 questions and 10,000 answers.
Do you really think Allah SWT cares if you can prove he exists or not, even though he did give you the proof many of thousands of times over and over again. If they choose to ignore that logic and common sense that is fine with me. Someone has to fill the flames may as well be them Al hamdoullah.
2007-11-07 13:21:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Well, the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. It doesn't matter if the majority of people on the planet are making that claim; truth of that sort (the existence of something) is not decided by committee. It must be supported with evidence. This is a basic rule of logic, by the way, not some arbitrary paraphrase from Dawkins.
If you are making a positive claim--such as "God exists"--then you must support that claim. I do not believe your claim sans evidence; my position (of the negative of your claim) is that of the skeptic: "Prove it". I need no evidence in negation of your claim as you've provided no evidence in support of yours.
2007-11-07 13:05:26 · answer #6 · answered by N 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Excellent question :) I agree with you.
However, the reason why it's not that way is because the scientific community governs such aspects, and they are, with rare exception, very much against the concept of the spiritual/metaphysical.
Reason for it, they're trying to distance themselves from the religious fantatical ideas that governed early science, and held science back so much. So now, if it even slightly resembles the spiritual/metaphysical, they shun it away as false, and refuse to consider it. Again, with rare exception.
That attitude has pervaded the school systems (via science classes and methodology of study), and thus, has become a common stance. So, while the majority of humans, and in fact many scientists, are religious, the fear of being a religion driven science again prevents such ideas from becoming accepted. For instance, take this link as an example: http://www.wooster.edu/geology/FYSW/NonsenseFYS.html
This is a teacher of a university who uses This to supplement his teaching in class. This is the only bias that is allowed in schools, since the opposite (religious) is against the law. Thus, the extreme (as seen above) is accepted and becoming more prominant.
Thus... it is assumed that God doesn't exist, since that's in the spiritual/metaphysical department, and evidence would have to be overwhelmingly in favor of such for it to be considered.
Ironic: to me, the obsession with the idea that the spiritual/metaphysical doesn't exist is kin to religious zealots.
2007-11-07 13:11:35 · answer #7 · answered by Khana S 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Eh? The burden of proof is not about how many believe it, it is about what is already established. That is, there is no proof of God, so the person who proposes there is must provide the proof, yes?
2007-11-07 13:21:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's one of the rules of logic. The truth is not determined by a vote. If it was, we would still believe the world was flat, just because a majority did.
2007-11-07 13:12:27 · answer #9 · answered by Robin W 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
"then the burden rests with the 10% to convince the 90%, does it not?"
No, the burden of proof is not about falsification but rather, the one who claims x should provide the evidence for x.... :-)
see the Russell's teapot for a better example.
2007-11-07 13:02:31 · answer #10 · answered by 8theist 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋