How come atheists say they have nothing to prove, its believers that have to prove?

Question

Okay so really before anyone knew the world was round, people thought it was flat. So at the time (before this discovery) essentially what your saying is that flat believers had nothing to prove? So it was those who thought the world was round that had to prove that the world wasnt flat?

Isnt that the same cop out atheists say, God believers have to prove, yet we atheists have nothing to prove?

This is what I dont understand, atheists haven't proved anything...both sides are playing on a matter of faith. So am I saying you're absurd for being an atheist...NO! But I am saying its absurd that you think you have nothing prove.

You have your existance to prove...to say we are just here is a cop out, to say we (as in this universe or matter) existed forever is fine...though its not fact...in fact Hawking doubts any infinite values in matter. Thermodynamics does not say matter or energy existed forever, its that when it began to exist its remains infinite.

So explain?

Haha, most of you are continuing to cop out. Funny how hypocritical people are.

Answer 1

I think the point is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Belief in God, heaven, miracles, etc. is extraordinary indeed. In fact, they're supernatural -- something for which there is NO evidence. So yeah, you want to assert God's existence? Good luck. It can't be done.

If you believe in God, questions about the nature of God must enter your mind at some point. Is he corporeal? Who or what could possibly have created God? Can God simply have always existed, without a beginning?

The way I see it, neither God nor the physical universe could possibly materialize out of nothing. Conceding the possibility of God means one of three things:

1. God has always existed and is the creator of the universe
2. The physical universe has always existed but God is imaginary
3. Both God and the physical universe has always existed

As difficult as it is to imagine an eternal ANYTHING, imagining two of them is more difficult. We know and can prove the physical universe exists . . . but we don't know nor can we prove that God exists. Options 1 and 3 are more complex than option 2 because we would need to explain God as well as the physical universe -- we would have two mysteries instead of one. Injecting God into the question unnecessarily complicates it: particularly when there's no evidence for him in the first place. None of this explains where ANYTHING came from; that question is not answerable (yet).

There are no (absolute) proofs for, or against, the existence of God.

Proof is a tricky word. Many people think that proof establishes something is an absolute fact. That's not often the case; at least, not in the everyday world.

In jurisprudence and science, a reasonable basis for proof is based on solid evidence and the absence of any known contradiction. There's a "reasonable person" standard which defines proof as "beyond a reasonable doubt". The test of time fortifies proofs.

You say there are no unicorns? Prove it. You see? ABSOLUTE proof is an illusion -- especially when trying to prove a negative, such as "There is no God". It was once believed that all swans are white – nobody had ever claimed to see a swan that wasn’t white. The assertion that “There are no non-white swans” was believed to be true until black swans were discovered in Australia.

However, rephrasing the assertion from "There is no God", to "God is imaginary", makes proof easier, using the "reasonable person" standard. We can't ABSOLUTELY prove it but we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consider this . . .

No matter where man has spread, he as created countless gods. From aboriginal Australians to tribal Africans to American Indians to ancient Egyptians . . . they've all created gods prolifically and with ease. That man creates gods is a well-known, indisputable fact.

But what about the opposite? God creating man? We DON'T know that he did. We have no evidence that he did. We have no reason to think that he did. All the evidence points to evolution over the course of billions of years. There's growing evidence that life originated from abiogenesis -- from an electro-chemical reaction in the primordial soup of early Earth.

So, with countless thousands of gods to man's credit, believers are in the untenable position of asserting that all the gods that came before and after theirs are false . . . but their own god (and religion) is real and true. Asserting that one's own god is real, when we know that man created all the others, is ridiculous. It is so unlikely that we can safely consider it delusional.

Man has created countless thousands of gods and YOURS (if you believe) has NO evidence. That, my friend, qualifies God’s existence as dubious, at best, and faith in him as misguided and misplaced. Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the assertion that "God is imaginary" meets the reasonable person standard for proof and has withstood the test of time for thousands of years.

Answer 2

The difference is that one is an existential claim (claim about existence) and the other isn't.

For example, suppose I claimed that I had a pet leprechaun who lived in my garage. Would it be as absurd for you to believe I was lying as it would for me to make the claim? I suspect you'll say that it wouldn't, because I need to give you evidence to support my existential claim of a leprechaun.

You're also wrong about your claim in thermodynamics. The first law of Thermodynamics claims that matter (and energy) can neither be created nor destroyed. The logical consequence of this is that matter has always existed.

This actually doesn't violate Hawking's problems with infinite values, because the "age" of the matter is actually determined by the temporal dimension, which is not infinite. The fact that the matter existed before the temporal dimension expanded does not mean that the matter is somehow infinite.

Answer 3

This is not an answer, exactly, but something you said interested me. "You have your existence to prove." Why? Why do you require justification for existence?

Also, the first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. This certainly implies an infinity of existence. I don't understand the statement "its that when it began to exist it remains infinite." Something is either infinite or not. It can't be both.

Edit: In response to your Haha: To say that I have nothing to prove is a valid answer, not a cop out. Prove that I have something to prove if you want any other answer. And be sure not to cop out.

Answer 4

No. If someone proclaimed as a fact that the Earth was flat they had to prove it. Usually, people just stated that the Earth was flat because it was their belief and the had no proof for or against. There were also people who believed the Earth was round, without any factual basis for that belief.

The whole point is if you want to state anything as fact, you have to prove it.

Even if someone states as fact that there is no God, IMO, they have to prove it. BUT, if they cannot prove there isn't one, it does not mean that there IS a God. It just mean that the existance of God is an unknown.

Answer 5

Oddly enough you masnage to have a few valid points.
First of all, yes the round earthers had to prove their point.
So did the folks who believed the Earth orbits the Sun.
I think in both cases they succeeded very well.
In their time both of these claims were considered remarkable and they went against the recieved wisdom of the times.

Next paragraph though, you manage to turn the significance of this totally on its head. The point you should be getting from those two examples is that recieved wisdom, even if from supposedly divine sources, is likely to be wrong.

As for your idea that we must justify a creatorless creation, well that has already been done, and quite well too.
You guys just have not been keeping up to date on the info.

Answer 6

You're missing the point.

They knew the earth existed because it was tangible and they had no reason to think it was anything but flat because that's how they experienced it. They couldn't conceive of it being any other shape. Once it was proved to be round, this was generally accepted because there was evidence for it. Only lunatics would continue to believe in a flat earth once this evidence was available.

We don't have to prove there is no God. We see no evidence for one and unless we do, we won't believe that God is anything more than a product of the human imagination. If you insist there is a God, it is up to you to convince us by providing us with evidence.

A better analogy would be evolution. The evidence for this is overwhelming yet young earth creationists continue to ignore it because it doesn't fit their preconceptions.

Answer 7

No, the problem is that debates are always brought on my believers and then they say, "God exists because you can't prove he doesn't." This is just circular logic and it doesn't prove anything. It just makes believers feel like they somehow one something.

As for your other questions, I don't know of any reputable sources for the comment about Hawking. Also, Thermodynamics states that matter is neither created or destroyed... it just changes from one state to another. That's pretty clear...

Answer 8

The point is that we can either answer questions with science, or it is not worth answering. If science shows us the world is round, then it is round. If science can't show us what shape the world is, you don't make up an answer. The same goes with God. Science can't show us any reason to believe in God. Therefor we don't make up an answer and say he exists.

There is also the fact that you can't prove a negative. Prove to me that a fairy isn't making my TV run?

Answer 9

What did you want me to explain? The existence of matter? Infinite values? The earth being round? The flat-earth society? My non-belief in a deity? That I exist? What is your question?

Answer 10

Another same old tired question that keeps coming back like zits on a teenager. Your feeble attempt at "logic" is another in the long line of absurdities that believers keep on spewing. "Both sides are playing on a matter of FAITH?" "You have your existance (sic) to prove?" I'm here, boy, flesh and blood - no faith required. Your god and his begotten god-man are nowhere except in your vacuous, delusional mind. I invite you to read my profile. It says "low tolerance for idiots." Bingo.