I don’t think so - it’s impossible to prove that something does not exist from its absence. But that doesn’t mean the burden of proof lies on someone denying its existence. I suppose it comes down to decision making - if someone makes a decision where the existence of God is a factor, then its on them to prove the existence of God to validate their decision, and vice versa too.
On your murder metaphor - it falls apart because you don’t need to prove your innocence, simply prove the flaws in the proof of your guilt. Irrelevant of all of this, the justice system is not based on truth - its based on a reasonable bar of evidence. Many people are judged guilty of crimes they didnt commit, because the judge decided the evidence for it was high enough to clear the bar.
I think you might be just looking at this from a ‘both sides can win and coexist’ point of view, but that often isn’t true in the real life because religion often manifests in politics and policy decision making, not to mention just everyday life decision making, so every time a relevant decision is made, god’s existence should be proven by anyone for whom, it factors in their decision. The reverse can’t be true - it’s not possible to prove non-existence, because it can only be disproven by proving its contradiction.
Damn, I can’t seem to bring this around to a clear point or an elegant conclusion. The more I think about this the more I feel like I’m going in circles. Ah well, I’ll just post this for posterity. Do let me know of any holes in my logic.
The cops wouldn’t throw you in jail without actual evidence existing anywhere…
Your analogy is beyond stupid, because if it were accurate, it’d be, “the cops wouldn’t throw you in jail if no one was even dead or missing.” … and then it’d be done, because you wouldn’t be arrested.
No dead body, no murder, then there’s no murder to prove any lack of connection to!
Work on your logic skills, because they suck right now. Unless you mean to imply there IS actual verifiable evidence God exists? Then you’ll need to work on your evidentiary diligence…
deleted by creator
This is silly. You can’t prove a negative.
The burden of proof is on someone making a verifiable claim. If the claim is not verifiable it is irrelevant and can be dismissed.
I don’t think so - it’s impossible to prove that something does not exist from its absence. But that doesn’t mean the burden of proof lies on someone denying its existence. I suppose it comes down to decision making - if someone makes a decision where the existence of God is a factor, then its on them to prove the existence of God to validate their decision, and vice versa too.
On your murder metaphor - it falls apart because you don’t need to prove your innocence, simply prove the flaws in the proof of your guilt. Irrelevant of all of this, the justice system is not based on truth - its based on a reasonable bar of evidence. Many people are judged guilty of crimes they didnt commit, because the judge decided the evidence for it was high enough to clear the bar.
I think you might be just looking at this from a ‘both sides can win and coexist’ point of view, but that often isn’t true in the real life because religion often manifests in politics and policy decision making, not to mention just everyday life decision making, so every time a relevant decision is made, god’s existence should be proven by anyone for whom, it factors in their decision. The reverse can’t be true - it’s not possible to prove non-existence, because it can only be disproven by proving its contradiction.
Damn, I can’t seem to bring this around to a clear point or an elegant conclusion. The more I think about this the more I feel like I’m going in circles. Ah well, I’ll just post this for posterity. Do let me know of any holes in my logic.
Why do people think that arguing like it we are in courtroom means that I must follow courtroom procedure for arguments of faith ?
The cops wouldn’t throw you in jail without actual evidence existing anywhere…
Your analogy is beyond stupid, because if it were accurate, it’d be, “the cops wouldn’t throw you in jail if no one was even dead or missing.” … and then it’d be done, because you wouldn’t be arrested.
No dead body, no murder, then there’s no murder to prove any lack of connection to!
Work on your logic skills, because they suck right now. Unless you mean to imply there IS actual verifiable evidence God exists? Then you’ll need to work on your evidentiary diligence…