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.
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.