who does the responsibility of proof fall to?

one big topic that comes up in theist vs atheist debates is who does the responsibility of proof fall to?

does it fall to the creationists to prove that god DOES exist?


does it fall upon those who do believe that god does NOT exist?

AND, can you give your reason(s) why?

I personally think that it is the creationists responsibility to prove god's existance BECAUSE: throughout the entire history of science, science has only ever proven the existance of things, science has NEVER proven that something DOES NOT exhist. eg. earth, air, fire and water were proven not to be elements, because of the discovery of the EXISTANCE of the true elements (hydrogen, carbon etc), but neither earth, air, fire or water were proven not to exist by this discovery, they were simply proven not to be fundamental elements. the EXISTANCE of the atom was proven, and that discovery did not prove the NON-EXISTANCE of anything. the EXISTANCE of the forces of Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong and Weak nuclear forces have all been proven, but that too has not proven the NON-EXISTANCE of anything. same goes for the existance of micro-organisms, dinosaurs, black holes, other stars, planets, galaxies, protons, electrons, electrons, neutrons, matter, antimatter, energy etc (the list of things that exhist is very VERY long). not once has science ever proven that something does NOT exhist, so why should it start now? why is there no evidence for the non-existance of non-existant things? because non-exhistant things have non-existant evidence for their non-existance, therefore you do not need to provide evidence that proves that something does not exhist, but if you claim that something DOES exhist, you must provide the proof or evidence that it exhists.

please i encourage anyone to comment if they can think of an instance where something has been proven not to exist, unlike the vast majority of creationists, I am open to new knowledge and new information and to changing my personal views and beliefs and to being proven wrong, i am always looking to review and refine my definitions and explanations of my knowledge and beliefs.

Views: 405

Comment by Ron Humphrey on April 27, 2013 at 12:11pm

I think you are looking at the values of all the constants you mentioned incorrectly.  Life and specifically humans evolved because the constants are what they are.  In other words, the constants were not created for humans, but humans are a result of the constants being the values that they are. 

Comment by Yahweh on April 27, 2013 at 12:11pm

Whoever made the claim should be responsible for the proof. 

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on April 27, 2013 at 12:43pm

Actually , Lance, it was proven not to exist.  I suggest you read up on the subject rather than just posting a bunch of fluff and then saying "has not been proven not to exist".  If you understood what it was then you would understand why the Michelson/Morely experiments proved that it did not exist.  If you can't wrap your mind around that then I would bet on the theist, should you ever debate one.

Comment by Lance Angus Miles on April 27, 2013 at 1:47pm

i did read up on it, i followed the link you provided. in the very first paragraph it says that it was "..replaced in modern physics by the theory of relativity and quantum theory." if something can be replaced by a theory, then it must also be a theory, a theory itself does not have any tangible existence in the context in which this post is supposed to be discussing existence. in this post i wished to dicuss that which exists, using the context of exisence as that which persists independently of the presence of one to percieve it. bacteria existed before we could percieve them, same goes for atoms. but theories (which could also be called explanations) could not exist until someone thought them up, they exist only within one's consciousness. thus, Luminiferous Aether, being a theory according to the link you provided, does not even fall into the category of existance which is being discussed here, and so its percieved "existance" is irrelevant in the first place. also calling scientific facts "a bunch of fluff" is something i would expect to hear from a creationist who can't understand what im talking about

Comment by Strega on April 27, 2013 at 2:06pm

Hi Lance

As soon as someone can give an objective definition of a god, there could be attempts made to prove or disprove it.  Definitions like "ultimate reality" or "supreme being" are subjective at best, and thus not open to supporting or negating evidence.  Any kind of material definition would do. 

Comment by Lance Angus Miles on April 27, 2013 at 2:08pm

Ron Humphrey, thats exactly what i was talking about, the fact that humans are able to exist as a result of the constants having the values that they are, and that these values could have been literally any one of an infinite number of values, and out of all those values they are precisely in the tiny margin for which the existance of life (such as humans) is possible. the probability of this happening by chance being so infinitesimally small, it suggests that it was deliberate, hance suggests design. however as Alan C pointed out to me, and i cant believe i overlooked such a simple explanation, why does something happening that has a small chance of happening need to have a supernatural explanation in the first place? much like someone winning the lottery or being born with Progeria. things that have a low probability of happening can and will happen, and dont need any supernatural intervention in order to occur. thankyou again Alan, i will sleep alot better now after having that argument answered at least to some extent.

Comment by Lance Angus Miles on April 27, 2013 at 2:16pm

well next time im debating with a creationist, i will be keeping in mind to ask them for an objective definition god before we start even talking about the proof of such a thing. never hurts to carry extra ammunition :D

Comment by max stirner on April 27, 2013 at 7:56pm

** The book of books is a fetish
Limiting the compass of discussion to closely related big-3+1 so-called great monotheisms, what can a refusenik -- a complete anti-supernaturalist -- say about using the texts of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, or Islam in the non-existent "controversy" about evolution.

Would a xian fundie despiser of Modern Evolutionary Theory (MET) welcome assistance from his brothers within Islam (these are all male supremacist belief structures) who use the Koran to "disprove" MET?

The methods of fundies, whether of attacking MET or defending the revealed Word, could remain exactly the same -- only the presumed revealed text would change. Slip out xian text and slip in Islamic text -- but the Koran just can't be relied upon by a xian fundie for reasons of serious incompatibility between texts -- logical contradiction.

And, of course, no sane fundie moslem could appeal to transcendental, metaphysical claims in xian texts -- despite having the Genesis creation fable in common. (Same divine support for misogyny -- shared with jews of course.)

The Bible, like the Koran or the Torah, is a culture fetish. Any copy of a Bible or Koran is a fetish artifact -- the text called sacred and the book holy. A text ceases to be sacred when the culture which created it no longer exists.

The book becomes just a book; the gods in it are granted their correct status as fictional characters. The gods are metaphorically dead and tales about them have no significance -- the text never was “numinous” despite its fervid devotees, god-proxies, and tangible functioning institutions like churches, mosques, temples.

For the anti-supernaturalist (me, for example), the xian texts have no standing -- certainly they say nothing about a “moral world order” -- as Nietzsche called it-- a moralized cosmos which can neither bear the weight of science nor the weight of history. That’s why fundies today attack science and rewrite history -- this has been a modus operandi since it was a minor cult not a regional mega-cult.

It’s sometimes fun to puncture a few over-inflated fundie balloons -- anyway, you have a life to create for yourself -- fundies are already dead.

Comment by Dave G on April 27, 2013 at 9:39pm

Whomever makes the positive claim (in this case, the claim that a deity exists) is responsible for providing the evidence to support their claim. It's that simple.

Comment by Lance Angus Miles on April 27, 2013 at 10:20pm
Exactly, foolish theists uses things that science can't explain as evidence for god. we don't know exactly what dark matter is, therefore God exists, it's ridiculous. If the that's how theists want to make their evidence for god, then lets look at the things we used to not understand several hundred years ago a theist could say "the sun and the moon exist and they move through the sky every day, nobody can explain that, therefore god did it" now we know how the sun, the moon, the earth and all the other planets in our solar system were formed, so if that's how theists want to make their case for the existence of god, then as Dr Neil Degrasse Tyson said "..then God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance" because every day we understand and can explain A little bit more about the universe and how it works.

As for the cause of the Big Bang, there doesn't need to be a cause, before the Big Bang there was just energy, and incredibly dense concentration of energy at a singular point, then it exploded and expanded, why was it able to happen all by itself? Well in chemistry we have this little thing called a SPONTANEOUS reaction, the tendency for things to happen without any outside influence required.

There are some great ideas coming out of this post guys, hope they keep coming :D


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service