Burden of Proof

[KinsiHilaac]

If B claims to A that something exists,
B now has to prove to A that it exists

If B doesn´t succeed in proving that the thing exists

The most logical assumption that follows is that it doesn´t exist

This is the logic that should be applied when discussing the existence of a God

 

[Omar del Sur]

ex-Muslim:

*previously is Muslim*
*starts to doubt Islam*
*leaves Islam*
*proceeds to obsess about Islam and a God he supposedly doesn't believe in 24/7*

 

[KinsiHilaac]

ex-Muslim:

*previously is Muslim*
*starts to doubt Islam*
*leaves Islam*
*proceeds to obsess about Islam and a God he supposedly doesn't believe in 24/7*

It´s called discussing philosophy. Nobody has time to obsess over one religion trust

 

[Garaad diinle]

If a is not bright enough to understand b or is unwilling to understand then b need preach no more.

 

[KinsiHilaac]

If a is not bright enough to understand b or is unwilling to understand then b need preach no more.

We are assuming both are of sane intellectual capacities

 

[Garaad diinle]

We are assuming both are of sane intellectual capacities

In a perfect world i'd agree but that is not the case in the real world.

 

[Al hashimi]

If B claims to A that something exists,
B now has to prove to A that it exists

If B doesn´t succeed in proving that the thing exists

The most logical assumption that follows is that it doesn´t exist

This is the logic that should be applied when discussing the existence of a God

What proof do you need to believe Islam is haqq?

 

[Internet Nomad]

Below is an illustration of a case for the existence of God.

For me to type to you, I would need a phone, which depends on the resources mined to manufacture that phone, which depends on the formation of the earth to produce those resources, and so on till you reach the universe. We are all aware that the universe was created. At the end is god because what is after the universe?. An infinite list of dependencies is not an option because that would lead to the infinite regression fallacy. Thus, there must be a self-sufficient maker. But how would we recognise this autonomous being as Allah? This only makes up half of the justification for Islam.

 

[induction]

The most logical assumption that follows is that it doesn´t exist

not necessarily. the most logical thing that follows should be that no person is required to believe the claim B. so if i said God exists, and my proof falls short, then the best you can do is say that i am not required to believe in God because your proof is not demonstrative. You can't say God doesn't exist because that too is a claim and would require a proof like B. so you would probably become an agnostic and not an atheist if the proofs for the existence of God are weak.

 

[KinsiHilaac]

not necessarily. the most logical thing that follows should be that no person is required to believe the claim B. so if i said God exists, and my proof falls short, then the best you can do is say that i am not required to believe in God because your proof is not demonstrative. You can't say God doesn't exist because that too is a claim and would require a proof like B. so you would probably become an agnostic and not an atheist if the proofs for the existence of God are weak.

But if you fail to prove to someone your claim. Then the person can make an atheistic claim and say they DONT believe in your God because of the lack of proof. Which makes them an atheist.

 

[Internet Nomad]

Read my claim i wrote in the thread

 

[induction]

But if you fail to prove to someone your claim. Then the person can make an atheistic claim and say they DONT believe in your God because of the lack of proof. Which makes them an atheist.

to be an atheist you need proof as to why God doesn't exist. to be an agnostic you just need to find flaws in the proofs for the existence of God and can therefore conclude that you are not required to believe in God because the proofs are not correct. an atheist is someone who is sure God doesn't exist because they have their own proofs, and an agnostic is someone who basically is in an undecided state (this state follows from the proofs for God not being strong). at least thats how i understand it

 

[Al hashimi]

Prove God doesn't exist

 

[KinsiHilaac]

to be an atheist you need proof as to why God doesn't exist. to be an agnostic you just need to find flaws in the proofs for the existence of God and can therefore conclude that you are not required to believe in God because the proofs are not correct. an atheist is someone who is sure God doesn't exist because they have their own proofs, and an agnostic is someone who basically is in an undecided state (this state follows from the proofs for God not being strong). at least thats how i understand it

Your first sentence is wrong, To be an atheist you don´t need any proof of god not existing, Atheism is simply put the lack of belief in a Supernatural being (God). And in the situation right now the lack of evidence of any God existing is why I do not believe in any God

See the difference between an atheist and theist when met with no evidence is that the theist takes a leap of faith and believes in it anyway while the atheist don´t.

 

[KinsiHilaac]

Prove God doesn't exist

Prove Big Foot doesn´t exist

 

[Al hashimi]

The Quran is evidence there is God, aswell as its preservation which was promised from God
Quran 15:9

"It is certainly We Who have revealed the Reminder, and it is certainly We Who will preserve it."

 

[Al hashimi]

Prove Big Foot doesn´t exist

DNA Study Proves Bigfoot Never Existed

Curse you, reliable DNA studies! Must you spoil all the fun?

time.com

Your turn.

 

[Internet Nomad]

Prove Big Foot doesn´t exist

For me to type to you, I would need a phone, which depends on the resources mined to manufacture that phone, which depends on the formation of the earth to produce those resources, and so on till you reach the universe. We are all aware that the universe was created. At the end is god because what is after the universe?. An infinite list of dependencies is not an option because that would lead to the infinite regression fallacy. Thus, there must be a self-sufficient maker. But how would we recognise this autonomous being as Allah? This only makes up half of the justification for Islam.

find me a hole in this logic

 

[induction]

Your first sentence is wrong, To be an atheist you don´t need any proof of god not existing, Atheism is simply put the lack of belief in a Supernatural being (God). And in the situation right now the lack of evidence of any God existing is why I do not believe in any God

See the difference between an atheist and theist when met with no evidence is that the theist takes a leap of faith and believes in it anyway while the atheist don´t.

i don't agree with this. Ok, so you said "atheism is the lack of belief in God". we can rephrase this and it becomes "atheism is the belief in the claim that God does't exist". Now, to be an atheist you are making a claim, and every claim requires a proof. Therefore to be an atheist you must provide proof for your claim ( God not existing).

 

[induction]

Prove Big Foot doesn´t exist

imo i am "agnostic" on this, so Big Foot could exist or it could not. even if all the "evidences" showing it's existence are fake, i can't conclude it doesn't exist. best i can do is say the evidence is inconclusive. Now, if i wanted to deny it's existence then i'd need to provide proof as to why it doesn't exist.