"Actually, the existance of God has been proven, by the lack of evidence that he does not exist. Science falls flat on it's face trying to disprove God. It's not guilty until proven innocent, it's innocent until proven guilty. Therefore the burden of proof MUST lie with the atheist."
57 comments
You're right: it's innocent until proven guilty. So lets say you accuse me of having committed some crime. You say that I did it and I say I didn't. The burden of proof is on you, the person making the positive claim. Now keys extend that to the claim of the existence of god. You say he/she/it exists and I say he/she/it doesn't. Like the accusation of a crime (your metaphor, not mine), the burden of proof falls on the one making the positive claim. So show me your proof.
Oh, and by the way, you don't have a clue how science works.
"Actually, the existance of dragons has been proven, by the lack of evidence that dragons do not exist. Science falls flat on it's face trying to disprove dragons being real. It's not guilty until proven innocent, it's innocent until proven guilty. Therefore the burden of proof MUST lie with those who don't believe in dragons."
See how silly that sounds.
Why can't you be like most theists and admit it is just a matter of faith.
*yawn* Shifting of the burden of proof again. You know, if I were a Christian, I'd be seriously worried about the actual lack of evidence that God exists. I guess some of them cope by claiming that nobody can prove God doesn't exist.
"Actually, the nonexistance of God has been proven, by the lack of evidence that he does exist. Theism falls flat on it's face trying to prove God. It's not guilty until proven innocent, it's innocent until proven guilty. Therefore the burden of proof MUST lie with the theist."
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."
Science, by definition, only deals with the natural world. God, but definition, is supernatural. Science, again by definition, can make no statement, either positive or negative, about god or gods.
Personally, I will put my trust in the one that gives reliable, tangible results. I have seen the tangible results of science (I am typing on one right now). However, even the most emphatic supporter of miracles has to admit that they are less than reliable.
That's proof enough.
You have accused god of existing. Innocent until proven guilty. See how the burden of proof works?
Besides, your "proof" can only get you as far as "a god exists". Even if we were to accept your faulty reasoning, you must still prove it is your god that is doing the existing. The jury doesn't determine that a crime was committed, the jury decides if they have enough reason to believe a specific person committed it. You have a suspect. You haven't even made it to the indictment, much less trial.
"Actually, the existance of God has been proven, by the lack of evidence that he does not exist."
This is probably one of the most asinine things I've ever heard anyone say. Ever.
"Science falls flat on it's face trying to disprove God."
No branch of science is trying, or has tried, to disprove your god or any other god. Gods are entirely irrelevant in science.
"It's not guilty until proven innocent, it's innocent until proven guilty. Therefore the burden of proof MUST lie with the atheist."
Where as in the real world, the person making the positive claim (i.e., that a god exists) is the one who has to show evidence in favor of that claim. Good luck with that.
Nice try, buddy. If you as a christian are trying prove the existence of your god then the burden of proof lies with YOU. You're only trying to shift responsibility onto the non-believers because you know you have no proof.
Science seeks to answer our questions about our universe & HAS answered many of our questions whereas religion has answered NONE of them. It did for awhile-before we had made any real scientific discoveries, despite being held back by religion. Science has made & is still making religion irrelevant & one day it will be left in the bin of failed human inventions. Religion has outlived its usefulness. It's time to grow up & ditch the security blanket.
By that logic, hobbits exist. "But that's preposterous!" you may exclaim, but bear in mind that it is written down in a big, heavy and portentous-looking book, therefore it must be true.
Now, with the existence of hobbits thusly established, the burden MUST lie with the a-hobbitist to prove otherwise.
See a rainbow, just after a rain shower, and the sun comes out, M. Cat...? With the emphasis on see .
Now prove it physically exists.
The same could be said for your 'God'. What is a deity? A miserable little pile of man-made lies . But enough talk, the burden of proof is on you , fundies.
[/"Castlevania"]
science has no opinion on God, because God is not something natural that can be investigated.
Science may have shown that a lot of things appear to not require a God, but thats not the same thing.
"Actually, the existance of God has been proven, by the lack of evidence that he does not exist."
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a work a fiction, dangit!
...so because your claims of a god who thinks exactly as you do are met with insistence that the burden of proof lies only with the claimant, you decided to do a NO U?
You're insulting our intelligence and embarrassing yourself. But please, continue anyway. It's helpful to identify the whackjobs prior to their acts of violence.
Science has no interest in proving or disproving the existence of God. Many religious people, however, try very hard to disprove science - not because it disproves the existence of God - which it doesn't - but because it often disproves their particular beliefs about what God does.
People thought God caused lightning to strike people. Then science found a natural explanation for it and defeated it with simple copper rods on the roof. They thought God caused the Plague. Science found it was caused by bacteria. Today it can be cured with a few dollars worth of Streptomycin. Now they refuse to believe humans and chimps have a common ancestor; not because it denies the existence of God but because it disagrees with some ancient book written by some anonymous Arabs that claims to know about God.
You misunderstood that completely, dearie. Until you can prove that something has happened, that someone is guilty, you presume that nothing has happened, that someone is innocent. Ergo, until you have proven that your particular god exists, we presume that your god, and every other god and goddess, does not exist.
By that logic you must also accept the existence of Allah, Baal, Zeus, Thor, unicorns, etc.
Do you have any idea how fucking stupid you sound?
Okay, I know the old saying "absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", but you cannot say that lack of proof that something doesn't exist is proof of that thing's existence when there is no verifiable proof that it does in fact exist. God is something that you cannot prove OR disprove.
And also, logic fail. Burden of proof is on the person who MAKES the claim, not the one who denies the claim. That's why it's innocent until proven guilty in a criminal case. The defendant is presumed innocent because the prosecution is MAKING the claim that he or she committed a crime. Therefore, they have to PROVE it.
How can you fail so badly at understanding how 'innocent until proven guilty' actually works?
You are presumed not to have committed a crime unless someone else can prove you did. In the same way, we presume your god doesn't exist until you prove he did.
Bertrand Russell's analogy of the cosmic teapot was made over 60 years ago and still Christians are making the same argument (shifting the burden of proof).
Look at what science has accomplished in the past 60 years, and look at what Christianity and its nonexistent deity have accomplished in the same time span.
Ok, I'll play your game. Prayer has been shown to have no effect despite Matthew 21:22 "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."
Ball is back in your court.
What science are you talking about?
Certainly.
If there was a God, He would not allow you to utter such stupidity.
Ergo, God does not exist. Q.E.D.
So the lack of evidence for god's existence is proof that he exists? You do realize that this same idiotic "logic" could as easily be applied to Zeus, unicorns, the tooth fairy, and Santa Claus, don't you?
You guys really are getting desperate, in the face of an overwhelming absence of evidence that your miserable god does exist.
Probably giving you too much time, but here you go:
1) Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept, meant to protect the defendants rights. It is not a form of proof but an assumption necessary for a fair trial (since assumptions of guilt can have pretty serious consequences). There's far more leeway for scientists to make mistakes, since further experimentation/observation/calculation will weed out erroneous assumptions. Thus this kind of assumption is completely useless and even detrimental for a scientist.
2) If we're comparing proof of God to a trial case who's the defendant and who's the prosecutor? This analogy doesn't really work here.
3) A claim requires evidence to back it up. Any claim. No matter who's making it. The burden of proof is on everybody. If you're going to prove the existence of God you need evidence.
4) Even if we ignore all that, and suggest that we and we alone have the burden of proof to prove that God does not exist, you still haven't "proved" anything, you've just assumed a default position.
Innocent of existence until proven guilty. Also, you cannot disprove the following statement:
My dick is bigger than yours, measuring a length of eight metres and a girth of two metres while flaccid.
Therefore, it's true, right.
Uhm...innocent until proven guilty is "assume that no unless proven yes."
Which means the burden of proof lies with the person trying to prove that something happened, and in a given way. That's you.
God is not a person on trial. If he was, he'd have to appear in court. Non-appearance is often considered a plea of guilty, but leaving that aside the question is not whether the acknowledged entity, God, is guilty of not creating the universe. The question is whether
You are also not on trial for the crime of having an inaccurate religion. The proposition that you have had the nature of the universe revealed to you has been proposed, and is being considered, but it requires support.
lack of evidence disproving a crazy idea is not evidence for it.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
