Who has to prove it?

[dorkmaster]

An atheist friend of mine is always telling people to prove to him there is a god, and it is the Christian God. He says that if I can't do it, he doesn't exist. Of course though he shrugs off EVERYTHING i say. Anyway, I've been thinking, shouldn't he have to prove that there isn't since he is going against the age old beliefs? I mean, if you question the establishment, you should have to validate your worldview right?

[narnia4]

I see people have huge discussions about who has the burden of proof, to me that's something that's useful in debates but... an honest seeker should, well, honestly seek. Imo burden of proof is often used so that atheists can say "Ha! I win!" because they place ALL the burden on Christians. If you're having open dialogue, you can discuss different evidences and explore different ideas. Anyone who obsesses over it saying "No, YOU have the burden of proof!" probably isn't actually open.

I'd say both sides need to present their case, although atheists will try to say that they have the default position. What they'll do is say that they only have an absence of belief in God, which is obviously just baloney and playing with words. An atheist is a person who believes there is no God, and there is a load of implications that goes along with that. Its a positive belief, if it wasn't a belief than they wouldn't be running around attacking Christians. Since it is a belief, you have some burden there to explain your position when it comes to God.

[August]

The question is really what type of proof he will accept. Often their expectation of proof is higher than for anything else they consider to be true.

[dorkmaster]

He immediately throws anything having to do with apologetics or non literal interpretations of the bible away. Plus he is a stubborn evolutionist so anything that challenges that in any way he dismisses. He claims he follows the facts, but he seems to have latched onto atheism and will accept nothing other than absolute atheism. And at the end he begins throwing insults so...

[CeT-To]

Atheism - believes the statement " there is no God(s)" >> that is a positive statement to knowledge. Thus Atheism also has the burdon of proof to show where they obtained this knowledge and if it is True.

Only way i know how one could try disprove God is if one could find an internal inconsistency in idea of God which cannot be resolved. Like for (random) example - God cannot be omniscient and omnibenevolent because blah blah blah.

Its funny though, because if Atheism cannot show that it is true then no one should be an Atheist! They should all be agnostic since it would be a more honest position to hold in their situation.

[August]

He immediately throws anything having to do with apologetics or non literal interpretations of the bible away. Plus he is a stubborn evolutionist so anything that challenges that in any way he dismisses. He claims he follows the facts, but he seems to have latched onto atheism and will accept nothing other than absolute atheism. And at the end he begins throwing insults so...

How old is he? The reason I ask is because it takes some level of understanding to honestly answer what you should ask him. Regardless, ask him how he gains knowledge, how he comes to know those facts. This is normally a dilemma for atheists, as they end up in a position that is viciously circular. They cannot but answer that it is by learning -> reading, and hearing. But how does he then know that what he learns is true, how does he know his senses are not deceiving him? One cannot use the senses to justify their reliability, that would be circular reasoning.

For example, how does he know the meaning of the word "is"? How does he sense that? How does he know that he is sensing that? Does he sense that he is sensing that? You can see how that becomes an infinite regression.

For Christians, the answer is that we "think the thoughts of God after Him". That is true for every person on the planet, since mankind, however sinful, retains some of the Godly image that they were made in. So even atheists can know the truth, they just don't know how it happens.

Whenever someone claims that they only look at the "facts", one should ask them how they come to know those facts, and how they come to know that those facts are absolutely true. As for insults, just point them out.

[DannyM]

He immediately throws anything having to do with apologetics or non literal interpretations of the bible away. Plus he is a stubborn evolutionist so anything that challenges that in any way he dismisses. He claims he follows the facts, but he seems to have latched onto atheism and will accept nothing other than absolute atheism. And at the end he begins throwing insults so...

Lol. There's those naturalistic presuppositions and dogma on display.

[KravMagaSelfDefense]

An atheist friend of mine is always telling people to prove to him there is a god, and it is the Christian God. He says that if I can't do it, he doesn't exist. Of course though he shrugs off EVERYTHING i say. Anyway, I've been thinking, shouldn't he have to prove that there isn't since he is going against the age old beliefs? I mean, if you question the establishment, you should have to validate your worldview right?

Not quite. I believe his argument would follow then the common atheist premise of "positive claim = burden of proof." They use the analogy of a giant flying teapot in space. According to them, if someone says that there's such a thing out in orbit, the onus of proof is on him because he is the one making the positive claim of existence. If he accepts its existence on the basis that no one has proven it NOT to exist, he is being intellectually absurd. After all, if the only basis one needs to believe in anything is that his belief hasn't been disproved, then almost anything can be true. I might say that Allah exists, or Krishna exists, on the basis that no one has disproved their existence. If you think about it, "God is real because you haven't proved Him not to be" is a pretty weak argument. Furthermore, the fact that Christian theism is an age-old belief matters little to the atheist, it commits the fallacy of chronological snobbery, which makes a judgement on a thing, event, or viewpoint based on its age... how are we to know that God is real because belief in Him is age-old? I must agree with your atheist friend on this one; that doesn't stand very strong to reason.
Luckily, there IS evidence to satisfy his vehement intellectual requirements. Evidence from all sorts of disciplines. I have examples off-hand, but I'd rather you visit some other sites such as Answers In Genesis to get a much more coherent summary of them.

One answer I'd use would be this, I'd ask him, "why do you need evidence." It might seem like a silly question but you can use his answer against him to win you his dumbfound silence:
"Why do I need evidence for God?"
"Are you crazy? it's only rational to require facts to support beliefs."
"When you say 'rational,' what do you mean?"
"I mean logical. What else would I mean."
"Just wondering. Just for clarification... you DO believe the laws of logic exist, right?"
"Of course, on what other basis would I say you need evidence for something?"
"I don't know. One question... you are a materialist, correct?"
"Of course I am. Nothing exists but atoms in motion."
"Nothing exists but atoms in motion? Well you just told me the laws of logic exist, so what kind of atoms are they composed of?"
"..."
"Isn't it ironic that the only thing exempt from your materialism is the logic you use to defend it?"
"Oh look at the time!"

[Jonouchi Katsuya]

An atheist friend of mine is always telling people to prove to him there is a god, and it is the Christian God. He says that if I can't do it, he doesn't exist. Of course though he shrugs off EVERYTHING i say. Anyway, I've been thinking, shouldn't he have to prove that there isn't since he is going against the age old beliefs? I mean, if you question the establishment, you should have to validate your worldview right?

The fact is, you can't prove it. You can tell him anything you want but unless God comes down himself, I would say you are out of luck. Maybe you should talk to him about... maybe the "Christian" people who have done him wrong? I find many Atheists like my husband... have a tendency to stop believing in anything when they feel they are beaten and abused- emotionally or physically. Human beings are sensitive...

Remember that ancient isn't always better to some people. (That is what my husband says) And there are things far more ancient than Christianity. It is his choice to deny God. Free will has it's price.

[Katabole]

Hi Jonouchi

The fact is, you can't prove it.

Jesus Christ made certain claims. He claimed to be method by which God created the universe.

You claim to be a Buddhist. Correct me if I am wrong but does it not say in the Buddhist sciptures by Buddha himself that,"I am a teacher in search of the truth"?

Jesus Christ's claim in the Bible is, "I am the truth."

Both belief systems could be false. Or one is true and the other false. But both belief systems, Buddhism and Christianity cannot both be true.

I am a Christian, but for the sake of debate, lets say Christianity is a false belief system. Christianity exploded from Judaism in the first century under intense persecution. Would you mind explaining why Christianity suceeded at all instead of being a belief system that died and disappeared shortly after it was founded if it were not true? Because from my knowledge of the origins of Buddhism, Buddhism in in its inception did not go through the rigorous persecution that Christianity underwent.

[MarcusOfLycia]

Personally, I think it only makes sense that an "ancient belief", as you call it, would be the truth. If God really does care about humanity, it would make sense that He would have already approached us, more than that He is going to approach us in the future or is here now without having been around before. Ancient, in this case, is better, because it is more consistent with the God of Christianity.

The God of Christianity would not make sense if He were not more Ancient than all the days of this universe.

I don't think more recent beliefs are inherently better, either. An ancient belief that is still around always has more weight than a new belief that claims to be better. The one has stood the test of time and the other has had no time to be tested.

[Jonouchi Katsuya]

Hi Jonouchi

The fact is, you can't prove it.

Jesus Christ made certain claims. He claimed to be method by which God created the universe.

You claim to be a Buddhist. Correct me if I am wrong but does it not say in the Buddhist sciptures by Buddha himself that,"I am a teacher in search of the truth"?

Jesus Christ's claim in the Bible is, "I am the truth."

Both belief systems could be false. Or one is true and the other false. But both belief systems, Buddhism and Christianity cannot both be true.

I am a Christian, but for the sake of debate, lets say Christianity is a false belief system. Christianity exploded from Judaism in the first century under intense persecution. Would you mind explaining why Christianity suceeded at all instead of being a belief system that died and disappeared shortly after it was founded if it were not true? Because from my knowledge of the origins of Buddhism, Buddhism in in its inception did not go through the rigorous persecution that Christianity underwent.

They can be. In an ideal world... I would like for everyone to be right after they pass. Everyone gets what they desired in life. Atheism- They get the peace of their soul never being recycled.
Buddhism- Reincarnation or Peace depending on how you lived your life.
Christians get their heaven.
Satanists get their hell.

But I suppose that would also mean that no one was right... *sigh* But I would rather everyone get what they desire.

Buddhism even today is persecuted by China. Tibet. Read up on it. It is very sad... and disheartening. There have been other conflicts... particularly with Christians a long time ago though I think it has resolved for the most part? Least to me it has.

In China Buddhists were actively persecuted. Hopefully after today you will have knowledge of this suffering... it is a human suffering not jut a Christian one.

We have even been persecuted by Christians... (South Korea most recent and notably)

Every religion has someone else who just... doesn't agree... and wants to take away the peace that the other may obtain from it.

But... Buddhism is one of the few religions that actually allows for more than one religion... However- Christianity does not. There are actually Buddhist Christians in the world. ^.^; So obviously some people think you can have it many ways.

Buddhists like Christians suffer under communist rule. Suffer under dictatorship... suffer suffer suffer...

I pray that one day... one day... we can all just understand.

[Jonouchi Katsuya]

Personally, I think it only makes sense that an "ancient belief", as you call it, would be the truth. If God really does care about humanity, it would make sense that He would have already approached us, more than that He is going to approach us in the future or is here now without having been around before. Ancient, in this case, is better, because it is more consistent with the God of Christianity.

The God of Christianity would not make sense if He were not more Ancient than all the days of this universe.

I don't think more recent beliefs are inherently better, either. An ancient belief that is still around always has more weight than a new belief that claims to be better. The one has stood the test of time and the other has had no time to be tested.

Well, if that were true- Buddhism is far more ancient than Christianity. And Hindu before that... Paganism is pretty old too. But you don't see too many of them- but it IS ancient so it must be better? Hinduism is the oldest religion that is still practiced today. (though I wouldn't want to be Hindu but there you go)

Yes, God of Christianity and Judaism is far older- but the religion that worships him didn't come about for a long time after Hinduism.

Ancient is not always better. ^.^;

[neo-x]

Ancient is not always better. ^.^;

Very true, Hinduism is far older, in fact the oldest of all, I think.

They can be. In an ideal world... I would like for everyone to be right after they pass. Everyone gets what they desired in life. Atheism- They get the peace of their soul never being recycled.
Buddhism- Reincarnation or Peace depending on how you lived your life.
Christians get their heaven.
Satanists get their hell.

But I suppose that would also mean that no one was right... *sigh* But I would rather everyone get what they desire.

But it also means someone was right after all otehrwise why no one was right doesn't make sense

I imagine to meet a lot of people in heaven whom I didn't expect to be there by my own standards (we all have some, I guess, just my pov) but there are some logical loopholes, now I'm not bashing, and my intent is not to hurt anyone's beliefs.

Atheists don't get the peace of their soul, technically they think they don't have a soul, hence no after life...cut them off the list. so there is no peace, it is wrong to even think they would need peace soul-wise or after life wise.

Buddhists are in my opinion some of the most harmless people in the world, really peace full people. but again, if meditation grants nirvana, peace, a higher truth, a higher code than materialism - then the point of reincarnation just provides self satisfaction because it is the only means to justify our actions. but who decides what values actions should be assigned? just on our moral sense of right and wrong can not justify our actions, because the ungoverned principle (if there is any) would simple have to exist for a higher cause then justification. self Justification alone seems empty and self serving. so is the need to get rid of suffering. that is a very subjective thought. and would only apply if one is seeking enlightenment. But since Buddhism doesn't directly accept a God, (some form of Buddhism do) and creation, that is why it only serves meditating people, those who seek enlightenment. Empathy towards all life is a noble goal, but technically you can achieve that without Buddhism. The doctrine of Buddhism is very similar to Hindu thought, just with different emphases. Classic Buddhism is simply not suited to specialized cultures where life, work, pleasure, relationships, entertainment, spirituality, are all a part of life and accepted. The concept that all of our desires and attachments to the world are the things holding us back, and that reality is an illusion that we shouldn't engage with, is a disastrous and potentially harmful doctrine when encouraged. When we say that suffering is the status-quo of life and in a person suffers now for their transgressions in previous lives. This ends up in an endless loop, a continuous decline/raise situation. You can be either very good and keep going better or you can be very worst and keep going that way. And in our own sentient conscience we are to battle this all our life. For a painfully disabled person their present torture is a result of their own past actions or sins. That's Karma for you. plus Buddhism is supposed to be against the God centered religions, but they portray Buddha as a man-god. not a man.

Buddhism's first truth is "To live is to suffer" and it's second truth is "Suffering is caused by desire." to me it does not view life as essentially a good and amazing, but hell on earth. Desire is to be stopped by the second noble truth. It says not to desire at all. Buddha's "middle path" otherwise called the "path of moderation" must be abandoned since the only way to reach nirvana is by completely destroying desire, which is an extreme view and thus not one of moderation. Moderation would involve desiring little. When one looks at it this way, then it is self-contradictory. Look at the Buddha's teachings as instructions for practice, and then the meaning of desire changes. Desire is the source of suffering, BUT the practice cannot begin and cannot exist without desire. Once the practice has reached its end, there is no desire, and there is no longer any need for the practice.

Anyways, socially, Buddhism is ideal solution for meditation and peace, but on theological or philosophical grounds, to me is not fully explaining or answering.

Christians can get their heaven only if they behave like Christians (A lot of criticism stands on our door as well).

About Satanists well, there's the obvious.

[DannyM]

When we say that suffering is the status-quo of life and in a person suffers now for their transgressions in previous lives. This ends up in an endless loop, a continuous decline/raise situation. You can be either very good and keep going better or you can be very worst and keep going that way. And in our own sentient conscience we are to battle this all our life. For a painfully disabled person their present torture is a result of their own past actions or sins. That's Karma for you. plus Buddhism is supposed to be against the God centered religions, but they portray Buddha as a man-god. not a man

Like you I don't want to attack individul Buddhists. But when we examine Buddhism it is found wanting. One of the most ambiguous of doctrines is the doctrine of nirvana. How many rebirths does it take to attain perfection? How is perfection even possible given the material world?

Buddhism's first truth is "To live is to suffer" and it's second truth is "Suffering is caused by desire." to me it does not view life as essentially a good and amazing, but hell on earth. Desire is to be stopped by the second noble truth. It says not to desire at all. Buddha's "middle path" otherwise called the "path of moderation" must be abandoned since the only way to reach nirvana is by completely destroying desire, which is an extreme view and thus not one of moderation. Moderation would involve desiring little. When one looks at it this way, then it is self-contradictory. Look at the Buddha's teachings as instructions for practice, and then the meaning of desire changes. Desire is the source of suffering, BUT the practice cannot begin and cannot exist without desire. Once the practice has reached its end, there is no desire, and there is no longer any need for the practice

Here I think you have pinpointed exactly where I'm coming from in trying to understand Buddhism!

Anyways, socially, Buddhism is ideal solution for meditation and peace, but on theological or philosophical grounds, to me is not fully explaining or answering. Christians can get their heaven only if they behave like Christians (A lot of criticism stands on our door as well)

Amusingly Buddhism is seen as superior and far more rational than Christianity (by Buddhists and non Buddhists alike). I'd suggest the non Buddhists look a little deeper into Buddhism and discover some of its beliefs.