Nostr Web Client

How would one prove that God exists?

To me atheism is simply not believing God exists. Atheists have 'faith' that God does not exist and religious people have faith that God does exist. Why do atheists need to prove their view, but the religious do not?

RedTailHawk 3w ago 💬 1

Well, that's a pretty complicated lead-off question. I have about 200 pages of written content that is relevant. I'm working on bridging science with religious teachings from many traditions. Consilience is a major part of that "proof" but it is not proof. It's just a really strong case presented in a really specific way that happens to be at least partially agreeable to every religious tradition and extremely agreeable to scientists with the chops to understand it.

Yeah, atheists like to try to annex agnostic territory because agnostic territory is the neutral position and requires no burden of proof. This is why I cleanly define atheism as an absolute negative claim on the existence of God. Claims must be proven and atheism is a claim. Saying "I don't believe" instead of "I claim that [X is false]" isn't strictly equivocation, but it can be a subtle way to shift the burden of proof, especially if used to avoid defending a negative claim (like "God doesn't exist") by framing it as mere lack of belief (agnosticism/weak atheism). The key difference: "I claim X is false" is a positive assertion needing proof, while "I don't believe X" is a state of mind, but in debate, the latter often functions as a tacit, unproven claim that X isn't true, bordering on an Appeal to Ignorance if you imply its falsehood due to lack of evidence for X. That's why I don't buy your definition of atheism. It's got wiggle room and that's a cop out.

Your final question betrays that you did not comprehend my post. I literally said "The Philosopher's Burden of Proof bears upon the believers side as well."

It seems you missed the point so I'll summarize it briefly for you:

Atheism is an untenable position to hold because it is dynamically contradictory.

That's the claim I'm making so feel free to engage with that claim and the argument that was provided to back it up rather than moving the goalposts which is another common atheist tactic.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

NaturalNerd 3w ago 💬 1

Thanks for the detailed response.

There is a difference in claiming and believing something is true. In order to 'claim' something is true don't you need to believe it to be true? Should we only claim scientifically verifiable things and preface other statements with a qualifier like 'I believe'?

I do think 'I believe x, because...' is better way to phrase a statement than 'I claim x'. The latter may make someone want to prove that y is true and x is not, whereas stating that you believe something will not make them defensive and open to your view.

For what its worth I don't think either side need to prove their belief whether or not God exists, but it often goes that way. Simply stating your view in a respectful way is all that is needed here. I appreciate your calm explanation of your views after I interepreted the post wrong 🫂

RedTailHawk 2w ago

Thanks. I figure that we have a choice as to whether or not we adjust these definitions in a practical way.

For me, the most practical and useful way to adjust these definitions is to alleviate this debate of the burden of proof issue.

I see 3 groups and 3 words and the 3 words need to be mapped to the 3 groups. The biggest group is the agnostics. This includes people of all sorts of faiths, including people whose faith is placed in non-religious things like math or science. Lot's of people "don't know" but are a part of a faith tradition. Then there's the people who have claims one way or the other. Some staunchly say that God doesn't exist and others say the opposite.

To me it makes the most sense to call the people who say that God does not exist the atheists. It makes the most sense to call the people who say that God does exist the gnostics, and everyone else is agnostic. The agnostic camp includes newborn babies who are neutral. Agnostic is the neutral position and agnostics bear no burden of proof.

That said, if someone told me "I don't believe in any God", I would classify that as agnostic, leaning atheist, but not atheist. If someone told me "I claim that there is no God", I would classify that person as atheist, not agnostic. Most people who self-identify as atheist are not operating under my functional and practical definitions. Many are operating from an etymological understanding of the words and while I love etymology and have found it to be incredibly rewarding, I don't see how it is at all useful for these debates and conversations.

A theism breaks down to mean without theism or without attachment to some theistic tradition that involves a God.

A gnostic breaks down to mean without knowledge.

If the words are used based on those etymological breakdowns, it's very easy for someone to identify as both and that's not helpful to the debate or conversation. Someone without knowledge can easily also quality as being without theism and vice versa.

I find it is far more useful to assign the labels to groups based on debate camps, i.e. absolute negative claim, absolute positive claim, and neutral position(no claim). With those definitions for those labels, the debate over burden of proof stops happening and everybody just goes on with their lives. The absolute negatives and the absolute positives quit bickering and the neutrals are mostly quiet anyways.

Valentino Giudice 2w ago 💬 1

> This is why I cleanly define atheism as an absolute negative claim on the existence of God.

So you redefine your opponent's position? Is this how you win?

I define your position as asserting there absolutely cannot be a teapot orbiting Earth. Can you prove your position, which I just defined?

RedTailHawk 2w ago

I mean, I established my definition first in the thread and I even caveated that people bicker over the definitions of these things, so if anyone is redefining definitions and can’t read the room, it’s the one replying with their definition.

It’s simple. There are people who do not believe God exists. There are people who aren’t sure if God exists. There are people who know God exists. Likewise, there are atheists, agnostics, and gnostics. Believe me. I love etymology but this is not the place for that argument. We need a word that means “someone who doesn’t believe in God”. We need a word for “someone who isn’t sure whether or not God exists”, and we need a word for “someone who knows God exists”. We need those words for those concepts specifically to deal with this very issue.

The default position is agnostic, and typically everyone has faith in something, whether that thing is math or science or some religious traditions teachings or what have you. Babies are born agnostic. That’s why it’s the default. They have only instincts, no knowledge.

From there, they polarize one way or another or stay “on the fence”. Define it however you like, but the reason I define atheism cleanly as an absolute negative claim is exactly to deal with this shirking of burden of proof by muddying the waters. There are 3 camps and 3 words to describe them. If you’re agnostic because you’re not sure, you’re amongst the masses of the spiritual but not religious and many people who are technically part of a religious tradition but their heart isn’t in it and they would switch to something.

Leaning away from any one religious tradition as being right doesn’t make a person an atheist. Perennialism is where its at.