[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

"The burden of proof is not on the non religious to prove God exists but nice try."

Kyle, you have completely misread, or misunderstood what I posted - or both. I actually said that:

"Atheist's cannot prove that God does not exist" -- not, as you misquote, that "the non religious" has to "prove God exists".

Further; your statement;

"The burden of proof is not on the non religious to prove God exists but nice try."

is totally misleading and simply not true, because, 'Burden of Proof' by definition:

'It is a fundamental principle of English law that a litigant bears the burden (or “onus”) of proof in respect of the propositions it asserts to prove its claim. The burden of proof does not lie with the person who denies the allegation'.

Therefore, 'Burden of Proof' actually falls squarely upon the shoulders of the claimant - whether he be a 'believer' claiming that God exists, or an Atheist claiming that God does not exist.

You're quoting a definition of legal proof not philosophical proof. You cannot set out to prove non-existence, it's logically impossible. The burden of proof lies on whoever seeks to claim existence.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You're quoting a definition of legal proof not philosophical proof. You cannot set out to prove non-existence, it's logically impossible. The burden of proof lies on whoever seeks to claim existence.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????

"You're quoting a definition of legal proof not philosophical proof."

I am using the same legal parlance that Kyle used in my response to his post - which was a response to my earlier post. Kyle wrote: "The burden of proof is not on the non religious to prove God exists but nice try."

"You cannot set out to prove non-existence, it's logically impossible. The burden of proof lies on whoever seeks to claim existence."

I really don't understand why you have quoted me and posted TS - because you're merely agreeing with me.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????

"You're quoting a definition of legal proof not philosophical proof."

I am using the same legal parlance that Kyle used in my response to his post - which was a response to my earlier post. Kyle wrote: "The burden of proof is not on the non religious to prove God exists but nice try."

"You cannot set out to prove non-existence, it's logically impossible. The burden of proof lies on whoever seeks to claim existence."

I really don't understand why you have quoted me and posted TS - because you're merely agreeing with me.

No, you're saying that the burden of proof always lies with the person making an assertation; that for someone saying "god does not exist" the burden of proof is on them to prove that. Which in philosophical / logical terms, is incorrect. You can't disprove existence and therefore the burden lies on the person claiming existence, always. Non-existence does not require proof, as by definition, non-existence requires an absence of proof.

It's a pointless argument though that only really serves as a distraction, people should stick to "near absolute" terms rather than absolute, if they want to be completely accurate. For example, I would say that I personally don't believe in a christian God or the god / gods of any other organised religion. It seems very, very unlikely that with infinite possibility, one of those humanistic Gods exists. I'd be confident in saying that the possibility is maybe something like a trillionth of 1%, but infinite being infinite, anything is possible. But I'd require proof of existence to consider it in any way likely or even outside the realms of fantasy.

This is completely different to the burden of proof in the legal system, where one would be seeking to prove or disprove truths and either stance has the possibility of proof, e.g. alibi ("Bobby stole my car" / "No I didn't, couldn't have, because I was at Jimmy's house!")

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

No, you're saying that the burden of proof always lies with the person making an assertation; that for someone saying "god does not exist" the burden of proof is on them to prove that. Which in philosophical / logical terms, is incorrect. You can't disprove existence and therefore the burden lies on the person claiming existence, always. Non-existence does not require proof, as by definition, non-existence requires an absence of proof.

It's a pointless argument though that only really serves as a distraction, people should stick to "near absolute" terms rather than absolute, if they want to be completely accurate. For example, I would say that I personally don't believe in a christian God or the god / gods of any other organised religion. It seems very, very unlikely that with infinite possibility, one of those humanistic Gods exists. I'd be confident in saying that the possibility is maybe something like a trillionth of 1%, but infinite being infinite, anything is possible. But I'd require proof of existence to consider it in any way likely or even outside the realms of fantasy.

This is completely different to the burden of proof in the legal system, where one would be seeking to prove or disprove truths and either stance has the possibility of proof, e.g. alibi ("Bobby stole my car" / "No I didn't, couldn't have, because I was at Jimmy's house!")

Great post TS but I think we are at 'cross purposes' on the 'Burden of Proof' point -- Kyle used the legal phrase and I continued with the phrase in a Legal Context; as if the debate was a court case. Thus my contention that "The Burden of Proof falls squarely on whoever is making the claim etc."

Anyway, I respect your viewpoint and the fact that you took the time to explain why you have that viewpoint, which is something I try to do.
I also like the fact that you admit that you are not dealing in 'absolutes' and therefore allow the possibility (no matter how infinitesimal) that you could be wrong.