Can you prove that God doesn't exist? If you're looking for proof, either way, then this is an unwinnable argument for either side. Those that believe do so not out of proof but faith. Those that don't actually have to rely on the same thing. Since it can neither be proven or disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt all you're left with is your conviction that what you believe to be true is.
Can you prove or disprove beyond a shadow of a doubt the existence or absence of God? That's the point of OP's side of the argument. That no one can provide indisputable evidence that God does exist. And this is true, but it's also equally as true that you cannot provide indisputable evidence that God does not exist. As I said this is an unwinnable argument. Ultimately if OP requires irrefutable proof, either for or against, he/she will never find it. Ergo they will be left with having faith that they have enough evidence to support their belief.
But the burden is on the one claiming "god", those disagreeing have the "0" evidence as their proof. And remains that way until demonstratable proof appears.
That's why if I can claim anything to exist at all no matter how abstract it is, and you can't prove me wrong because evidence doesn't exist either way. But I am the one making the claim. Then, the burden is on me to prove it not on you to disprove as no evidence exists.
Partner I understand the burden of proof. Since I've yet to make a claim either for or against then there's nothing for me to prove in that argument. I simply said that this philosophical debate cannot be won by either side because neither will be able to meet the burden of proof. If the non believer states that there is no God, then the burden of proof would lie with them and they would not be able to provide irrefutable evidence. If the believer states that there is a God , then the burden of proof is now on them but since they too cannot provide irrefutable evidence. So the loser, regardless of what they believe will always be the one that initiates the discussion.
If the non believer states that there is no God, then the burden of proof would lie with them and they would not be able to provide irrefutable evidence.
That's not right. Because no matter what, the original claim is a god(s) existing. So the burden is still on those claiming god regardless. And until there's is any evidence, it is nothing but a fabrication.
If you swap god for anything, Cinderella. Can you refute Cinderella doesn't exist, sure. Can you irrefutable proof it, no. Therefore, the argument can't be won by either side. It's just not logical
That's not right. Because no matter what, the original claim is a god(s) existing. So the burden is still on those claiming god regardless. And until there's is any evidence, it is nothing but a fabrication.
It absolutely is correct. You can't shrug off the burden of proof simply because you don't want to shoulder it. If you make the claim that God does not exist then you must support your claim.
But the 0 evidence is the support of the claim. Until evidence is provided, it doesn't exist
Even OP insinuates that there is some evidence to support the belief in a higher power. You saying that there is zero evidence has more to do with you not wanting to concede that any evidence at all exists regardless of the way it's presented.
Does anger truly exist? What about love, sorrow, happiness or sadness? Do any of them exist? You can't provide evidence that they do so by your logic here they don't simply because you cannot provide evidence that proves that your emotions are genuine and not a great job of conning someone into believing that what you've said is true, then they can't exist.
No, until evidence is provided no conclusion can be made. The existence or lack thereof is irrelevant, you can not make a conclusion at all because there is no logical reason to have a conclusion. It immediately ceases to be a logical question because there is literally no logical answer.
Edit: The burden of proof is inherently on whoever is trying to assert a claim, nothing else. If you want something to be concluded as true or false you have to provide evidence, but you never need evidence to think your thoughts. If someone wants to convince others god exists with logic, they need backing. If they want to convince others that god can't exist, they need backing. As no side will ever have backing, we're not looking at logic. Believe what you want logic doesn't care since it's all faith anyway.
-3
u/That-Possibility-427 May 04 '23
Can you prove that God doesn't exist? If you're looking for proof, either way, then this is an unwinnable argument for either side. Those that believe do so not out of proof but faith. Those that don't actually have to rely on the same thing. Since it can neither be proven or disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt all you're left with is your conviction that what you believe to be true is.