Why do people claim that proving God's non-existence is proving a negative?

[PetrusRomanus]

To me it’s rather obvious that God exists. It’s a given. For someone to say He doesn’t exist, is a pretty extraordinary claim. And we all know what is said of extraordinary claims… they require extraordinary evidence. So really this is no more “proving a negative” than trying to prove that the sky isn’t blue and doesn’t exist. We can all see that it does, if you want to go against that grain you (the person claiming this) must provide the evidence to back your assertion, not the other way around since there is no need to prove something that is self evident.

 

[FrancisBenedict]

It’s impossible to prove God doesn’t exist because God does exist.

 

[polytropos]

To me it has not been obvious that God exists. I’ve found it necessary to consider different arguments, discard some, accept others, and look in other directions for “evidence.” And I still have doubts.

To say that God’s existence “is a given” in a proof for his existence is tautological. I don’t mean to disparage the way you experience faith - because you may have had some spiritual experience that has led you to a level of confidence such that you find God’s existence “self-evident.” But you should understand why that argument will not convince anyone.

God is not visible like the sky. You could argue that he is visible through Creation (and I would agree with you), but at the very least, you must admit that we live in a culture that propagates doubt and advocates alternate explanations to the existence of God at every turn. There are lots of reasons not to believe in God. I happen to think that they aren’t very good reasons. But to discount them with a wave of the hand is not going to convince anyone who holds them.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

To me it has not been obvious that God exists. I’ve found it necessary to consider different arguments, discard some, accept others, and look in other directions for “evidence.” And I still have doubts.

Could doubts be a result of our weakened state and our gravitation to what is earthly and material and that is why doubt has the upper hand in this sense? Not necessarily because God isn’t there.

Like I recently read in the Ask An Apologist section, that Satan cannot read minds. He is nowhere near as powerful as God, not even close, but he is intelligent. Still it seems Satan has the upper hand here on earth because he entices us with things we already want in our natural state and exploits our weaknesses. But this doesn’t mean nor prove that Satan is more powerful than God.

But you should understand why that argument will not convince anyone.

But I’m not trying to convince anyone that God exists anymore than I am trying to convince someone that the sky is blue and exists. That would be a double positive or something and unnecessary.

God is not visible like the sky. You could argue that he is visible through Creation (and I would agree with you), but at the very least, you must admit that we live in a culture that propagates doubt and advocates alternate explanations to the existence of God at every turn.

Exactly! Our culture promotes these doubts, but just because they promote these doubts and exploit our weaknesses as humans doesn’t mean that these doubts actually hold any water.

There are lots of reasons not to believe in God. I happen to think that they aren’t very good reasons. But to discount them with a wave of the hand is not going to convince anyone who holds them.

There are several reasons people don’t believe in God and I’m not discounting anyone’s particular unique reasons. What I am saying is for those who claim God doesn’t exist, they are actually the ones with the burden of proof on their shoulders. But because we our weakened and they exploit our doubts, they have the upper hand in convincing people of the opposite - that we are the ones with the burden of proof - not because this is accurate or holds any water, but because they entice us with what we already gravitate toward in our wounded human state and what we’d like and expect to hear more.

 

[polytropos]

I don’t think you and I disagree much. But if we want nonbelievers to see the light of God, we will not succeed by telling them God is a given and the burden of proof lays with them. I know that I, when I was an atheist, would have a very strong visceral reaction against such a statement. Not to mention, from an atheistic standpoint, such a claim appears absurd.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

I don’t think you and I disagree much. But if we want nonbelievers to see the light of God, we will not succeed by telling them God is a given and the burden of proof lays with them.

I agree with this and this was in my mind when I started this thread and convincing non-believers is the bottom line as it is.

However, I guess I was just annoyed by the constant assertions in other threads and conversations that the burden of proof is actually on us, when that is not true and the only reason people get away saying that and it seems credible is because our vision is too blurred to see otherwise and usually because someone uses wit and humor in their arguments to make up for lack of any valid points on top of it, winning people over with that alone at times.

 

[polytropos]

Well, the classic burden of proof argument is Russell’s teapot. And he makes a valid point, if all we were doing was insisting that people should believe in an orbiting teapot. But the hypothetical teapot would have no bearing on earth or human nature - unlike the proposed God.

I don’t think this absolves us of the burden of proof - but I don’t think anyone is absolved of the burden of proof. Both sides should make arguments and see who convinces whom.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

Well, the classic burden of proof argument is Russell’s teapot. And he makes a valid point, if all we were doing was insisting that people should believe in an orbiting teapot. But the hypothetical teapot would have no bearing on earth or human nature - unlike the proposed God.

I don’t think this absolves us of the burden of proof - but I don’t think anyone is absolved of the burden of proof. Both sides should make arguments and see who convinces whom.

Well I think it indeed absolves us of the burden of proof, but it doesn’t absolve us from the burden of trying to open the eyes of others, if that makes any sense

 

[Faith_is_bad]

To me it’s rather obvious that God exists. It’s a given. For someone to say He doesn’t exist, is a pretty extraordinary claim. And we all know what is said of extraordinary claims… they require extraordinary evidence. So really this is no more “proving a negative” than trying to prove that the sky isn’t blue and doesn’t exist. We can all see that it does, if you want to go against that grain you (the person claiming this) must provide the evidence to back your assertion, not the other way around since there is no need to prove something that is self evident.

And yet this self-evident thing has no good evidence for it. You don’t need to resort to fallacious philosophical explanations to prove that the sky is blue. In order for you to prove god all you need is for god to appear. You could get away with less than that even! Is it really so hard to come up with good evidence? Why? I mean, if god exists then why not give us advanced knowledge of physics or medicine? Why would god deny us knowledge that would relieve the suffering of billions? Also, there’s more than god in the bible… Where are the demons? Where is the evidence for souls? Why doesn’t the bible just say that it’s immoral to own people? hmmm… MAYBE it’s not so self-evident.

 

[polytropos]

My position would be that God can be known through reason. Philosophical inquiry would begin with neither God’s existence nor His nonexistence as a premise. Russell developed his analogy because when there are people who already believe or do not believe, some will make claims that God’s existence, because it has not been disproved, should be taken as the default position - and to be fair, that is not what the Catholic Church teaches. We believe because God’s existence can be proved, not because it cannot be disproved.

 

[Anthony_V]

I’ve found the very question of God’s existence to be superfluous. God is being-in-itself. To play the game, the fact that anything exists is “proof” of God.

But I believe we are asking the wrong questions here. I don’t think we should be asking “does God exist?”, but “is God existence?” It’s impossible to treat God like a particular and still be talking about him. I don’t understand why we’re trying to play the games of atheists or agnostics. We have a totally different understanding of metaphysics, and therefore the rules. The noumenal world must be brought back into the equation before we can talk. But looking at the state of philosophy and empirical thought today, I don’t think that will be happening in the near future.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

And yet this self-evident thing has no good evidence for it. You don’t need to resort to fallacious philosophical explanations to prove that the sky is blue. In order for you to prove god all you need is for god to appear.

So your criteria for God’s existence is vision and being able to see Him in a physical, material way?

So how does that work exactly for people who are blind? How does that work exactly for things like the wind, emotions, parent-child bonds that are ever so self-evident, but aren’t physically materialized?

You could get away with less than that even! Is it really so hard to come up with good evidence?

It isn’t hard at all. The evidence for God isn’t completely physical, but it’s all around us and as a previous poster stated, the fact that we or anything exists is due to God alone. And then the other half of the evidence for His existence is spiritual in nature.

I mean, if god exists then why not give us advanced knowledge of physics or medicine?

But hasn’t he? Hasn’t he given us the capacity and great minds that are making this possible?

Why would god deny us knowledge that would relieve the suffering of billions?

Are you still referring to the physics and medicine thing? If so, he has already given us that knowledge and it is relieving the suffering of billions as we speak.

If you’re asking why he doesn’t eliminate all suffering in the world then that is because our world is imperfect. Our world is imperfect due to our selfish choices.

Also, there’s more than god in the bible… Where are the demons? Where is the evidence for souls? Why doesn’t the bible just say that it’s immoral to own people? hmmm… MAYBE it’s not so self-evident.

The demons are around everywhere. I think their influence is even more self evident in our current society, with the way they infect minds and lead people further away from the truth.

Evidence for souls is all around. The fact that we seek justice and truth is a testament to this. But a soul is spiritual in nature, so using material methods to unveil spiritual evidence will not work. If you can find a spiritual method to display the presence of the soul, then you will find it. Hint: the Church has this method.

The Catholic Church doesn’t condemn owning people? Can you show me where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that is says that it’s ok?

Thank you for your time.

 

[Faith_is_bad]

So your criteria for God’s existence is vision and being able to see Him in a physical, material way?

So how does that work exactly for people who are blind? How does that work exactly for things like the wind, emotions, parent-child bonds that are ever so self-evident, but aren’t physically materialized?

It isn’t hard at all. The evidence for God isn’t completely physical, but it’s all around us and as a previous poster stated, the fact that we or anything exists is due to God alone. And then the other half of the evidence for His existence is spiritual in nature.

But hasn’t he? Hasn’t he given us the capacity and great minds that are making this possible?

Are you still referring to the physics and medicine thing? If so, he has already given us that knowledge and it is relieving the suffering of billions as we speak.

If you’re asking why he doesn’t eliminate all suffering in the world then that is because our world is imperfect. Our world is imperfect due to our selfish choices.

The demons are around everywhere. I think their influence is even more self evident in our current society, with the way they infect minds and lead people further away from the truth.

Evidence for souls is all around. The fact that we seek justice and truth is a testament to this. But a soul is spiritual in nature, so using material methods to unveil spiritual evidence will not work. If you can find a spiritual method to display the presence of the soul, then you will find it. Hint: the Church has this method.

The Catholic Church doesn’t condemn owning people? Can you show me where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that is says that it’s ok?

Thank you for your time.

Reverse order.

1. The bible doesn’t condemn owning people. Supposedly God’s word.
2. Seeking justice and truth is not evidence of a soul. You have no evidence for the spiritual at all. Using transcendental nonsense to work around explanations is not answering anything. Besides, even if souls aren’t material they would still have an effect on the material and there would be evidence.
3. Ah… another self-evident thing. Every time there’s no evidence for something it becomes self-evident it seems.
4. Oh so disease is because of the selfishness of human beings? Thank you, that explains everything. I guess the horrible suffering that people endure while we figure things out with our brains is no big deal. Saying that the world is imperfect does not excuse this. You have given yet another non-answer.
5. Wind, emotion, and child-parent bonds are not self-evident. There is evidence for all of those things. There is no comparison.
6. I was just stating a piece of evidence that could be easily provided by god. I didn’t say it needed to be that.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

Reverse order.

1. The bible doesn’t condemn owning people. Supposedly God’s word.

First of all, you have to know how to read the Bible and its context. The word of God is contained within it, but not all is the word of God. Part of the Bible is the word of the people and the behavior of the people.

1. Seeking justice and truth is not evidence of a soul.

Oh, so it’s not just because you say so? Or do you have any sort of proof of this claim? Would you like to offer a suggestion as to what kind of proof would be needed?

You have no evidence for the spiritual at all. Using transcendental nonsense to work around explanations is not answering anything. Besides, even if souls aren’t material they would still have an effect on the material and there would be evidence.

Again, I will personally assert that truth, justice, love, selflessness, etc. are all manifestations of the soul. Souls do have an effect on the material, it manifests itself through the things I just mentioned, thereforethis would be evidence as you have just conceded and admitted.

1. Ah… another self-evident thing. Every time there’s no evidence for something it becomes self-evident it seems.

I don’t know what you’re referring to here exactly. Would you care to elaborate?

1. Oh so disease is because of the selfishness of human beings? Thank you, that explains everything. I guess the horrible suffering that people endure while we figure things out with our brains is no big deal. Saying that the world is imperfect does not excuse this. You have given yet another non-answer.

Why yes, disease, death, suffering, violence, greed, selfishness, destruction, war, poverty, hunger, etc. all exist because our world is imperfect. If it were pefect, these things would not exist. In addition to this, there are different types of sufferings, most of which are direct results and consequences of our actions, I believe. I don’t see how this is a non-answer, it’s just not the answer you liked.

1. Wind, emotion, and child-parent bonds are not self-evident. There is evidence for all of those things. There is no comparison.

Evidence, like what? Like how they manifest themselves through our actions? Or in the case of wind, how it manifests its presence in how it interacts with objects (blowing down trees, etc.)? So why would you give credence to the evidence in wind, emotion, and child-parent bonds and not to the evidence that is manifested by the existence of the soul?

And then what of people who are sociopathic or psychopathic or otherwise mentally disordered who have no emotions or come from a broken home and have no child-parent bonds whatsoever? Does this mean the bonds and emotion in general do not exist objectively? And what of people who have no emotion yet still act in a moral fashion because it is the right thing to do regardless of ones feeling?

1. I was just stating a piece of evidence that could be easily provided by god. I didn’t say it needed to be that.

I simply demonstrated how this theory of evidence is flawed, because it still wouldn’t satisfy people who are blind and cannot see God, for instance. They’d have to rely on your word that you saw God personally. Alright, well maybe God could speak to those people? Then that brings the problem of people who are deaf. What about for people who are both blind and deaf? I guess they would never know of God’s existence because they wouldn’t have any way of comprehending or verifying that material evidence, even though God may be sitting right next to them in the material world and would have presented them with it. So material evidence isn’t the answer.

 

[Faith_is_bad]

You didn’t demonstrate how evidence is flawed. You made assumptions and then when evidence couldn’t support your assumptions you threw away the evidence instead of the assumptions. You’re acting like there is evidence where there is none. For a person like you, who makes an assumption and then looks for evidence after, there’s nothing I can say to you. If you’re willing to throw away the idea of evidence just to believe something, I feel bad for you. Wonder why the church is losing members in the developed world? Because even if you’re unconvinced, seeing a person defending the faith resorting to throwing away the idea of evidence looks pretty bad from outside of your bubble.

 

[Faith_is_bad]

First of all, you have to know how to read the Bible and its context. The word of God is contained within it, but not all is the word of God. Part of the Bible is the word of the people and the behavior of the people.

Oh, so it’s not just because you say so? Or do you have any sort of proof of this claim? Would you like to offer a suggestion as to what kind of proof would be needed?

Again, I will personally assert that truth, justice, love, selflessness, etc. are all manifestations of the soul. Souls do have an effect on the material, it manifests itself through the things I just mentioned, thereforethis would be evidence as you have just conceded and admitted.

I don’t know what you’re referring to here exactly. Would you care to elaborate?

Why yes, disease, death, suffering, violence, greed, selfishness, destruction, war, poverty, hunger, etc. all exist because our world is imperfect. If it were pefect, these things would not exist. In addition to this, there are different types of sufferings, most of which are direct results and consequences of our actions, I believe. I don’t see how this is a non-answer, it’s just not the answer you liked.

Evidence, like what? Like how they manifest themselves through our actions? Or in the case of wind, how it manifests its presence in how it interacts with objects (blowing down trees, etc.)? So why would you give credence to the evidence in wind, emotion, and child-parent bonds and not to the evidence that is manifested by the existence of the soul?

And then what of people who are sociopathic or psychopathic or otherwise mentally disordered who have no emotions or come from a broken home and have no child-parent bonds whatsoever? Does this mean the bonds and emotion in general do not exist objectively? And what of people who have no emotion yet still act in a moral fashion because it is the right thing to do regardless of ones feeling?

I simply demonstrated how this theory of evidence is flawed, because it still wouldn’t satisfy people who are blind and cannot see God, for instance. They’d have to rely on your word that you saw God personally. Alright, well maybe God could speak to those people? Then that brings the problem of people who are deaf. What about for people who are both blind and deaf? I guess they would never know of God’s existence because they wouldn’t have any way of comprehending or verifying that material evidence, even though God may be sitting right next to them in the material world and would have presented them with it. So material evidence isn’t the answer.

Evidence needs to actually increase the likelihood of something being true. When you are trying to explain something, you can’t use the thing you are explaining to justify your explanation. Emotion exists, therefore soul? Nonsense. Yes, deaf people can’t hear and blind people can’t see. Oooooo! That throws material evidence out the window? Seriously? How can you honestly type that? Our world is imperfect, therefore god cannot relieve suffering by giving people information? You seem to willfully misrepresent what I mean.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

Emotion exists, therefore soul? Nonsense.

So are you willfully denying your own logic and preferring to believe the same evidence for one thing (emotions) and not another (soul)? Why would that be?

Yes, deaf people can’t hear and blind people can’t see. Oooooo! That throws material evidence out the window? Seriously?

I asked if you could think of any other type of evidence. You haven’t responded apparently.

Our world is imperfect, therefore god cannot relieve suffering by giving people information? You seem to willfully misrepresent what I mean.

He relieves suffering as we speak. He is providing graces to people all the time. What kind of information would suit you? I’ve asked and asked, and you have not yet answered.

Would it really take God incarnating Himself as man, walking and living amongst us, teaching us how to live and displaying that with His own life, directly telling us what is wrong and what is right, performing miracles in the material world, establishing a living institution of His word that His Spirit guides infallibly that has been with us for over 2,000 years in order to provide some kind of evidence? Really?

Oh wait…

 

[Anthony_V]

Emotion exists, therefore soul? Nonsense.

Yes. A material and biological mechanism, no matter the complexity, shouldn’t elicit an immaterial experience of consciousness. There’s no good reason for it to. So, while the body certainly contributes to the experience of consciousness, it can’t ever answer for all of it. There is another element. This element, in Catholic theology, is the soul.

If the soul exists, the noumenal world of innate ideas and abstractions must be considered. Human experience, not the world that is predicted to exist outside of it, must be considered as long as any sort of strict foundationalism is proposed (consider Rene Descartes). But even beyond that, metaphysical assumptions must, at some point, be made.

 

[ngill09]

The fact that theists resort to this level of philosophical cowardice is one of the reasons I think they are wrong. God’s existence is not obvious, and anyone with any intellectual honesty will admit as much.

“That God has willed to hide Himself.—If there were only one religion, God would indeed be manifest. The same would be the case, if there were no martyrs but in our religion.
God being thus hidden, every religion which does not affirm that God is hidden, is not true; and every religion which does not give the reason of it, is not instructive.”
~ Blaise Pascal

 

[TheCuriousCat]

To me it’s rather obvious that God exists. It’s a given. For someone to say He doesn’t exist, is a pretty extraordinary claim. And we all know what is said of extraordinary claims… they require extraordinary evidence. So really this is no more “proving a negative” than trying to prove that the sky isn’t blue and doesn’t exist. We can all see that it does, if you want to go against that grain you (the person claiming this) must provide the evidence to back your assertion, not the other way around since there is no need to prove something that is self evident.

Interesting example. Because it isn’t self-evident that the the sky is blue.

Go outside around midnight and look up. Does the sky look blue?

You can say, “It’s only blue during the daytime.” But that isn’t self-evident either. When I look up at an airplane, a balloon or a kite, they don’t look blue either. The ground didn’t look blue when I went skydiving and neither did my chute. If things don’t look blue when you are looking at them through the sky, then how can the sky be blue?

Perhaps you’ll counter that these things just weren’t high enough. If they were up higher, then they would appear blue. Maybe that’s true. To know for sure we would have to test it, and statements that require tests aren’t self-evident.

Saying God’s existence is self-evident is like saying it is self-evident that the sky is blue. Eventually, you have to back it up. You have to give me some reason for believing that God exists.

I’ve never been given a consistent definition of what God is. The definitions I have been given are either contradictory, nebulous, or highly dubious. How do you expect me to disprove the existence of something without telling me what the thing that I am disproving is?