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

[PetrusRomanus]

If the believer wants a skeptic to believe in something, he has to prove it. I am a perpetual skeptic. The burden I give to you is to prove to someone like me that God exists? I need proof. Otherwise, I will not believe.

Also, why is someone believing that God exists going to be joyful and happy. If the God I see my people believing in is a tyrant, how is that going to make me joyful?

Well that’s what I’m saying. The obviousness should be self evident for everyone, but why it is not is due to deficiency and exploitation of weakness. So my job isn’t to prove something exists, it’s to perhaps open your eyes to seeing the existence of God.

God is not a tyrant. Living among Him for which we were intended in a place where there is no death, suffering, or sorrow is not a tyrannical environment and no one forces us to be there either. Ultimate joy and happiness will occur when being in the light of the Father’s face. I want that happiness, and even if people don’t realize that they want it now, they will one day indeed realize it. All I hope is that they’re in a good place when they do.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

This is an assertion. You need to back this up. You seem to think that making blank assertions is the same as proving something is true. This is not true.

Life and God are not the same thing. Life may come from God, but that is not the same as saying life is God, and that demonstrating that life exists demonstrates that God exists.

I don’t care what is obvious to you - that has no bearing on what is objectively true. You first claim that the truth of the proposition “God exists” is self-evident, which is a claim about the proposition. You then backpedal and say that you’re only talking about your perception of the proposition, it is obviously true to you.

Your argumentative tactic is most certainly dishonest. You make a claim about life - that it exists self-evidently, and then, without justification, apply that claim to God. Either you are dishonest, or you are utterly ignorant of how logic works. I’m leaning to the former - I don’t think anyone could honestly not see the fallacy of your argument.

It should be obvious to everyone, but it isn’t because human weakness and limitation have the upper hand over our reasoning right now on earth. Otherwise we’d all see it clearly. The fact that some people experience this deficiency in seeing does not negate the objectivity of the situation.

Life and God are different things, and yet they are also the same things.

I am not back pedaling. I have no need to prove a given to anyone, the only thing that would compel me to do so would be mercy and compassion.

 

[Kamaduck]

I did particularly say that to me it is plainly obvious. I’ve also given an explanation to why it may not be obvious to others. Please feel free to read through the thread.

But if you or anyone else would like to also argue why God is not obvious to me, feel free to, but I only ask that you convince me and provide some type of proof.

I did read the thread, I just don’t understand your reasoning.

God is obvious to you. Why does that mean the burden of proof is on unbelievers? Especially if you do, in fact, have proof? I’m just not getting this.

@Faith is Bad- Since you did specifically mention impossible medical knowledge, I believe that has already happened to some extent with the Jews in the Old Testament. I can look up the specifics if you wish, but it’ll take some time. The main thing is that all the dietary restrictions and ritual washings that seem strange to us now were actually intended to counteract disease- in fact, that is the promise they are coupled with in the Bible. If they followed the dietary and washing rules, it was supposed to greatly reduce disease among the Jews.

I don’t understand any of this stuff about us not having the burden of proof, so I’ll see if I can find my evidence in the next few hours. >.>

For the record, I don’t think you’ve been overly rude so far. Tempers are hard to find when discussing things of this much importance.

 

[Kamaduck]

The point was that the pope being a source of scientific knowledge that he couldn’t possibly have would really do a lot for the existence of god. Can god communicate with him or what?

Here you go. I don’t have a link, sadly. I’ll try to keep it brief- this paper has a huge introduction about Ignaz Semmelweis (apparently he was the first guy- other than the ancient Hebrews- to connect hand washing and disease prevention). >.<

Anyways, the Hebrew people were the only ones in the ancient world who practiced washing after touching dead things, and avoided touching “unclean” things if at all possible, such as carcasses and open clay pots found near a dead person. Other religions practiced ritual washing, but not in connection with touching dead things or other likely sources of disease.

The Hebrews didn’t understand why this rule existed; they accepted it on faith. Only with modern knowledge can we look back and know why hand washing stops disease. With current medical knowledge, the command to smash clay pots found near dead people makes sense. If the person had died of a bacterial or viral disease, the porous clay pots might have contained harmful microorganisms, and even washing wouldn’t be enough to get the organisms out.

Then we have the Hebrews weird dietary practices. They weren’t allowed to eat “unclean” animals, such as those that lack split hooves and don’t chew cud (pigs, horses, camels), those that have paws (dogs and cats), aquatic creatures without both fins and scales (shellfish, crustaceans, catfish), birds of prey, reptiles & amphibians, and rodents.

It’s a pretty long list of off-limits meat, but in a culture without modern medical knowledge, it makes sense. Pigs carry tapeworms and other parasites, along with lots of microbes that they’re exposed to when they wallow around in their own excrement. Shellfish and catfish are bottom-feeders, and tended to be found in the most shallow waters (ie, those most likely to be used for dumping sewage), so they carry lots of diseases, too. Reptiles and amphibians share this problem- many live where humans dump their waste. Rodents carry tons of diseases, and some of the other animals on the list- cats and birds of prey, in particular- use rodents as their main food source.

I suppose God could have given the Hebrews instructions for how to make a light microscope or a vaccine, but if they didn’t understand what they were doing, I doubt it would have helped more than simple dietary and washing instructions. The Bible is long enough as it is without adding an entire science textbook to it. Regardless, considering that handwashing wasn’t scientifically connected to disease control until the 1840’s and wasn’t actually accepted as common practice until long after that, I think it does constitute “impossible medical knowledge” for the time.

Sorry for going off topic, everybody, but I don’t really understand what the topic is to begin with. I just don’t get it- we have evidence, so why would we not share it? It just doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[Bradski]

In chronological order.

The existence of God isn’t a positive claim, it’s an obvious one…

Stating the obvious that God exists is not a positive claim. There’s no need to prove something that is plainly there.

The obviousness should be self evident for everyone…

It should be obvious to everyone, but it isn’t…

It might help if you were clearer in what you mean to say in the first instance. At least we now know that you believe that the existence of God is not an obvious one to everyone.

 

[ngill09]

I just realized how silly the wording of the title of this thread is. Why do people claim that proving God’s non-existence is proving a negative?

Really? You’re asking why non-existence is a negative?

 

[ccmnxc]

Sorry Petrus Romanus, but I’m not sure I can side with you on this one. I really haven’t read through all of these, so sorry if I am being rather redundant.
I think there are several distinctions that must be made. If I remember correctly, there are different types of atheism and different types of agnosticism.

If one is a hard atheist, they deny that God exists. In this instance, a burden of proof is on them. These people either don’t know what they are talking about or believe God’s properties to be self-contradictory, meaning He could not exist. However, I don’t think this position is too intellectually honest, since they would have the task of disproving every single deity to hold to the claim the non-existence of the supernatural.

Then there are soft atheists who hold no belief in God but don’t deny Him outright. Most atheists would fall into this category. The hold no burden of proof because they make no claims about reality. You should welcome this because soft atheists make no truth claims and their entire worldview is based around their methodology. They personally don’t feel there is enough evidence. Okay. That’s their opinion and should not have any bearing on what you feel.

Then there are hard and soft agnostics, in which hard agnostics say it can never be known if God exists or not and soft agnostics say it can be known if God exists or not. One can even be an agnostic and still remain religious. I am not really sure where I stand, though because I think God can be known with certainty through personal experience/revelation, but for most of us cannot be proven in the sense that His existence is a certainty.

Hope that helped.

 

[Kamaduck]

I just realized how silly the wording of the title of this thread is. Why do people claim that proving God’s non-existence is proving a negative?

Really? You’re asking why non-existence is a negative?

I just kinda assumed that the thread title was poorly worded. Isn’t it impossible to prove a negative, or something? So it would be impossible to prove that God didn’t exist?

But I don’t think Petrus would have a problem with that reasoning, so I’m stumped as to what he’s asking.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

If one is a hard atheist, they deny that God exists. In this instance, a burden of proof is on them. These people either don’t know what they are talking about or believe God’s properties to be self-contradictory, meaning He could not exist. However, I don’t think this position is too intellectually honest, since they would have the task of disproving every single deity to hold to the claim the non-existence of the supernatural.

I agree with most of your post, except for the intellectual honesty part. Being a hard atheist is no more intellectually dishonest than being a “hard Catholic”.

In affirming that there is only one god you and denying the existence of any other gods, you essentially become a hard atheist in regards to every other god than the one you believe in.

“There are no gods,” and “There are no gods other than my god,” are fairly similar propositions. Just as, “I don’t believe in any gods,” and “I believe in God,” are.

 

[polytropos]

I agree with most of your post, except for the intellectual honesty part. Being a hard atheist is no more intellectually dishonest than being a “hard Catholic”.

In affirming that there is only one god you and denying the existence of any other gods, you essentially become a hard atheist in regards to every other god than the one you believe in.

“There are no gods,” and “There are no gods other than my god,” are fairly similar propositions. Just as, “I don’t believe in any gods,” and “I believe in God,” are.

I agree that the issue should not be framed in terms of intellectual honesty per se. Any coherent truth claim about the nature of the universe must reject all mutually exclusive truth claims.

One caveat, however, is that if the existence of the Catholic God were positively ascertained, then the nonexistence of all other deities would follow (by nature of the Catholic God).

There can be no logical equivalence to this with hard atheism. But I think it’s fair to say that the hard atheist position can be established by arguing against the most convincing arguments for religion.

 

[ccmnxc]

I agree with most of your post, except for the intellectual honesty part. Being a hard atheist is no more intellectually dishonest than being a “hard Catholic”.

In affirming that there is only one god you and denying the existence of any other gods, you essentially become a hard atheist in regards to every other god than the one you believe in.

“There are no gods,” and “There are no gods other than my god,” are fairly similar propositions. Just as, “I don’t believe in any gods,” and “I believe in God,” are.

My apologies. Perhaps I overplayed my hand a little bit.

 

[Kamaduck]

But I think it’s fair to say that the hard atheist position can be established by arguing against the most convincing arguments for religion.

Makes sense. They could consider it the “default” position, just as Petrus considers the existence of God to be the default in the absence of other evidence. Neither position really makes sense without some kind of reasoning behind it, IMO. But then, most things don’t make sense without a reason.

But I don’t think any belief system is necessarily dishonest. People simply come to different conclusions based on the evidence they are shown.

EDIT: Is it concerning that I’ve read this entire thread and still am not quite sure what the topic is?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I think there are several distinctions that must be made. If I remember correctly, there are different types of atheism and different types of agnosticism.

If one is a hard atheist, …]

Then there are soft atheists who hold no belief in God but don’t deny Him outright…]

Then there are hard and soft agnostics, in which hard agnostics say it can never be known if God exists or not and soft agnostics say it can be known if God exists or not…]

Nice summary. There are some other types too, like the apatheistic person who doesn’t know, doesn’t care, and finds the question of the existence of a God to not be important or interesting. There’s also the ignostic who thinks that the question assumes to much and that there’s not a coherent definition of God. There are also some other dispositions such as some one that follows the religious tradition of their family while not holding the propositions of the religion as true. I hear about people in this disposition most often in Judaism, though it’s not limited to that.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…]because I think everyone can provide some reason for holding the position that they hold. I also don’t have any interest in putting the burden of proof on someone else because, if there is proof, I should think I would like to share it…]

I can bot respect and relate to that. We can take into consideration why some one is presenting a claim. It may be only to make clear their disposition. It also could be to try to alter some one else’s position. Whether or not some effort is made to satisfy some burden of proof/evidence may depend on how much I care if the other person believes me or changes their position.

From a previous thread on evidence:

…]Whether or not effort is take to provide the person with additional information may depend on other factors. A primary factor may be “Do I care if my audience believes me.” Some times the answer to that is “no.” I present the claim here that “I live in the Metro Atlanta area of Georgia, USA.” If some one in these forums doesn’t believe that I’m totally fine with that (apathetic) and will let their disbelief continue without making any effort to convince him/her. If I make the claim that “My neighbor broke into my house” to a court of law chances are I’ve got additional motivations that may move me to provide more information and evidence…]

 

[nmgauss]

But I think it’s fair to say that the hard atheist position can be established by arguing against the most convincing arguments for religion.

If you substitute “theism” for “religion”, that statement would make sense. There are a large number of atheists who are religious.

 

[polytropos]

If you substitute “theism” for “religion”, that statement would make sense. There are a large number of atheists who are religious.

Fair enough.

 

[Bradski]

In affirming that there is only one god you and denying the existence of any other gods, you essentially become a hard atheist in regards to every other god than the one you believe in.

“There are no gods,” and “There are no gods other than my god,” are fairly similar propositions. Just as, “I don’t believe in any gods,” and “I believe in God,” are.

^I like this.

Incidentally, the bit about no other gods is not a statement of belief per se. It’s one of the rules. Shame He didn’t mention them. That would have put a different spin on things.

"Thou shalt have no other gods but me. Including, but not resticted to, the following deities…(see continuation, Tablet No. 2).’

 

[polytropos]

Why would He mention them if they don’t exist and are ridiculously numerous? Not to mention that the prohibition is meant to engender a variety of things that are not deities, strictly speaking: mammon, the self, power, etc. So the First Commandment can’t quite be conflated with the truth claim/philosophic stance that there exists one Christian God - because it’s not just a requirement that you hold a particular metaphysical belief, and those who hold the correct metaphysical belief can still transgress it.

I reiterate, if someone were to prove that the Christian God exists, then it would logically follow that any other deities do not exist. For that reason, Catholics are not functionally equivalent to hard atheists because they have a qualitatively distinct way of rejecting other deities: other deities logically cannot coexist with their God. Positively proving the existence of the Catholic God is logically equivalent to disproving the existence of other gods.

The Dawkins soundbite is that everyone rejects Zeus and Baal, and he just rejects Yahweh too. That, I would actually consider to be a position of intellectual dishonesty. The fact that there are an abundance of putatively “competing” theistic claims (although it may be fair to say that belief in Zeus and Baal are no longer in the race), all but at least one of which must be wrong, does not imply that all of them are wrong. I could get 4000 people to make unique claims about how to evaluate the expression 2+2, doesn’t make the person who says that the answer’s 4 wrong.

Catholics do not just reject all other deities because the First Commandment tells them to; they reject them because it would be logically incoherent to believe in any God other than the true God, whose proposed qualities dictate that He is the only God.

The intellectually honest way of stating the situation is that, if there are n proposed gods, then there are n+1 philosophical stances regarding the existence of said gods, the last of which being hard atheism (excluding, for the sake of simplicity, agnosticism, ignosticism, etc.). Catholics occupy one philosophical stance. Hard atheists occupy another philosophical stance. Each philosophical stance of logical necessity needs some basis to justify rejecting every other philosophical stance. It happens that the only characteristic of the hard atheist stance is that the other stances must be rejected; so yes, any theistic position is trivially “equivalent to” the hard atheist stance.

 

[polytropos]

I apologize for what may have been a disproportionate response. I find that the “everyone is an atheist towards most gods” quip implies a lot but says very, very little. As though it would have any bearing on any singular truth claim.

 

[ngill09]

I apologize for what may have been a disproportionate response. I find that the “everyone is an atheist towards most gods” quip implies a lot but says very, very little. As though it would have any bearing on any singular truth claim.

I don’t think that’s the point. The point is to get people to understand how atheists view their particular god. It’s a way of illustrating the position, not proving it.