There is no proof of God ...

Thomas

So it goes ...
Veteran Member
Messages
14,294
Reaction score
4,204
Points
108
Location
London UK
... therefore God does not exist.

This statement fails on two points of logic.

The first is that of an Argument from Ignorance.
This is when we illegitimately appeal to ignorance to support a conclusion. It usually takes the following form:
“No one has proven not A, therefore A is true,” or
“No one has proven A, so A is false.”

The fallacy is mistakenly believing something must be false because it has not been proven true, or that something must be true because it has not been proven false.

A secondary flaw is the fallacy of misplacing the burden of proof
Arises when someone is misled into thinking they have to prove a claim (eg that God exists), when their opponent should be proving his claim (that God does not).

The point here is who is making the claim? The claimant, be they theist or atheist, in making a claim, shoulders the burden of proof for their claim.

For example, the person making a positive assertion usually has the burden of proof (e.g. the theist who asserts God’s existence). Once the theist presents an argument for God’s existence, the burden of proof is now on the atheist who denies God’s existence. Once the atheist shows what is wrong with the argument or presents a new argument against God’s existence, some or all of the burden shifts back to the theist. And so it continues.
(From the Lucid Philosophy website)

Further discussion of the Burden of Proof here
 
"Gods don't exist because there is no evidence."
"Aliens exist because with such a large universe, it would be ignorant NOT to believe they exist."

Years ago I posted these quotes on a forum (that is now defunct). They were from the same person. I was amazed at how twisted the "burden of proof" definition became when people were trying to defend both statements. I was amazed at how the definition of "evidence" became twisted as well. Uniformity in logic is something lacking in most people when they debate religion, politics, sex, etc.
 
The point here is who is making the claim? The claimant, be they theist or atheist, in making a claim, shoulders the burden of proof for their claim.
The proof of God is the Prophets / Messengers.

Their person, their life and the Message is the proof given to us of God. They are the appointed 'Self of God' in each age. They are the Attributes and Morals, they are the Light of God.

That is also why we are told that we must test the Prophets, as many are wolves in sheep's clothing.

No one has seen God, that has not seen the Messengers.

Regards Tony
 
... therefore God does not exist.

This statement fails on two points of logic.

The first is that of an Argument from Ignorance.
This is when we illegitimately appeal to ignorance to support a conclusion. It usually takes the following form:
“No one has proven not A, therefore A is true,” or
“No one has proven A, so A is false.”

The fallacy is mistakenly believing something must be false because it has not been proven true, or that something must be true because it has not been proven false.

A secondary flaw is the fallacy of misplacing the burden of proof
Arises when someone is misled into thinking they have to prove a claim (eg that God exists), when their opponent should be proving his claim (that God does not).

The point here is who is making the claim? The claimant, be they theist or atheist, in making a claim, shoulders the burden of proof for their claim.

For example, the person making a positive assertion usually has the burden of proof (e.g. the theist who asserts God’s existence). Once the theist presents an argument for God’s existence, the burden of proof is now on the atheist who denies God’s existence. Once the atheist shows what is wrong with the argument or presents a new argument against God’s existence, some or all of the burden shifts back to the theist. And so it continues.
(From the Lucid Philosophy website)

Further discussion of the Burden of Proof here
How about posting the entire statement in context?
 
The proof of God is the Prophets / Messengers.
That is proof to you...

I sincerely hope that you don't think it proves anything to folks who don't believe in your prophets and messengers.

Don't you follow and believe a prophet/messenger that most who believe in God, prophets and messengers don't believe in?

I think we don't understand the word proof.
 
That is proof to you...

I sincerely hope that you don't think it proves anything to folks who don't believe in your prophets and messengers.

Don't you follow and believe a prophet/messenger that most who believe in God, prophets and messengers don't believe in?

I think we don't understand the word proof.
Truth is subjective, so if you do not see the given proof, does not mean that it is not proof. One must partake of the pudding to find the "proof in the pudding".

The Baha'i Writings offer this.

"KNOW thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. From His retreat of glory His voice is ever proclaiming: “Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Dayspring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.” He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person."

Thus God says the Person of the chosen Messengers are proof enough.

That is Faith 101.

Regards Tony
 
The proof of God is the Prophets / Messengers.
That you believe in your Messengers is not itself sufficient reason for anyone else to.

If there were proof, the message would be irrefutable – it is not, therefore it is not a valid proof.

An article of faith, yes. A matter of conviction, yes, but proof? No.
 
Truth is subjective ...
Religious truth is subjective, therefore not a matter of proof.

The Baha'i Writings offer this.
That is the fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

(Mainstream Christianity, for example, refutes the idea that "the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence" based on an Appeal to Authority argument – If you want to discuss is from the standpoint of the definition of 'God', we can do so elsewhere.)
 
That you believe in your Messengers is not itself sufficient reason for anyone else to.
Agreed, but as we are on interfaith forum....

The Jews are God's chosen people.
Christians are first chosen by Christ.
In Islam, Allah chooses whom he wills.

There is only the 'One God', so it seems the same God chooses each of us through a different path. Sorry, not sure about any other religions to comment.
 
The point is made. If people are interested in further detail, they can follow the link.
God Doesn't Exist

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Evil exists.
If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil. Therefore . . .

God Doesn’t Exist
 
Is an example of the False Dilemma Fallacy.
Whereas my example only touches on a couple of reasons why God is Impossible, it doesn't make it false.

The concept of 'god' fails in that:
1) There is no evidence of such a god
2) The idea is illogical
3) The preponderance of suffering remains
4) We don’t need an external god
5) Life is better without god
 
Back
Top