read_connect(); //$GLOBALS[ezoic_db]->read->query("use 17things"); ?>

Is it a godless universe by default and the burden of proof is on people who claim there is a god?

And not only do people who claim there is a god have to prove it, they also have to prove this god they think is real is the god of their specific religion and not any other religion? And no religious person in the history of religion has ever even come close to proving this, right?

Related Items

17 Responses to “Is it a godless universe by default and the burden of proof is on people who claim there is a god?”

  1. nondescript said :

    Yes. If I claim that X exists, it puts the burden of proof on me to uphold that claim. This involves two things:

    1. Defining what an X is. You can’t claim that something exists without saying what it is that you are claiming to exist. The definition of “god” is vague, at best. Generally, it is some kind of sentient superbeing. Past that, religious people have a hard time agreeing on what a god is.

    2. You have to show evidence of X existing. Some evidence is better than others. For example, eye witness evidence is good, though that can also be flawed. A lot of eye witness evidence is just what the person wants to believe happened. Christianity doesn’t have much eye witness evidence, outside of some sketchy claims by people seeing “miracles”. The New Testament was written decades after Jesus died by people who never met him, if Jesus existed at all. Better evidence would be concrete something repeatable and testable. Religion has none of that.

  2. Exodiafinder said :

    It’s an unknown universe. To be a godless universe you have to prove your side too. Until one side proves it then it is unknown.

  3. Dave said :


    @ Exodiafinder

    Why would the supernatural be on the short list of explanations before exhausting the sensible propositions first. That is ridiculous!

  4. Greg said :

    Actually, we don’t “have to prove it.”

    We can shout from the rooftops that there is a God, and we don’t have to prove a darn thing to you.

  5. the re - chosen one said :

    The God Yahweh says it is now up to me to prove to the world that He exists. God willing of course.

  6. WellTraveledProg said :

    Yep, that’s reasonable.

    Just like it’s a leprechaun-less universe by default, and it’s up to people who claim there are leprechauns to prove they actually do exist and are what they say they are…otherwise, we’re not buying it.


  7. W-a-stinkin-banjo- On-my-knee said :

    The philosophers say the opposite. Only you make this a non-philosophical question, but in so doing you contradict yourself ! This is supposed to be a question of reason, correcto ? So why make it religious ??

  8. seeker of jehovah said :

    no god has created the universe

    he has made it very clear he exist

    its up to each person to believe or not to believe

  9. Umbrella and Top Hat said :

    The burden of proof is upon whomever makes the claim.

    So, to claim that one god created the universe means you need to prove existence of a god, existence of your god specifically, and then existence of his/her creation of this universe. Which, as of yet, nobody has been able to do, which has been the subject of much controversy.

  10. Ron said :

    I’m afraid that the proof is in the pudding. God sent his son down to Earth as proof and still you deny him. One day sooner than you think, when you die you will stand before God, Joseph Smith, Rush Limbaugh, and Jesus and you will have to explain why you chose to live a life of ignorance.

  11. XenonEmeritus said :

    People who claim there is a god don’t have to prove anything. Even the Bible itself makes no effort to “prove” there is a God. It is simply assumed as a self-evident axiom.

    Of course, ever since the Big Bang Theory has proven that there was a creation, that implies a Creator — and thus the theistic cosmologies which have come from physicists and astronomers in recent years, especially after the discovery of exotic matter. (Like it or hate it, that has been the trend, a theistic trend which has led to many essays by scientists lamenting the “The Church of Jesus Christ of the Big Bang”, as one atheist physicist called it.

    So the idea of a “godless universe by default” makes you sound like you are at least 50 years behind modern trends in science.

    There’s plenty of evidence for God. And there’s even more today than a century ago, thanks to a great many scientific discoveries which have led to general abandonment of the “eternal, steady state universe” to one which had its beginning in the singularity of the Big Bang. (Let’s face facts: even a great many of atheist physicists speak of “creation”.)

    Most residents of planet earth find sufficient proof for a Creator, some do not. Look at the evidence. Make your choice. No “proof” makes much difference at the end of the day because no amount of evidence is sufficient for people to believe something which they wish NOT to believe. (Just look how many non-scholars refuse to believe that universities teach the existence of the historical Jesus, just as there are armchair conspiracy theorists who refuse to accept the evidence that astronauts walked on the moon. The Flat Earth Society will probably always be around to accept the membership dues of “non-believers.”)

  12. just me said :

    How did you know that this is a Godless universe? Can you prove that God do not exist? No one in history of this world too has ever proven that this is Godless universe not even close not even you who do not think before you ask the question.

  13. Bob said :

    Psalm 19:1 ” The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”

  14. wispy said :

    So what exactly is your point? no matter what conclusion you try to elicit, all you have to do to know you’re fighting a losing battle is pull a dollar bill out of your pocket – read the inscription “In God We Trust”. We hold these truths to be self-evident. Come back soon and try again.

  15. Alaric said :

    right. it is the same as if i claim to you that at some point in history somewhere in the world a three-legged dwarf who spoke 65 languages ate a baby alive starting with the feet. gross. i know. it makes the point. how can i ask u to disprove that? any idiot can see that, despite being far more likely than the assertions about jesus, muhammad, moses, arjun, and so on, the burden of proof is still on the one who makes the claim. plus, there is more. it is possible (and this has been evidence since the time of epicurus at least) to show that the usual concepts of god are inherently contradictory, so that he canNOT exist so that we need not bother asking whether he does. finally, we can see that those who claim that there is a god, quite apart from all the lies, misrepresentations, and bad logic, are guilty of the cardinal (lol, nay papal, lol lol) sin: they keep changing the meaning of the word god and the content of the claims about him. every time they are forced to admit they were wrong (e.g., god did NOT make the sun stop over jericho), they simply modify their claims and move on with a happy smile. that is only consistent with the advocacy of a lie by liars.

  16. Panther said :

    burden of proof is on the prosecution
    sometimes the persecuter is the fundie
    ((in their casse you would be right))
    sometimes the persecuter is the non believer
    in that case you would be wrong
    ((toss up-winks))
    and you are right
    no religious person in HISTORY has come close to proving it
    however … if you pay attention to the “spiritual” ones around you
    one day you may see the results of what they believe in, in their lives

  17. Dianeva said :

    The assertion of any claim should be backed up by evidence to be taken seriously. This often confuses people, including me up until a few months ago when I figured out why it makes sense. It makes sense because, If I make a claim, the natural question to ask is “why do you think that?”

    If I assert that unicorns exist, I must have a reason for thinking that, or else why would I be claiming it, other than that I’m completely making it up?

    This is also true for the assertion of a negative, which is what confused me for a while. If I assert that unicorns definetly don’t exist, I need a reason for asserting that. Maybe my argument would be that, if unicorns did exist, someone would definetly have run into one by now, therefore they don’t exist. Or it might be that, I can pinpoint historical cultures that made up the idea of a unicorn, and I can trace the legend back to a person who clearly states that he completely invented the idea, therefore unicorns are very likely not real (this example isn’t true, I haven’t looked into arguments for the existence of unicorns). The same applies for God. If I assert that God doesn’t exist, I need to provide a reason for that. But if I assert that God does exist, I need to provide a reason for that.

    Meanwhile, if we don’t have evidence for the existence of a god, nor for the nonexistence of a god, yes, we default to not believing in the positive claim. This makes sense for practical purposes, among other reasons. There are an infinite number of positive assertions, assertions that something does exist, or is the case. If we believed in positive assertions until having a reason to disbelieve in them, we would be believing in an infinite number of contradicting things, which is impossible. However, there is no contradiction in disbelieving in an infinite number of positive claims. We are doing it right now.

    As for positive beliefs that are asumed to be true, like the existence of the physical universe, I think we believe in these things because we have sufficient evidence for believing them.


[newtagclound int=0]


Recent Comments

Recent Posts