Innocent until Proven Guilty mentality?

[onlyparallel]

Should God be non-existent until his existence is proven? Almost like when someone is charged of crime, innocent until proven guilty? Or should God exist until proven nonexistent, and why? Perhaps you should have no opinion on God until he is proven one way or the other?

[Monte314]

Why not the other way around?

[onlyparallel]

Why not the other way around?

You mean to say that you think God should be existant until proven nonexistant? If so should we all believe in unicorns until someone proves that they don't exist?

[blueback]

I don't think we should form any conclusions without evidence.

However, there is evidence that God exists. There is also evidence that God doesn't exist. In my opinion the evidence cancels out and we are left with no evidence to base a conclusion on, but not everyone agrees with me.

In fact, there are a lot of people who feel that a lack of evidence is just the thing you need to form a conclusion. They feel that faith, in and of itself, is good. Of course they usually think that because someone told them so, which means they have evidence that faith is good, so it's not really faith anymore. . .whatever. I avoid faith and I suggest that everyone else does as well.

[manger]

If you are unaware that something exists, then functionally it does not exist.

[blueback]

Nope, it can still "functionally" exist. The solar system kept right on doing what it was supposed to do even when we didn't know it existed.

[manger]

Before anyone was concerned about studying the relationship between our planet and the sun, the complete idea of the solar system was irrelevant and unknown.

[Monte314]

You mean to say that you think God should be existant until proven nonexistant? If so should we all believe in unicorns until someone proves that they don't exist?

My only intention was to expose your bias. But never mind... you did it for me.

[onlyparallel]

My only intention was to expose your bias. But never mind... you did it for me.

Well, yeah, I'm biased, but I'm open to other ideas. Besides, by showing by bias in the first post people may feel swayed by my ideas and dismiss their own and I am rather interested in their original ideas. Thanks for blowing that Monte! ;)

Edit: Hey! Second thought, after reading TLM's commet I realize you assumed my bias from my words! How did you know I wasn't just guessing? Or assuming from the title of this thread that you meant the opposite? And I assumed you didn't assume my bias because you were correct.

[TheLastMohican]

Should God be non-existent until his existence is proven? Almost like when someone is charged of crime, innocent until proven guilty? Or should God exist until proven nonexistent, and why? Perhaps you should have no opinion on God until he is proven one way or the other?

I think it is glaringly obvious that God should be considered nonexistent until proven beyond reasonable doubt to exist, just as any hypothesis (including that of a person's guilt). The concept of God is abstract and very difficult to define with our earthly knowledge and reasoning. His existence is an extraordinary claim, and it therefore requires extraordinary evidence.

My only intention was to expose your bias. But never mind... you did it for me.

Hmm...which bias?

[Beery Swine]

My only intention was to expose your bias. But never mind... you did it for me.

Yes, yes, OP is clearly biased, so am I, so are you, but the question still stands: why don't you believe that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger until some empirical evidence comes along that says otherwise? Considering the repercussions if you're wrong, it would seem you're only choice is to believe. Why don't you believe that Zeus is King of Olympus and rains down lightning bolts on us whenever the fancy strikes him? Do you have any evidence that says Zeus is non-existant? If you're wrong He may become angry with you after you die and may ban you from Elysium and condemn you to Tartarus.

Feel free to not respond, I'm just grand-standing and trying to elucidate.

[TheLastMohican]

Why don't you believe that Zeus is King of Olympus and rains down lightning bolts on us whenever the fancy strikes him? Do you have any evidence that says Zeus is non-existant? If you're wrong He may become angry with you after you die and may ban you from Elysium and condemn you to Tartarus.

Nobody says it better:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But I don't think Monte was really advocating the idea that the onus of proof falls on (level 6) atheists. He was just baiting onlyparallel (not in a bad way).

[Antares]

Burden of proof rest upon those who asserted, and this will not change. If you want me to believe that Loch Ness Monster exists, give me empirical evidence or keep your silence. This is the same for any claims. If you were to point a finger and accuse another of a crime, you'd better have some proof to back it up. Unless the proof is overwhelming (in that case, there is a little chance the accused is actually innocent), it will not be 'guilty until proven innocent'.

[Monte314]

Burden of proof rest upon those who asserted, and this will not change. If you want me to believe that Loch Ness Monster exists, give me empirical evidence or keep your silence. This is the same for any claims. If you were to point a finger and accuse another of a crime, you'd better have some proof to back it up. Unless the proof is overwhelming (in that case, there is a little chance the accused is actually innocent), it will not be 'guilty until proven innocent'.

An excellent point. So, all of those out there who *assert* that this universe came into existence out of nothing: Antares has thrown down the gauntlet.

[Jakalwarrior]

We only suggest it as a possible guess with the available evidence. So we call it a "theory". Any "theories" that can be applied to the creation of a god though can be applied to the creation of the universe.

The main issue with religon is that people are brainwashed from youth. I will say no more on the issue since most will never change and arguing does no good. If people wanted to see facts or be objective they would have by now.

[IgnoranceIsKind]

The concept of God is abstract and very difficult to define with our earthly knowledge and reasoning.

The 'Innocent until proven guilty' theory suggests that one looks towards a hypothesis with an optimism with regards to the subjects involved - and in this case, God. In this very sense, wouldn't people hold that God is a positive entity, rather than that of an evil (by virtue of 'guilty', according to said mentality, which isn't 'guilty until proven innocent') nature, thus going by the assumption that God does exist until proven otherwise?

Not being intentionally belligerant or anything TLM, but why the distinction between earthly knowledge and knowledge (or seemingly, heavenly knowledge)? Is there a difference between the two? How does one consider a division between knowledge itself? I cannot, for instance, say that there is good knowledge or bad knowledge, because ultimately it is just knowledge. It isn't plural. It is an axoim that spreads a coverage to properties and definitions of objects and theories.

Do you mean to say that to enquire or question the existence of God, one must tap into a level beyond human clarity, going into a higher thinking that is 'heavenly knowledge' to prove the existence of a supernatural being? If so, then does that also mean that we would never be able to make empirical this claim?

[Ool]

An excellent point. So, all of those out there who *assert* that this universe came into existence out of nothing: Antares has thrown down the gauntlet.

Everything there is cannot have a reason outside itself because, it being everything there is, there is nothing else that could have caused it.

What part of "everything altogether cannot come from anything else because there isn't anything else by definition" is so hard to understand to you guys?

Really, sometimes I feel like I'm watching a bunch of dogs teaching each other how to climb trees when I read what you guys have to say about cosmology...

[TheLastMohican]

An excellent point. So, all of those out there who *assert* that this universe came into existence out of nothing: Antares has thrown down the gauntlet.

Nobody that I know of asserts that the universe appeared spontaneously and out of nothing. The lack of a claim of exactly what caused it does not equate to a claim that nothing caused it. Theists therefore still have the burden of proof, because a theist makes a specific claim, while a (level 5 or 6) atheist simply lacks a claim.

The 'Innocent until proven guilty' theory suggests that one looks towards a hypothesis with an optimism with regards to the subjects involved - and in this case, God. In this very sense, wouldn't people hold that God is a positive entity, rather than that of an evil (by virtue of 'guilty', according to said mentality, which isn't 'guilty until proven innocent') nature, thus going by the assumption that God does exist until proven otherwise?

I think "innocent until proven guilty" is not a very accurate comparison for this, since it includes an aspect of human decency. But in basic terms, the idea behind it is that a claim requires evidence, and the more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence it requires. A claim that someone committed a crime is not to be taken seriously unless there is evidence to support it, because it is an unusual and therefore automatically suspect claim that someone committed a crime. When we put this together with our common "morality" principle of not punishing innocents, we give our fellow humans the "benefit of the doubt," hence the rule of "innocent until proven guilty." When applied to this debate, the terms "innocent" and "guilty" do not have any applicable meaning, at least in that they should not be seen as differing from each other in any way besides one being a claim and the other being a lack thereof, or the opposite of that claim.

Not being intentionally belligerant or anything TLM, but why the distinction between earthly knowledge and knowledge (or seemingly, heavenly knowledge)? Is there a difference between the two? How does one consider a division between knowledge itself? I cannot, for instance, say that there is good knowledge or bad knowledge, because ultimately it is just knowledge. It isn't plural. It is an axoim that spreads a coverage to properties and definitions of objects and theories.

Do you mean to say that to enquire or question the existence of God, one must tap into a level beyond human clarity, going into a higher thinking that is 'heavenly knowledge' to prove the existence of a supernatural being? If so, then does that also mean that we would never be able to make empirical this claim?

I think there is knowledge beyond what we know currently, but I do not think it should be considered a separate category. It is all knowledge, just the same, and the only difference is that we don't know it yet. I wrote "earthly knowledge" to emphasize that the hypothesis of God's existence is an extraordinary claim, because it involves a concept clearly outside anything our physical (earthly) science can describe or explain. Try thinking about what a spirit is made of. It is completely foreign to our physical terms. We can still apply philosophy and reason to God's behavior or thoughts, but His "physical" nature, or lack thereof, makes no sense to our current science.

[onlyparallel]

The 'Innocent until proven guilty' theory suggests that one looks towards a hypothesis with an optimism with regards to the subjects involved - and in this case, God. In this very sense, wouldn't people hold that God is a positive entity, rather than that of an evil (by virtue of 'guilty', according to said mentality, which isn't 'guilty until proven innocent') nature, thus going by the assumption that God does exist until proven otherwise?


I mean to compare the God question to the 'innocent until proven guilty mentality' only on the basis that proof is needed, not looking into the positive or negative meaning behind guilty and innocent, nor taking into mind that the statement is optimistic. In a sense, I'm asking whether the lack of proof for God's existence is enough for you to consider him nonexistent. As in, the lack of proof that a person has committed a crime is enough for them to be considered innocent in our society.

[Beery Swine]

An excellent point. So, all of those out there who *assert* that this universe came into existence out of nothing: Antares has thrown down the gauntlet.

A straw man if I've ever seen one. Shame, shame. :nono: