Quote from rgelite:
Rules of evidence require the burden of proof be placed on those who assert the positive (in this instance that "god exists").
The fact that in your post you are asking for "it" to be "disproven" tells even a newcomer to this thread two things about how you choose to represent your mind in this forum:
1. You are able to identify the "it" (of god) from all the other "it" concepts people hold. It, as you used it here, is a specific thing. It has an identity unique to itself.
2. You acknowledge that proving something is a valid process in rational thought, a useful process in social discourse, one that you implicitly claim to respect.
I approach learning much as I approach trading. I stay in as long as the premises of the trade remain intact; I maintain a specific pov for as long as my premises and method stand up. As soon as I learn otherwise, I'm out of the trade. Or out of the chat. I look around to reassess what I just learned. I look to improve. Sometimes I find aspects of myself to evolve.
Sometimes I just realize I'd been had, and seek to cut out that noise in the future. And I have done that before; others who weren't serious are now on my ignore list. I will not further grant them the benefit of my mind, except as crumbs off the table when I'm dining with others.
For now, my premise is that you don't understand why a "call to disprove" is not a valid rebuttal to the "call to prove." That kind of error in thinking is readily cleared up with those who want to learn. [Aside: Making mistakes is not a badge of dishonor; we all have started from pretty much the same tabula rasa place as children. And I've made plenty. But, as an example, once I had learned that 2 + 2 = 4, I didn't constantly go back making the same mistake I did as a child. And think myself clever.]
I've found that most people grasp things pragmatically. So let's start with an example that should clear this up once and for all.
Your wife dies. You attempt to cash in her insurance policy.
As the insurance claims adjuster, I state that your wife isn't dead and challenge you to prove that she isn't alive.
You say you have a death certificate signed by the coroner.
I say the certificate is easily faked and that you bribed the coroner to do just that. Prove that you didn't.
You bring in the coroner to testify on his bonafides and thus in your behalf.
I claim the coroner is an imposter. Prove that he isn't.
You have him fingerprinted which shows his prints match the records. You also bring in others who swear it's really him.
I claim the records were forged, that you know someone in the FBI's Records Office who exchanged them with the impostor's, and that you've paid off all these witnesses. Prove that you didn't.
You show your bank records don't have a suspicious pattern of disbursement. Nor do your phone records show any contact with anyone in Washington, D.C. in the last 3 years. Nor is there any record of any trips to DC. Nor do you have any acquaintances who work at the FBI or who are friends with anyone who does. Character witness (yours now) after character witness confirm all this as true.
I state that you have been saving up in cash for years planning this. And that there are "ways" (unstated at this time, to keep the waters nice and muddy) to be in contact with people to hide your true intentions. And that all these others are in on it with you for a portion of the insurance settlement. Prove that you didn't, weren't, aren't.
And on and on and on... until you yourself die and my company keeps your money.
This is an example of why arbitrary assertions (statements not based on some evidence) are not allowed into legal arguments where lives depend on them (as opposed to a chat room bulletin board). Lacking the discipline required for establishing basis or foundation, anything could be asserted (as has been in primitive cultures). And we'd spend our time painstakingly gathering evidence why something didn't occur, only to have the original asserter invent something new as soon as we were done, in supposed "answer" to our most recent rebuttal.
In other words, it doesn't work.
And if you think it's important in the legal process, i.e. you on trial wouldn't want to be subjected to arbitrary claims of fact, then consider how much more important a proper philosophy of knowledge is to your entire life.
The burden of proof to show the existence of god is where it always has been throughout the centuries: on those who want to assert it publicly. I have yet to read anything here on this or any other thread that even remotely approaches the rigor required for claims of god to be taken seriously.
That said, I'd be first in line to defend your right to believe anything you want personally without interference by others as long as your acting on those beliefs doesn't injure anyone else. In your mysticism, you don't want me to start perceiving you as just a dormant form of the Taliban, after all. As John Lennon wrote, "Whatever gets you through the night is alright." And for people's personal, private beliefs, I'm with that 100%.
However, once you enter the arena of social discourse where you expect to be taken seriously by civilized adults when you propose ideas, you simply have to back up your claims when asked. Or be seen as you are. The "it" being "it" applies to you, too.
Perhaps you are not here to be taken seriously, which is okay. Chat is designed for screwing around at times, it helps people blow off steam. Or, perhaps you may not be able or not willing to acknowledge concepts which contradict a position; perhaps your mind is already made up and you're here more for the argument than for a fully aware discourse. That's okay, too; it's your life and your choice how to live it.
But if you're not actually interested in the answer to the question you posted, then it simply means that past a few exchanges (and sometimes just one), some of us will refuse to converse further with you because our values hierarchies are anathema to each other's. And because some of us value our time spent making forward progress, not looping around in issues long ago decided.
Cheers.
