Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
Non-believers demand proof when believers assert, as a fact, that "A" exists. They do not demand proof of assertions that have not been made because there is no controversy about that. To say the same thing differently, non-believers did not deny the existence of "A" (in fact, nobody did) until someone claimed that "A" did exist.
That doesn't give non-believers the right to harass and attack believers of "A" whenever they feel like it. If believers want to build monuments to "A" with their own money, why not? If they want to celebrate the birthday of "A" with their own rituals, let them. As long as they aren't forcing non-believers to pay for those monuments or participate in those rituals what harm is done?
Who's harrassing the believers? Not I. For by far the most part, it is believers who try to impose their beliefs on non-believers and on believers in other things, for no better reason than they believe it themselves.

Quote:
How can anyone disagree with that? But until the existence of those "objects" could be proved, the suggestion that they did exist was nothing more than a hypothesis, and it was perfectly legitimate for other people to doubt, deny and ignore them until the proof was presented to them. The "believers" had to prove their case, not the other way round.

I accept that belief in "A" is wholly tenable if there is a body of experience and evidence suggesting that it exists, but no-one should claim that this is proof positive of "A's" existence. It's still just opinion or belief, whether likely or not.
Most believers already feel that their case has been proven. 5000 years of human civiliation is their proof. A 2000 year old book (or maybe only 1500 years or so) is their proof. If we don't choose to accept their evidence, their proof, it becomes incumbant upon us to prove them wrong.
I would agree with that if mere existence or if an ancient book did amount to persuasive evidence of a greater power. But it does not. There are other equally or better answers that are just as ancient, venerable or self-evident. There are also competing religious proofs that are mutually exclusive or contradictory.

It may be the best they can offer, but it is not convincing proof. So it is still up to them.


Quote:
OK - if not gullible, deluded.
That's rather condescending. One can only be gullible or deluded by believing in something which flies in the face of proof, not by believing in something for which there is no proof one way or the other. Believing that the moon is made of green cheese or that the Earth is flat is deluded. Believing in God is faith. There's no proof one way or the other, and only one way (presently) to learn the truth.
I'm nothing if not condescending, as I've demonstrated frequently on these threads - but only for effect. I respect everyone and their beliefs also.

What I meant was, people who listen to the liars who claim to know of God's existence as an undeniabe, certain fact, and who accept what they say without question are gullible or deluded. People who believe after enquiry and who know that their faith is just a belief are not necessarily gullible or deluded.

Quote:
As for people who have "experienced" the existence of "A", while that might convince them personally, it does not count as proof for others. That experience might be the real thing, but there are probably many other explanations that are just as good or better.
There may be thousands of explanations which you feel are better. Those same explanations may seem worse to someone else. It's all subjective, because there is no proof one way or the other. It's a matter of personal opinion, based on whatever existing evidence one believes in.

In which case, your opinions, and mine, are no better or worse than anyone else's. Without proof, one way or the other, they are only opinions, or beliefs.
No, that's wrong. For non-belivers, no explanation is called for at all. why explain what does not exist? But if someone tries to make the case for God, they have to show that the existence of a deity is more likely than not.

Until that happens, a non-believer's position is better than a believer's



Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
Probably not, but I don't have to, do I? If believers are right, they must prove it. Non-believers have nothing whatsoever to prove, so why on Earth would they ever want to?

In other words, the absence of "A" (as anything other than a concept) is persuasive evidence of its non-existence. If "A" does exist outside the imagination, then its existence must be demonstrated to rebut the presumption that it does not.

If "A" cannot be proved to exist, then those who say thay "know" it does are liars, and those who believe them are gullible.

Just my point of view, though, and I wouldn't want anyone to change thier opinions on account of what I say.
Why do I have to prove I am right if you don't? I think that is a double standard. Let me disprove your logic with a simple example.

Fermat's Last Theorem: If an integer n is greater than 2, then the equation ato the nth + b to the nth = c to the nth has no solutions in non-zero integers a, b, and c. Mathematicians searched for proof of this for centuries, yet no own is trying to claim they are crazy for doing so. Mathematicians believed in that proof long before it was discovered. Yet by your standard they were all either liars or gullible.

The lack of proof is not evidence that something dos not exist, it is simply proof that we don't have proof.
Because, if you want me to believe, like you do, in a hare-brained notion that, somewhere out there is a being that is eternal, omniscient and omnipresent, who is goodness in its purest form, and who wants to be worshipped (why? isn't that rather vain? vanity is a sin) but refuses to make himself known to us (and hecould if he wanted to), then you must demonstrate to me that, at least, such a thing is more likely than not. I don't have to prove God doesn't exist any more than I have to prove the existence of nothing. That's not double standards; it's expecting you to live up to normal standards.

As for Fermat's Last Theorem, it was a problem set by Diophantus in the 3rd century that Fermat managed to solve (so he claimed) in the 17th century. So for 1400 years or so, it would have been Diopantus's Proposition, and during that one-and-a-half thousand years, anyone who believed in it who have had to admit that his opinion was founded on belief, not proven fact.

Unfortunately, Fermat did not record what his proof was, so for four more centuries, that proof had to be rediscovered. During those 400 years, people who believed that the problem had been solved relied on Fermat's claims and nothing more. They had to accept that their belief was founded upon their trust that Fermat was not lying and that he had not made any mistakes, as so many others had.

You put the cart before the horse when you say "lack of proof is not evidence that something dos not exist, it is simply proof that we don't have proof".

The lack of proof that something does exist does not prove its non-existence, but it does indicate that it probably does not exist.