4 ms·
Positive claims bear the burden of proof. Not believing a God or gods exist is the null hypothesis. There is no need to prove that a God or gods do not exist; t
by stan_rogers 6y ago
Positive claims bear the burden of proof. Not believing a God or gods exist is the null hypothesis. There is no need to prove that a God or gods do not exist; there is a need to prove its/their existence. Why do people have trouble understanding that?
- Alupis 6y ago> Positive claims bear the burden of proof Citation please.
- joubert 6y agoA unicorn created the universe.
- Alupis 6y agoThat's kind of the point though. You are free to believe whatever you want. If I come along and assert you're wrong for believing that, I must prove why. Otherwise, I'm just rejecting your belief and inserting my own belief.
- stan_rogers 6y agoNo, not at all. You're free to believe what you want, but the moment you expect me to believe it as well, you need to give me a reason to believe it. If there's no reason to believe you, then there's no reason to believe you. Or to allow you to regulate anyone else's life according to your beliefs. Or to allow you to teach your nonsense to children in place of verifiable facts.
- ars 6y agoThe world exists and we know that you can not create something from nothing. Therefore the null hypothesis is actually that the world was created by something. To claim that the universe was created by nothing requires pretty enormous evidence, which presently does not exist.
- joubert 6y agoThat logic doesn’t quite work. You cannot say that everything that exists needs to have been created but then make an arbitrary exception for a creator. In other words, if you believe there is a creator that wasn’t created, you already believe that not everything needs a creator. So then the question: why do you think the universe was created?