Burden of Proof for God's existence

Post Reply New Topic

I've been doing a bible study with Jehovah's Witnesses for the past year and a half, hoping to find proof God exists as they claim there is.
In the past weeks they cited Hebrews 11 verse 6:

Amplified: But without faith it is impossible to please and be satisfactory to Him. For whoever would come near to God must [necessarily] believe that God exists and that He is the rewarder of those who earnestly and diligently seek Him [out]. (Amplified Bible - Lockman)
KJV: But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
NLT: So, you see, it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that there is a God and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him. (NLT - Tyndale House)
Phillips: And without faith it is impossible to please him. The man who approaches God must have faith in two things, first that God exists and secondly that it is worth a man's while to try to find God. (Phillips: Touchstone)
Wuest: Now, without faith it is impossible to please Him at all. For he who comes to God must of the necessity in the nature of the case believe that He exists, that He also becomes a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him out. (Eerdmans)
Young's Literal: and apart from faith it is impossible to please well, for it behoveth him who is coming to God to believe that He is, and to those seeking Him He becometh a rewarder.

(link)

In short, you have to believe he exists before you can know for sure.
... In other words the reversed burden of proof .
If so, it'll put Jehovah on the same line as Santa, The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy, etc.
As long as you believe in them, they will be real to you.

This part makes it very hard for me to further the bible study sincerely.
Any pointers?

Honestly, if you're not someone for whom faith comes easily (or at all) then the most you can really hope to gain from studying the Bible is the impact it's had on the cultures it infiltrated and subverted.

Actually, that would take you outside of the Bible itself...nevermind, I can't think of anything beneficial about studying it.

Why are you trying to find is God exists by reading a book?

Obviously, you have to be counting sheep to find God.

Religious proof doesn't equal logic proof, it's more of a feeling. I only say that because it doesn't sound like you'll blindly believe in God.

There is more and more physical evidence being dug up in the Middle East and the Mediterranean that verifies persons and places mentioned in the bible.

Peter's house.


King Herod's Tomb


King David's house

You have hit the nail on the head.

Just to add another few nails, if Jehovah only exists because of blind faith in him, how do you disprove the existence of other gods?

You can't really argue that a muslim doesn't have real faith in Allah when he is prepared to kill thousands and die in his name when he flies a plane into a building.

Does Poseidon also exist if people truly believe in him?

Should Holland abandon plans to strengthen dykes against rising sea levels and instead build temples to Poseidon and rely on his good favour to prevent flooding?

Take up a useful hobby, unless you're interested in a career involving the collection of money for giving inspirational speeches.

By the application of your own logic:

1. New York exists, therefore King Kong was real.

2. Tokyo exists, therefore Godzilla was real.

3. England exists, therefore Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde was real.

: : Your logic fails when applied outside your limited field of interest.

And Akhenaten's "Great Hymn to Aten" exists, therefore, the Aten, the Sun Disk, is god. At least one can see the sun if one looks up in the sky on a clear day. And do not forget that the Maya Hero Twins exist because the Popol Wuj exists.

Paul Bunyan exists because the lower peninsula of Michigan exists.

(It's where Mr. Bunyan dropped his mitten.)

The burden of proof of existence of anything is on those who claim the existence of the whatever. Let them present empirical evidence to support their claim. Those who say God exists have the logical onus and empirical onus of producing the empirical evidence of God's existence.

ruveyn

The reductionist sentiment here is totally missing the point.

The burden of proof sits with the person making the proposition. That means if you are claiming that God does not exist, then under the accepted rules of argument, you are making the priposition and the burden would rest with you. The same as if I put the proposition God does exist the burden would sit with me.

The attempt within this thread to characterize all faith as blind faith is just ridiculous. Blind faith, dependent on the sacrifice of the mind is in the view of my church a sign of non-genuine faith. So what you mean by faith, what a JW means by faith and what I mean when I say I have faith are not necessarily the same thing.

Shrox is correct, that we can be confident in the historical reality of the people we are discussing. I didn't actually see him clim that because they existed, therefor what they say is true, you put that argument in his mouth for him and have seen fit to engage in a bit of a Gish Gallop with it.

On the subject a historical case I suggest you pick up a book on the ressurection.

Well, the other day, some little Japanese girls dressed Lolita style ran past the front window where I work. I fully expected Godzilla or a giant robot to rampage past. We gave it two minutes, then went back to work.

I'm sorry, what was the question?

Shrox brings up good points, though. It's just that the position he's trying to defend is not the position being argued.

If there is a reason that God exists, it's merely that God exists.

If you're looking for proof, I think it helps to understand the nature of what you're looking for. If you're looking for material proof for an immaterial being, of course you're not going to find any. Empirical evidence for God (any Supreme Being, Creator) exists. Creation exists. Creation cannot exist without a Creator. Therefore, a Creator exists. The only problem is that all empirical evidence for anything is subject for interpretation. If you don't like the idea of God existing, then all you have to do is simply deny that the universe is even created--which is not something anyone can really know empirically. Cosmological origins theories are inferred from cosmic phenomena, but there has never been any PROOF that the Big Bang (or any one theory) was THE way the universe came into existence. Furthermore, evidence in support of those theories don't effectively disprove that a/the Creator provided the mechanism for bringing something from nothing. But if someone is disinclined to believe one way or the other, then no amount of empirical evidence will be satisfactory.

Otherwise, if you want direct MATERIAL proof of an IMMATERIAL being, you won't find any because of the nature of an immaterial being. Hard empiricists are demanding the wrong kind of evidence and will accept nothing else.

Establish the existence of God or any god (take your pick of logical proofs or otherwise), i.e. that there is One/one, then you can go about trying to show which one is the right One. In Christianity, the argument for Yahweh God would be based upon the truth and reliability of the Bible. Historically attacks against the Bible hinged on whether the people and places the Bible described even existed, i.e. no evidence for people/places in the Bible, therefore the Bible is unreliable. Well, evidence for those people/places has been found, so that tactic has been debunked. You can't prove God exists by pointing out that certain people/places existed, but neither can you attack the reliability of the Bible on those grounds.

But if the Bible is found to be reliable, then those people/places existed, then it's also possible the Bible is telling the truth about other things, including the experiences people had of Yahweh. And if those people really did have those experiences, and if God really does exist, then Yahweh IS the right God.

I've been to Seminary. There is no historical basis - no empirical evidence - for the resurrection.

To look at a ruined building and claim that one or more Biblical characters once lived there may be more than an act of faith, especially if archeological evidence backs up the claim. However, to claim "King Herod lived here" and then use that claim as 'evidence' to support the additional claim that the Jesus story is valid takes more than a mere leap of faith; it takes a flight of fancy!

Assuming that there were scribes in Herod's palace, where are their records? Do these records include trial proceedings? Do any of these trial proceedings focus on one Ieshua bar Iehoseph ben 'Nzareth?

And if the Romans were fond of record-keeping, where are the records of the courts of the prefect Pontios Pilatos? Do any of these trial proceedings focus on one Ieshua bar Iehoseph ben 'Nzareth?

Just because there is archeological evidence that both Herod and Pilate existed, it does not mean that their alleged actions as told in the Bible actually occurred; nor does it mean that they actually met anyone named Jesus.

Just because a place named "Jericho" existed, it does not mean that Joshua, Son of Nun ever existed, either.

How about Russell's teapot?