Originally posted by ~angelz16~So guys, we theists are always questioned and sometimes even mocked @ one thing...
HOW do we know God is there? We have never seen him etc. etc. is what is usually told to us. Atheists have this one easy argument to put forward. And well, they in any case have easy arguments only cuz they say the 'burden of proof' lies on US, the believers. Which I totally don't agree with. Because we don't have to prove anything to them. It's our wish. If we want to, we will. If not, then who cares. We don't HAVE to prove it.
But still, if you would like to put forward some arguments as a theist then what would those be? Let's discuss Awesome topic of discussion Akanksha (I hope of I spelled it correctly in terms of number of 'A's)!!!!!!! I also have faced this question a few times with my friends and had arguments also and will share them here.
Regarding the burden of proof, well I think the theory should logically be: "The person who challenges others' views should have the burden of proof or evidence or convincing reasoning or logic". Challenging other's thoughts is not actually disrespecting others' thoughts IMO and it is not actually bad in itself but it should be done only when other person is open for the debate. And true debates should follow the rule - "Either convince or get convinced". If we are peaceful and concentrate on our own individual beliefs without disturbing others' beliefs, and if others who are atheists interfere in our beliefs and challenge our thoughts, then very well they can do it without any reason for us getting hurt by that but they should first come up with reasons and not us.
And with that last point, the point of argument available with the believers as shield or weapon begins. It is clear on my part that if the 'God exists vs God doesn't exist' debate is initiated by the atheist, it is he/she who has to start proving his/her point first with reasoning. And this itself is the believer's victory. Believer can then straightaway ask the question: "You say you don't believe in God right? Now first of all, for saying that sentence, define the terms used in your arguments. Define first of all what is God according to you and then say that you don't believe in that.". Now if the other person can define a concept, then that itself means that he/she believes in the existence of that concept. If other person can't define what is God, he/she has obviously no right to challenge others in the topic in which he has zero knowledge. It becomes completely the question of faithful individual experiences which can't be made felt to others in the same way we have felt. Other person has to feel those through the open minded personality and that way process through many births. If we initiate the topic, then only we have to prove that God exists, and for that we have first to compile properly somehow in words (if at all possible to define) what is the definition of GOD as per our faith.
Edited by ShivangBuch - 12 November 2010 at 7:52am