Or is the onus shared with the believer?
which god? christian god? if so, then he’s responsible for everything according to the ‘good’ book and thus also responsible for what we do and don’t believe.
I’d say even more-so on the prophets [which may or may not actually be believers]. But I admittedly don’t think God would have any need or desire to make claims about his own existence. The onus lies with those who make the claims for, or about, God – prophets, priests, and the like.
The “onus” is on the one/s who have the desire for the knowledge to be known.
If I play hide and seek with my 6 year old niece and she can’t find me, then I’m the one who didn’t play the game well.
If god needed a proof, it’s not absolute (to the person who wanted the proof).
A believer (if s/he believed enough) doesn’t need any proof.
It doesn’t mean the believer would never think about it.
S/he may think (especially when asked by someone else), but it’s not really important because god (or whatever the person believe) is so obvious/evident/real/true/etc for her/him that proving isn’t required.
So, if someone really needs the proof of god, it proves that s/he isn’t believing much, most probably.
Now, if god is supposed to be absolute, I guess it can only be prove by the lack of all limitation, such as property/potential/possibility, because having any property/etc is to be limited within the definition of the property/etc.
God that can do this and that isn’t absolute.
God that has this and that power isn’t absolute.
God that exists isn’t absolute.
God that can be defined isn’t absolute.
Does absolute god can be proved? I don’t think so.
is the god here the judeo-christian god…
Is there an “onus” otherwise? I don’t know enough about the world’s religions.
Believers say the onus is on the believer.
Skeptics say the onus would be on God if he existed.
Should one believe or not? Depends on what you want.
Believers say there is a right answer to what you should want.
Skeptics are open to there not being a right answer to what you should want.
So we fall into an infinite loop.
Hows-a-bout if she merely thought you were playing hide and seek, but you weren’t actually hiding, and she never found you because she only looked in places where she thought you might hide?
In such a case, you might not acknowledge the burden of ‘playing well’ since you never really agreed to play in the first place. Point being that most conventional notions, and “proofs”, of God begin with the assumption that he exists. So perhaps we grant him the burden only in cases where we already assume his existence, like you might inherit the burden of ‘playing well’ because your niece assumes you are playing at all.
Haha, yeah. I just wanted to use a fun metaphor. 
anon—i want to know how bolt defines god…if you are going to post something like this i need a definition…because my own god doesnt fit with this stuff… i dont care about the worlds religions.
Giving “God” a sexist gender identity means that “God” is basically a male human projection. Projectionism of course is real and can be proven.
Sure, but you also have to realize that ‘perfection’, even in the most idealistic sense, is impossible without a penis. They are like inbuilt scepters, which men are endowed with as a symbol of divine right.
…obviously.
Interesting insights from everyone. I posted this more on the side of seeing how others with varying viewpoints would answer. I wasn’t disappointed.
turtle, I was thinking along the lines of the Judeo/Christian God if this helps you from an opinion.
Who is the one this is proved to? Does a believer have an obligation to prove there is a God to others? Does God have an obligation to prove its existence to us, to believers, to some of us, to seekers, to non-believers, to tough nuts…?
If the god is handing out eternal rewards or punishments to those who do or do not believe in said god, AND that god has unlimited amounts of power, then yes. The proof falls on that kind of god. A very limited human mind should not be the basis for the verdict of eternal judgement, regardless of what that verdict is.
If the god is not concerned with the amount of belief that exists then people are truly free to choose whatever they believe in and proof is no longer needed in any substantial fashion.
No-body, I’m not sure if the first part of your response was aimed at the subject line or what you had cited in my quote.
Subject line. Sorry, quoting is pretty much habit.
…good answer, man.
