Burden of proof

[Brian2]

You do if you assert it in a debate forum. Though you may not care of course, which is not the same.

It is up to God to convince people of the truth. All I can do is present what I have to present.

 

[Trailblazer]

Even then it is the work of God to convince people. But of course that usually is not a matter of proving.

Why do you think God would want to convince people? What about free will?

 

[Brian2]

If you care whether your beliefs are true, then you have a burden to prove it to yourself.

In one sense it does not matter if what I believe is true or not, it is where the path leads which is the important thing even if it leads me away from what I believe now.
However we do become committed to what we believe and find it hard to walk in another direction even if it the divergence in the path is the easiest way to follow.
But yes I do care if my beliefs are true or not

 

[Brian2]

If it helps, I think "the burden of proof" is not the same thing as "the burden to prove".

Yes that probably helps.

 

[Brian2]

If it's true for you, that's fine. But if you want tell others it's true and make the assertion that it is universally true, then the burden of proof is on you.

One can only do ones best. Some people want proof but God wants a willingness to trust in Him without proof.

 

[Brian2]

Agreed, but you can't expect to be believed, either. Your comment does not mean "Christianity is true" to me, but rather, Brian2 says he believes it is.

Of course, what the empiricist is interested in are the beliefs of others that are demonstrably correct - justified beliefs. If you have any interest in convincing such a person that you are correct, you'll have to demonstrate why, which is what burden of "proof" means. Thus, you only have a burden of proof if you want to be believed by an empiricist, meaning that you are no longer just claiming that you believe something, but that it is factual, and that you can demonstrate why you believe that to be the case.

One other thing I would add is that there is no burden of proof with somebody who is unable or unwilling to open-mindedly and critically follow the evidence and argument. You can't make a man see what he has a stake in not seeing. This comes up frequently in discussions between believers and unbelievers frequently. The believer says prove it, and never looks at the offered evidence or rejects it out of hand without rebuttal. There's no burden to support even a claim of fact if the other party can't or won't cooperate in dialectic.

This is such a common pattern - the empiricist brings links and citations that are never looked at or commented on, much less rebutted - that I've stopped doing it. That is, I feel no need to try to convince somebody who is only posturing that he has an interest in evidence. But since I don't want to turn away a sincere questioner if I encounter one, I offer them the chance to make a good faith effort by reviewing some teaching source I suggest, and coming back to the thread to discuss what was learned and ask questions if any. Only then will I feel like a have a burden of proof, that is, a responsibility to justify my claims.

So, the burden of proof falls on he who makes an existential claim that can be demonstrated to be correct, that he wants believed, and to a ready student willing and able to be convinced by a compelling argument. If that doesn't describe you, if you don't care whether others also believe that Christianity is true but just want to inform them that you do, then I agree, you have no burden of proof with your claim that you believe that Christianity is true.

I don't expect to be believed even if I spend hours a day writing evidence for my beliefs. As you say, a willing recipient is needed.
Empirical evidence does not prove anything to me when it comes to belief in God and Jesus.
Then again the Bible does not prove that God exists either.
It is where you choose to put your faith that counts and no side has proofs, just reasons they give to justify their beliefs.

 

[Brian2]

2=3 is true, but I do not think I have a burden to prove it to anyone.

That's right, you don't have to prove it to anyone. It might even be a waste of your time to try to prove it to me. But I would listen to what you have to say even if it gives no proof.
For me 3=3 whether you believe it or not.

 

[Brian2]

Why do you think God would want to convince people? What about free will?

God wants to save people from deceit and lies and death.
People accept or reject and with those who reject there is always something else to believe that looks true to them.

 

[Truthseeker]

I wouldn't take anything solely on trust or goodwill, in fact those ideas sound like they might actually incline bias, rather than objectivity.

There's no such thing as objectivity, there is only bias to some degree.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Some people want proof...

Which people?

...but God wants a willingness to trust in Him without proof.

Do you have any evidence of this outside of what is written in the Bible?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Claim: Church restored by an all powerful being that created the universe through a mortal man which by nature makes it the most accurate Church/organization in the universe.

Proof: A series of supernatural events in the creation and narrative in the Bible and Book of Mormon. Written Testimonies of many witnesses of supernatural beings appearing to them and giving them instruction. Personal witness to the goodness and mercy of this unseen Being through universal and natural occurrences of good feelings and curiosities that fit the narrative of the Being written in the scriptures.

When you think about it the 'burden' of proof in religious contexts is completely subjective. You can either believe in the witnesses of ancient people or you can develop your own relationship with the Creator and realize it for yourself. Just as we can conceive dimensions past 3 axis but we do not know how we can fully interact with a fourth or fifth dimensional object, so is God's ability to remain hidden yet have full interaction with His creations outside our field of vision. Theoretically all is possible, yet theist have a great collection of blueprints suggesting this ultra dimensional Being exist and is interacting with our universe through willing 3 dimensional persons. If you are open to this theory, you might discover more and more that His existence is more than just possible, it is necessary.

The burden in "burden of proof" is to bring objective evidence to the table for observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and analysis.

Can you do this with witness testimony?

 

[osgart]

I don't expect to be believed even if I spend hours a day writing evidence for my beliefs. As you say, a willing recipient is needed.
Empirical evidence does not prove anything to me when it comes to belief in God and Jesus.
Then again the Bible does not prove that God exists either.
It is where you choose to put your faith that counts and no side has proofs, just reasons they give to justify their beliefs.

So then knowing God is by revelation through spirit and not on rational basis.

As for faith I would want to have good reasons to put faith into anyone or anything.

So I would have to still qualify the revelation as being worthy of my faith.

At some point it has to be actual reality to have faith in it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The burden of proof lies with the one who claim to know, or claim his or her belief is the one true belief.

I commune with God internally. How to prove that to someone who does not believe in consciousness?

 

[Spirit of Light]

I commune with God internally. How to prove that to someone who does not believe in consciousness?

Not sure it is nessesary to prove it to others it is a private chat between you and God

 

[Sheldon]

Christianity is true but I don't think I have a burden to prove that to anyone.

You do if you assert it in a debate forum. Though you may not care of course, which is not the same.

It is up to God to convince people of the truth. All I can do is present what I have to present.

That's all anyone can do, but this is a debate forum, so anyone making a claim by voicing a belief carries a burden of proof. I am an atheist myself, so I don't believe in any deity or deities, however if one exists and wants to make me aware of that fact I am ready and waiting, but I won't accept claims a deity exists based on subjective anecdote alone, as i wouldn't do this for any other claims either.

 

[Sheldon]

There's no such thing as objectivity, there is only bias to some degree.

If you mean as an absolute then I would agree, but then I never suggested otherwise. Think of a progressive scale starting at zero credence I would lend a claim, this would have nothing but an unevidenced subjective claim to support it. Now think of a separate scale from the most banal and insignificant claim, becoming increasingly extraordinary, and as it increases the evidence would need to move up the first scale to match it. When I say I base belief on sufficient objective evidence being demonstrated to support it, the word sufficient is a qualifier defined by the second scale, and the word objective a qualifier for the first scale. I had not meant to suggest that objective and subjective are binary mutually exclusive states.

 

[Sheldon]

Jesus is the one who had the burden of proof because He made the claims.
Jesus amply met His burden.

We have no way of knowing what Jesus did or did not do or say with any degree of surety. All we have is second or third hand hearsay long after the fact, and not one word was written during his alleged lifetime. There is a scholarly consensus that he existed, and was crucified, beyond that little but hearsay.

 

[Sheldon]

I commune with God internally. How to prove that to someone who does not believe in consciousness?

A larger problem would be that other theists make the identical claim, and commune allegedly with a different deity or deities.

 

[Sheldon]

Not sure it is nessesary to prove it to others it is a private chat between you and God

No longer though, since it has been asserted in a public debate forum.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

The burden in "burden of proof" is to bring objective evidence to the table for observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and analysis.

Can you do this with witness testimony?

In my opinion yes and no. Anyone can say they saw a leprechaun in the forest near their house and they could convince a handful of people to confirm their belief who are local leprechaun hunters that want to join their cause. Their witness is not objective evidence itself, but if it leads to investigation where observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and analysis are conducted. We observe that the forest is green and consider it a good hiding place for a leprechaun, we hypothesis that if a sighting occurred it would likely occur under certain circumstances, we experiment those circumstances to test if they work or not, and we make an analysis based on the limited experimentation. It is my belief that for the sake and utility of a leprechauns existence people wouldn't be that interested to even experiment for very long, that is except of course, the leprechaun hunters. In the end, it is the leprechaun hunters that feel their investigation is too important to never conclude their experiment until they find the objective proof for all of leprechauns instead of their own sightings. We can sideline and commentate on their lack of evidence all day, but we cannot definitely prove them wrong until we ourselves join them and have exhausted every crevice of the forest and underneath, which we do not feel is important to spend our time on doing.

This is the same for theist except the biggest difference is that over 4 billion people in the world are 'God hunters' and God is much more important for people than a little green suited man who leads you to gold. This is why we have been investigating His existence since our ability to think and imagine. We have discovered new things even to this day about His existence through connecting our everyday lives with the lives of people in the Bible and Book of Mormon. The parallels lead us to believe that sane and even genius series of people have arrived to a conclusion that seems to indicate the existence of a purposeful Creator. We hold to these believable people. We experiment for ourselves and find that our essence of being pulls us toward the same conclusions using faith and interaction with the world and its mysteries around us. We ask much deeper questions and we look toward the texts that have asked similar questions and we mine out an answer for our lives. This gives us purpose and meaning which is objective in our outlook and service to others, our meetinghouses and our internal rituals. Whether our witness is objective or not, we have a universal need for purpose and that need is really only fulfilled in a creator or a Father of all Fathers.