Burden of proof

[SalixIncendium]

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

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.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Like there's degrees of being tiresome!

Also true.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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

Yes, I agree. But after presenting the proofs from one's view, if the other person says, this belief is false, then the burden of disproving is on him/her.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not always possible to give proof

It should at least be possible to give good reasons for a belief.

... and if this isn't possible, this is an indication that the belief should not be held.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It should at least be possible to give good reasons for a belief.

... and if this isn't possible, this is an indication that the belief should not be held.

Yes, a form of reason should be possible to give as a believer

I realised i haven't always been able to give those reasons for my own belief

 

[RestlessSoul]

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

And to no one else.

 

[Nakosis]

It is not always possible to give proof

So then I'd suppose bringing up the burden of proof is just a way of bowing out of the discussion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

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.

 

[chinu]

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

Okay, I know God.
Now, why should I bother you ?

 

[RestlessSoul]

So then I'd suppose bringing up the burden of proof is just a way of bowing out of the discussion.

Probably. It is a phrase which seems to turn up during circuitous and fruitless discussions.

 

[Audie]

It should at least be possible to give good reasons for a belief.

... and if this isn't possible, this is an indication that the belief should not be held.

Revealing why some may not want their
precious to be hauled out into the pitiless
light of day.

 

[Sheldon]

And to no one else.

Unless one makes claims about those beliefs publicly of course. then those claims and beliefs are subject to critical scrutiny.

 

[Sheldon]

Okay, I know God.
Now, why should I bother you ?

By demonstrating something beyond bare subjective assertion, as you have made that claim publicly in a debate forum.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Unless one makes claims about those beliefs publicly of course. then those claims and beliefs are subject to critical scrutiny.

Fair enough. But a distinction can be drawn, I think, between scrutiny undertaken in good faith, and scrutiny undertaken with the intent to confirm existing prejudice.

 

[sayak83]

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

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

 

[Nimos]

That's a misleading over-simplification.

I claim that I don't like spinach. No proof is necessary or expected.

I claim that spinach causes cancer. Proof would be expected. So it's not any claim or claimant that is expected to offer proof.

Also, "proof" is not the correct term, nor the correct expectation in response to a universal truth claim. Sufficiently logical reasoning is. Because rising to the level of 'proof' is a subjective condition not necessarily based on logical reasoning.

This is an important distinction because there are many here who use this ambiguity to place themselves in charge of what stands as acceptable logical reasoning, and what doesn't, by defining it as whatever is logical and reasonable to them. Which then nullifies the whole point of establishing universal applicability.

A proof isn't really related to expectations.

Unless by expectations you mean "to not care about"? in that case you are correct that the majority of people probably wouldn't demand prove from you that you really don't like spinach.

I think it is more correct to say that certain claims doesn't allow for a proof. Like the spinach or me claiming that my favorite color is red, or that I feel a certain way. I would probably categorize these as personal claims or unimportant claims.

But "proof of something" as we normally refer to it and depending on what claim we are talking about again, can be highly objective as well. We might obviously just not have a complete understanding of it. This could be stuff like quantum mechanics etc. Where a claim can be more subjective, is if we are talking something like a court case, where a person might claim that they did nothing wrong.

But even in a court case the accuser still have the burden of proof by default.

So ultimately it is still the same, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.

 

[osgart]

The only way to avoid burden of proof is to be agnostic about absolutely everything.

I don't see anyone mentioning counter claims.

I.e. I know God.

God does not exist.

I would think it fair that counter claims have a burden of proof as well. Otherwise the default would be that no one knows one way or the other.

 

[PureX]

A proof isn't really related to expectations.

Unless by expectations you mean "to not care about"? in that case you are correct that the majority of people probably wouldn't demand prove from you that you really don't like spinach.

I think it is more correct to say that certain claims doesn't allow for a proof. Like the spinach or me claiming that my favorite color is red, or that I feel a certain way. I would probably categorize these as personal claims or unimportant claims.

These are subjective truth claims. Their truthfulness is dependent upon the subject making the claim. And that's why there is no reason to seek external or universal experience or reasoning to justify the truth claim.

But "proof of something" as we normally refer to it and depending on what claim we are talking about again, can be highly objective as well. We might obviously just not have a complete understanding of it. This could be stuff like quantum mechanics etc. Where a claim can be more subjective, is if we are talking something like a court case, where a person might claim that they did nothing wrong.

But even in a court case the accuser still have the burden of proof by default.

So ultimately it is still the same, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.

There is no burden (demand nor expectation) to "prove" anything. None. The burden is that of sharing the logical justification for our accepting the claim as true

 

[Audie]

Unless one makes claims about those beliefs publicly of course. then those claims and beliefs are subject to critical scrutiny.

Seriously.
If someone wants to spill their guts in public
they have no complaint if someone says "eeewwwhh".

 

[firedragon]

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

Not at all.

The burden of proof is burden upon the claimant.