Burden of proof

[Nimos]

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.

They are still claims and honestly I don't even think they are subjective truth claims. Because either you don't actually like spinach or you do, if you pretend to simply not like it, then it is not a truth, then you would merely be lying.

A truth is a truth or it is not, its not a subjective opinion in that regard. Either you don't like spinach as you claim or you do. However it is not easy, if even possible for me to verify your claim, just as it is equally difficult for you to prove it. But either way, either your telling the truth or you are not, it is not subjective in that case.

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

If you want anyone to take your claims serious, then you have a burden of proof. Its not like some fancy invention, its simply how it is. Obviously you can find people that don't demand prove, which are people we would refer to as gullible.

When you establish a prove, based on evidence, it requires that these can be excluded from other known possibilities.

Let take a very silly example, but lets say we saw a red car and you claimed that the car sweat red paint and that is where red paint comes from. Obviously you run into issues when we see something else that is red and have to explain how it got that color. Also a closer examination of the car would show that the paint is dry and therefore is not sweat.

So by excluding other possibilities or explanations, that knowledge can be used to strengthen or weaken a potential proof.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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

No burden, but I’d be interested to see your workings out.

 

[sayak83]

No burden, but I’d be interested to see your workings out.

I was being sarcastic....

 

[RestlessSoul]

I was being sarcastic....

Prove it

 

[Trailblazer]

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

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

You have no burden of proof to prove Christianity is true unless you are trying to convince someone that it is true.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

It doesn't matter, either a claim assertion argument or belief stands up to critical scrutiny, or it does not, the motive of either party doesn't change that.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Agnosticism is everyone's default position, now I can't speak for anyone else of course, but I tend to withhold belief from claims if I can't know anything about them.

I don't see anyone mentioning counter claims.

I.e. I know God.

God does not exist.

Counterclaims are ubiquitous in almost every thread???

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.

All claims must carry a burden of proof, but disbelieving a claim does not.

 

[Sheldon]

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.
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

You still haven't explained what a "universal truth" is or means?

 

[Sheldon]

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

I don't believe you.

 

[Sheldon]

No burden, but I’d be interested to see your workings out.

Proof
noun

1. 1.
   evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

You're asking him for his burden of proof.

 

[Spirit of Light]

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

No the right answer would be. Sorry, I can not prove it. One should not be afraid of saying "i dont know"

 

[RestlessSoul]

It doesn't matter, either a claim assertion argument or belief stands up to critical scrutiny, or it does not, the motive of either party doesn't change that.

The method and criteria by which the veracity of a claim is assessed, and the character, values, and cultural conditioning of the assessor, will necessarily have a bearing on both the process and outcome of any assessment. Therefore it is impossible to completely eradicate bias being factored into the act of scrutiny, and this applies even in cases where goodwill can reasonably be taken on trust.

 

[Sheldon]

The method and criteria by which the veracity of a claim is assessed, and the character, values, and cultural conditioning of the assessor, will necessarily have a bearing on both the process and outcome of any assessment.

Which is why critical objective scrutiny is vital.

Therefore it is impossible to completely eradicate bias being factored into the act of scrutiny,

I agree, but if we care if something is true or valid, then we should maximise our effort to eliminate it as much as is possible. So subjective anecdotal claims are the lowest rug of that ladder.

and this applies even in cases where goodwill can reasonably be taken on trust.

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

 

[Link]

There's only a burden proof if the other side is sincerely seeking one otherwise, no need.

 

[Sheldon]

There's only a burden proof if the other side is sincerely seeking one otherwise, no need.

It is inherent in any claim, especially in a debate forum. Making a claim in a debate forum and ignoring this, creates an obvious inference.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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

I think Jesus would agree with you because Jesus used logical reasoning basing his belief on the old Hebrew Scriptures.
Jesus often prefaced his statements with the words, " it is written....." (meaning already written down in the OT)
Thus, Jesus explained or expounded the OT for us.
Since the Bible is Not written in ABC order then we need to search or research the Scriptures by subject or by topic arrangement, and this way we find the many corresponding or parallel cross-reference verses and passages showing the internal harmony among the many Bible writers.
Thus, Jesus had his knowledgeable reasons to soundly say that the Scripture is ' religious truth' - John 17:17

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

More simply, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

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.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Subjective second hand anecdote and hearsay are not evidence or proof. All I see in your post is along list of unevidenced assertions?

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

Subjective second hand anecdote and hearsay are not evidence or proof. All I see in your post is along list of unevidenced assertions?

If you consider testimonies not evidence than yes that is exactly what I'm saying. History itself is as subjective as it comes, we will always have difference of opinions on what object of history mean even in a scientific realm of evidence and proof. What remains a mystery is the albeit sudden and spontaneous reaction that fathered our Universe. We have assertions based on hypotheticals and evidence but highly relies on most probable cause rather than absolute truth. We are left with two scenarios, both completely contended in any logical sphere of belief. One that suggest everything was spontaneously organized having no reason or purpose in its organization, rightly and barbarically named a Big Bang. On the other hand you have an ancient narrative that has been passed down orally and eventually written that suggest a ultradimensional being that organized the universe with meaning and intention and had been protecting it like a Father would his own household. The question becomes Does life exist with meaning or is it completely meaningless with our contributions to any conclusion of truth ultimately halting at the next solar flare or massive earthquake. This is where subjectiveness plays its oh so important role in how we live our lives. We aspire to be God and believe that time and space are of little import to Him, therefore little import to us. The Fragility of Science and our minds are infinitely less attractive than an eternity of growth and development, which is suggested in these ancient texts and holds strong in the beliefs of the majority of Earths inhabitants.

 

[Brian2]

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

You have no burden of proof to prove Christianity is true unless you are trying to convince someone that it is true.

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