The Burden of Proof

[The Kilted Heathen]

Normally the person who has the burden of proof is that person who makes the assertion. Like this: I only say, "the God that you have presented to me, and what you say about its nature, is so unlikely as to be probably not true." The burden is on you there. Be sure to explain how you constructed your probabilities.

No, that is a statement of personal opinion and an insufficiency of evidence on the Theists' part. It requires no evidence, nor does it have the burden of proof.

Wow. Prove that claim about what humans have observed every time without exception when an apple falls from a tree.

Have you ever seen an apple fall up?

 

[Nous]

No, that is a statement of personal opinion and an insufficiency of evidence on the Theists' part.

Now the burden of proof is on you. Be sure to cite the evidence by which to conclude whatever it is you are claiming here.

Have you ever seen an apple fall up?

Yes, apples can bounce off an hard surface.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Now the burden of proof is on you.

An opinion was stated, not a fact. End of requirement.

Yes, apples can bounce off an hard surface.

Bouncing is not falling. Have you ever seen an apple detach from the tree and fall upward into the stratosphere?

 

[jonathan180iq]

The (sometimes) atheist claim? Simple; it's a claim that requires evidence. If an atheist makes the claim "There is no god," they must back it up. All too often I've encountered atheists who think they can make this claim with impunity, but in a respectable discourse this is not so.

While fair from a point of logical argument, I'd like someone to explain to me how anyone (anywhere) can provide evidence for something nonexistent. I've never once had anyone propose a way in which that can be done satisfactorily, regardless of the topic of god(s).

Prove to me that invisible leprechauns aren't feeding me this conversation right now, whispering word-for-word into my ears what I am supposed to write. I'll wager than you can't do it.

Quite the contrary, given that magically powerful invisible people seem to not exist (what one would call obvious) it will always be the burden of the theist to support the existence of their deity.

Like with the example of the grocery store on the corner, we can all agree on a metric by which to determine the validity of the existence of the grocery store. The same is not true of supremely powerful beings who also just so happen to be invisible, don't you think?

 

[Nous]

An opinion was stated, not a fact. End of requirement.

Quote whatever opinion you are referring to.

Bouncing is not falling. Have you ever seen an apple detach from the tree and fall upward into the stratosphere?

No, but that fact certainly does not establish Newton's inverse square law as a universal law. Point masses can move toward other point masses in ways that contradict Newton's law, as the General Theory of Relativity shows.

 

[Nous]

While fair from a point of logical argument, I'd like someone to explain to me how anyone (anywhere) can provide evidence for something nonexistent.

What did you determine to be nonexistent? And how did you determine that?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Now for the next biggie, only on very rare occasions can evidence dent of break the faith of the believer, whereas it
would only take one success to destroy proof by exhaustion and end atheism in a stroke.

Quite true. Remarkable, then, isn't it, that in spite of the presumed mightiness of God, that one success has not yet appeared. It would save so much trouble -- and probably a great many lives, too. But why would a God care about that?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Quote whatever opinion you are referring to.

It's right there for you to see, nous. You're being quite ridiculous with this--I'm not going to do you work for you when it's this easy to find.

 

[jonathan180iq]

What did you determine to be nonexistent? And how did you determine that?

Evidence.
All things are non-existent until proven to exist, aren't they?
This is what the burden of proof is all about... the proof.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Although I don't disagree with your premise, a questions immediately comes to mind: Who the heck is George?

Oops! Wrote too fast and didn't edit...

 

[jonathan180iq]

No, but that fact certainly does not establish Newton's inverse square law as a universal law. Point masses can move toward other point masses in ways that contradict Newton's law, as the General Theory of Relativity shows.

BECAUSE of the influence of the other point mass, supporting the Theory of Gravity.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

While fair from a point of logical argument, I'd like someone to explain to me how anyone (anywhere) can provide evidence for something nonexistent. I've never once had anyone propose a way in which that can be done satisfactorily, regardless of the topic of god(s).

You simply cannot prove or provide evidence for something that does not exist. The problem that you're going to run into here is that it equally cannot be proven that gods do not exist; to state that they are nonexistent would require evidence, and would thus carry the BoP.

Prove to me that invisible leprechauns aren't feeding me this conversation right now, whispering word-for-word into my ears what I am supposed to write. I'll wager than you can't do it.

Such is not a claim that I've made, so why would I need or want to?

Like with the example of the grocery store on the corner, we can all agree on a metric by which to determine the validity of the existence of the grocery store. The same is not true of supremely powerful beings who also just so happen to be invisible, don't you think?

Depends on if the god worshiped is invisible or not.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You're talking about a subset of atheists, who are making a positive assertion, but atheism, essentially, makes no claims at all. There is nothing there to provide evidence of.

Correct. I never say "god does not exist." I frequently say, "I've never seen any evidence even remotely suggestive of the existence of a deity as described by any religion that I've looked into."

 

[Nous]

Evidence.

?

Evidence of what?

 

[Nous]

It's right there for you to see, nous. You're being quite ridiculous with this--I'm not going to do you work for you when it's this easy to find.

If you ever become able to meet your burden of proof, please let me know.

 

[Nous]

BECAUSE of the influence of the other point mass, supporting the Theory of Gravity.

Again, the evidence shows that sometimes Newton's inverse square law is violated.

 

[Skwim]

In religious discussions, I've found so many people using the phrase "the burden of proof belongs..." far too often. And I think it's too often misused.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) really means that anyone who brings claim that seeks to deny the "default" (or obvious) conclusion to anything, is required to produce evidence to support that claim.

I disagree. The burden of "proof" always lies with the person making the assertion, regardless of its reference. Someone claiming that god doesn't exist has no different burden of proof than someone claiming that god does exist. As is put in the Wikipedia article on the subject.

"In epistemology, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shorthand for Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position."
​

Want to claim that god exists? Prove it.

Want to claim that god doesn't exist? Prove it.

.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In religious discussions, I've found so many people using the phrase "the burden of proof belongs..." far too often. And I think it's too often misused.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) really means that anyone who brings claim that seeks to deny the "default" (or obvious) conclusion to anything, is required to produce evidence to support that claim. If there's a grocery store on the corner, and I make the claim, "there's a grocery store on the corner," then I've got nothing to do. But if Fred claims, "it only looks like there's a grocery store on the corner, but it's an illusion," well, George has some 'splainin' to do.

This, of course, brings up the problem of what is "obvious," but for the most part, I would suggest that if we can observe it and (generally) agree on it, it is "obvious." There's an oak tree in the park -- we agree. There's a ghost in the castle -- nobody's seen it and we don't agree an it isn't "obvious."

This, of course, leads us to ask "what is 'evidence?'" Apples falling is "evidence" of gravity. Is a verse in Matthew "evidence" of God's communication with humans? Is a contradictory verse in John "evidence" that either the Matthew verse is wrong, or possible that biblical verses can't actually tell you anything about God?

I wrote this in the philosophy forum because I thought that those with a philosophical bent might want to weigh in.

I agree, there is no 'default' explanation for the universe, we have no precedent or reference for how such a thing is 'usually' created, so there is no 'default' or burden of proof on one side or the other from the largest persepctive

having said that..
Some atheists extrapolate 'natural' explanations within the universe to represent a default explanation for the universe.

...by which rationale this software presumably wrote itself until we can prove otherwise..

On the other side, we can recognize that everything in space/time matter/energy is similarly supported ultimately by information systems, rather than anything strictly 'tangible'

The only process we know of that can create truly novel information systems is creative intelligence. Whether or not the same can be done by purely spontaneous unguided mechanisms is an interesting proposition, but bares the burden of proof in this case

 

[ChristineM]

Quite true. Remarkable, then, isn't it, that in spite of the presumed mightiness of God, that one success has not yet appeared. It would save so much trouble -- and probably a great many lives, too. But why would a God care about that?

If there is a god to care then childhood leukemia must be his best joke.

Or perhaps designing the mosquito to kill huge numbers of his "greatest" creation

 

[ChristineM]

I agree, there is no 'default' explanation for the universe, we have no precedent or reference for how such a thing is 'usually' created, so there is no 'default' or burden of proof on one side or the other from the largest persepctive

having said that..
Some atheists extrapolate 'natural' explanations within the universe to represent a default explanation for the universe.

...by which rationale this software presumably wrote itself until we can prove otherwise..

On the other side, we can recognize that everything in space/time matter/energy is similarly supported ultimately by information systems, rather than anything strictly 'tangible'

The only process we know of that can create truly novel information systems is creative intelligence. Whether or not the same can be done by purely spontaneous unguided mechanisms is an interesting proposition, but bares the burden of proof in this case

There you go again claiming you know what some atheists think. Why is it that theists always make such claims about what they don't understand