The Burden of Proof

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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).

There's a gravel trail near my house that often has hoof prints on it. While I've seen horses make some of these hoof prints, it's common for me to not have seen the animal that made some particular set of prints.

Judging by the size and shape of the hoofprints, we can say that they're consistent with some possible animals and inconsistent with others. For instance, they're inconsistent with bears, dragons, and people, but they're consistent (as far as I know) with horses, zebras, and unicorns.

Therefore, the hoof prints are evidence for unicorns. They certainly aren't conclusive evidence, but it's conceivable that, given other evidence, that this evidence could be part of a case for the existence of unicorns
... just as, say, the fact that a particular make and model of car was seen speeding away from a crime scene might be an element of the case that some person committed the crime.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You simply cannot prove or provide evidence for something that does not exist.

Correct. Which plays into my next point...

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.

So then, by design, the evidence for something that does not exist and evidence disproving a god(s) would be the same... nothing.

It's interesting that those two are so closely related, and further demonstrates how the burden of proof will have to fall, at least in this scenario, on the thing being claimed which is not obvious - that gods exist.

We cannot even have this conversation, for example, without the initial claim of deity, can we?

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

Let's say I made the claim.
I'm going to guess that the immediate response of most people would be "That's not true!" or "Leprechauns don't exist!". If I attempted to then shift the burden onto those making a contradictory claim in response to my own, requiring them to prove that they aren't really there, telling me what to say to you, would that intellectually honest?

Depends on if the god worshiped is invisible or not.

Are there any gods you can name that are visible?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

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

Just as soon as you show me my claim.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

From personal experience, used to be one for about 30 years

 

[jonathan180iq]

There's a gravel trail near my house that often has hoof prints on it. While I've seen horses make some of these hoof prints, it's common for me to not have seen the animal that made some particular set of prints.

Judging by the size and shape of the hoofprints, we can say that they're consistent with some possible animals and inconsistent with others. For instance, they're inconsistent with bears, dragons, and people, but they're consistent (as far as I know) with horses, zebras, and unicorns.

Therefore, the hoof prints are evidence for unicorns. They certainly aren't conclusive evidence, but it's conceivable that, given other evidence, that this evidence could be part of a case for the existence of unicorns
... just as, say, the fact that a particular make and model of car was seen speeding away from a crime scene might be an element of the case that some person committed the crime.

Haha. Ok.

Given the three possible outcomes, which animal are the hoof prints most likely evidence for?

Horses have been seen in the area, and are obviously real.
Zebras have not been seen in the area, but are obviously real.
Unicorns have never been seen in the area, and are not obviously real.

Does your first conclusion, that the hoof prints are evidence for unicorns, pass muster? Since it does not, is it really evidence for unicorns?

If I say that Snuffleupagus creates the wind, and then while talking to you the wind breezes through our hair, is that evidence for the omnipotence and omnipresence of Snuffleupagus? Does that make Snuffleupagus god?

 

[jonathan180iq]

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

No, it doesn't.

An object falling up because of the larger point mass above it does not violate anything - it supports the inverse square law and Universal gravitation. The mass of the object would have to be greater than the Earth itself, causing all sorts of problems physically. But it would do nothing to disrupt the outcomes predicted by the aforementioned laws.

 

[jonathan180iq]

?

Evidence of what?

Sorry. I misread the initial question.
Pick a thing - I believe that many things do not exist, like Jackelopes for example. They do not exist until they are proven to exist. The same is true of anything concerning human knowledge.

 

[Nous]

Just as soon as you show me my claim.

Gladly. This one:

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.

What is the "statement of personal opinion" that you were referring to?

 

[Nous]

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

No, it doesn't.

So you dispute this:

Some predictions of general relativity differ significantly from those of classical physics, especially concerning the passage of time, the geometry of space, the motion of bodies in free fall, and the propagation of light. Examples of such differences include gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, the gravitational redshift of light, and the gravitational time delay. The predictions of general relativity have been confirmed in all observations and experiments to date.​

General relativity - Wikipedia

?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

It's interesting that those two are so closely related, and further demonstrates how the burden of proof will have to fall, at least in this scenario, on the thing being claimed which is not obvious - that gods exist.

Not necessarily Hypothetically, someone could hold a lengthy discussion with an atheist, show them the evidences for their god that they see in daily life, and that atheist could in turn accept that paradigm as valid. Or not. But proof and evidence can be given.

The biggest hurdle is that often we're not talking about physical beings. It's not like driving down to the burger joint and showing the atheist Bob the line cook.

Let's say I made the claim.

If you made the claim, then you would need to back it up for it to be recognized as truthful.

If I attempted to then shift the burden onto those making a contradictory claim in response to my own, requiring them to prove that they aren't really there, telling me what to say to you, would that intellectually honest?

Yes. In a like manner, the theist response of "well, you can't disprove god!" when they've made a positive claim are equally dishonest.

Are there any gods you can name that are visible?

In my opinion? Thor, Перун, Sunna, Сварог, Ran, Freyr, Sif, Морозко, Мать Земле, Стривог, and likely others that aren't coming to mind immediately. Visible to me in the thunderstorm, the sun and sunlight, the ocean, the rain and the crops, the snowstorm, the earth, and the wind respectively.

 

[Nous]

Sorry. I misread the initial question.
Pick a thing - I believe that many things do not exist, like Jackelopes for example. They do not exist until they are proven to exist. The same is true of anything concerning human knowledge.

I think we're on the same page here.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

What is the "statement of personal opinion" that you were referring to?

Post #3 that you yourself quoted. How lazy can you be?

 

[jonathan180iq]

So you dispute this:

Some predictions of general relativity differ significantly from those of classical physics, especially concerning the passage of time, the geometry of space, the motion of bodies in free fall, and the propagation of light. Examples of such differences include gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, the gravitational redshift of light, and the gravitational time delay. The predictions of general relativity have been confirmed in all observations and experiments to date.​

General relativity - Wikipedia

?

No, I do not.
You would know that if you remembered that we were talking about an apple falling upwards to begin with.

An object in free fall, for example, has it's trajectory altered by the influence of any masses close to it. Randomly adding or taking away gravitational obstructions will, in fact, alter the "fall" of the object. If it's an apple, and we suddenly insert a planetary sized mass to compete with the mass of the Earth, then the fall of the apple can be reversed from what is normally expected. It can "fall" up, and not disrupt any concept that we currently know of in Physics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Haha. Ok.

Given the three possible outcomes, which animal are the hoof prints most likely evidence for?

They're evidence for all of them. Which one is most likely to be true? That's a separate question.

Horses have been seen in the area, and are obviously real.
Zebras have not been seen in the area, but are obviously real.
Unicorns have never been seen in the area, and are not obviously real.

Does your first conclusion, that the hoof prints are evidence for unicorns, pass muster? Since it does not, is it really evidence for unicorns?

It does, and it is.

As I said, combined with other evidence, it could be an element of a case for the existence of unicorns.

I think you have a very different idea of what evidence is than I do. Look at it this way: say you had an argument that solidly establishes some premise as true; you can recognize that every factual premise in that argument is part of the evidence for that conclusion... correct?

Now... at an intermediate stage, where you've only gotten 90% there, those facts are no less evidence than they were before, right?

But here's the thing: we can get 90% of the way to proving utterly false conclusions. We can't get to 100% - since the conclusions are false - but how far we get along in an argument for a conclusion before we fail is no sign of its truth or its likelihood of being true.

Here's all that you need to ask yourself to classify something as evidence:

- is it a factual matter?
- is it itself true?
- if it was combined with some other set of premises or arguments (which may or may not be demonstrated), would support the case for the conclusion being argued?

If the answer to all three things is "yes", then the thing is evidence. This is how "a Ryder rental truck was seen in front of the Oklahoma City federal building" becomes evidence for "Timothy McVeigh committed a terrorist act", and it's also how hoofprints become evidence for unicorns. Neither one is sufficient by itself to demonstrate the conclusion, but both can be used as one supporting element of a larger case.

 

[Nous]

Post #3 that you yourself quoted. How lazy can you be?

Post #3 is Evangelicalhumanist's, in which he asserted, "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.'" Obviously the claim that something "is so unlikely as to be probably not true" is an assertion about an alleged fact, not just a colorable subjective opinion. The burden of proof is on those who make such assertions. I asked him how he calculated the probabilities he asserted.

Perhaps you have a problem with my request because you agree with Evangelicalhumanist's claim, but can't meet the burden of proof?

 

[ChristineM]

From personal experience, used to be one for about 30 years

But only one, not some, not all but one.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Not necessarily Hypothetically, someone could hold a lengthy discussion with an atheist, show them the evidences for their god that they see in daily life, and that atheist could in turn accept that paradigm as valid. Or not. But proof and evidence can be given.

Accepting the paradigm is the crux of the whole thing, isn't it?
Good answer.

The biggest hurdle is that often we're not talking about physical beings. It's not like driving down to the burger joint and showing the atheist Bob the line cook.

This made me laugh aloud. Like, literally. Not "LOL".

If you made the claim, then you would need to back it up for it to be recognized as truthful.

Agree

Yes. In a like manner, the theist response of "well, you can't disprove god!" when they've made a positive claim are equally dishonest.

Agree

In my opinion? Thor, Перун, Sunna, Сварог, Ran, Freyr, Sif, Морозко, Мать Земле, Стривог, and likely others that aren't coming to mind immediately. Visible to me in the thunderstorm, the sun and sunlight, the ocean, the rain and the crops, the snowstorm, the earth, and the wind respectively.

And this is the paradigm that I don't accept. I can accept your explanation as reason for your faith, for example. But not for the actual existence of the deities themselves. I can't accept that anymore than I can accept that the hard surface of the Earth is the result of the Turtle shell upon which the whole of the Universe rests... It explains a worldview, but does nothing to address the object itself.

 

[Nous]

No, I do not.

In response to my statement:

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

, you did say:

No, it doesn't.

But the Wikipedia article points to several ways where the evidence contradicts Newton's law.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The biggest hurdle is that often we're not talking about physical beings. It's not like driving down to the burger joint and showing the atheist Bob the line cook.

Right: it's often not clear at all what - if anything - a theist has in mind when they say "god".

If we can't even say that a statement is meaningful, then it would be an improvement for it to be false. At least if we can understand what's being claimed well enough to say "that's false", the statement is at least coherent.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Post #3 is Evangelicalhumanist's

Exactly. So why you're badgering me, one must truly wonder.

Obviously the claim that something "is so unlikely as to be probably not true" is an assertion about an alleged fact, not just a colorable subjective opinion.

Actually the uncertain language - "unlikely", "probably" - denotes it as an opinion.

Accepting the paradigm is the crux of the whole thing, isn't it?

Not so much accepting, but acknowledging. I've held discussions with atheists in where they didn't come to believe in Thor as I do, but they were able to understand why I believe as I do to where the statement "Thor does not exist" wouldn't entirely apply.

I can't accept that anymore than I can accept that the hard surface of the Earth is the result of the Turtle shell upon which the whole of the Universe rests... It explains a worldview, but does nothing to address the object itself.

Well, the turtle shell would require a view of the Earth or universe outside of the Earth or universe - that one's a little more harder to argue for. But what do you mean by the last statement; not addressing the object itself?