Who has the burden of proof?

[George-ananda]

True, but I tend to find similar kinds of claims of evidence across the different religions: miracles, fulfilled prophecies, divine communication, afterlife visions, etc. If I was to try to consider Hinduism to be true, then I'd need some reason to consider the reports of supernatural experiences in Hinduism valid while considering similar anecdotes in Christianity to be invalid. If those things in Christianity could all be put down to lies, hallucinations, coincidence, etc., then I could just as well assume that the same is true of Hinduism.

This is where I think your thinking might be different than mine. I personally believe individual supernatural experiences occur to people of all the different religious schools of thought (Christians, Hindus, etc.). In universalist thought the 'narrow' and exclusivist concepts are dropped and a merging begins to be seen.

 

[Parsimony]

This is where I think your thinking might be different than mine. I personally believe individual supernatural experiences occur to people of all the different religious schools of thought (Christians, Hindus, etc.). In universalist thought the 'narrow' and exclusivist concepts are dropped and a merging begins to be seen.

I can see some appeal to that, but I still don't think I could believe wholeheartedly in that view unless proof of the supernatural (either through science or through my own personal experience) was observed. When it comes to the paranormal (Bigfoot, UFOs, ghosts, etc.), I tend to be agnostic about it unless some rational explanation seems obvious. I find it very hard to accept the existence of these things absolutely without something more concrete than anecdotes. At the same time, I don't deny that they are possible.

 

[Serenity7855]

This is where I think your thinking might be different than mine. I personally believe individual supernatural experiences occur to people of all the different religious schools of thought (Christians, Hindus, etc.). In universalist thought the 'narrow' and exclusivist concepts are dropped and a merging begins to be seen.

I think I might have learned something from this post, that is, that I think I might be a bit of a universalist. It is how I see things as well. Nice post.

 

[George-ananda]

I can see some appeal to that, but I still don't think I could believe wholeheartedly in that view unless proof of the supernatural (either through science or through my own personal experience) was observed. When it comes to the paranormal (Bigfoot, UFOs, ghosts, etc.), I tend to be agnostic about it unless some rational explanation seems obvious. I find it very hard to accept the existence of these things absolutely without something more concrete than anecdotes. At the same time, I don't deny that they are possible.

I understand the appeal of your position too. But lets take Ghosts you mention above as one example.

Think if you can give a reasonable example of how science can accept the alleged phenomena.

People seeing them (nope..hallucination, mis-perception, etc. are possible)

Multiple people seeing them (nope .. power of suggestion, etc..)

Physical contact (nope, prove it was from a ghost)

Parasychological investigations with equipment (nope, no proof those anomalies were from a ghost)

Further, ghosts are unpredictable spontaneous phenomena and leave no trace. That doesn't 'play well' with the scientific method.

etc., etc..

I can't help but think of parapsychologists who are convinced of ghosts when I read YOUR signature quote. Please re-read your signature quote and think if it might apply here.

 

[Parsimony]

I understand the appeal of your position too. But lets take Ghosts you mention above as one example.

Think if you can give a reasonable example of how science can accept the alleged phenomena.

People seeing them (nope..hallucination, mis-perception, etc. are possible)

Multiple people seeing them (nope .. power of suggestion, etc..)

Physical contact (nope, prove it was from a ghost)

Parasychological investigations with equipment (nope, no proof those anomalies were from a ghost)

Further, ghosts are unpredictable spontaneous phenomena and leave no trace. That doesn't 'play well' with the scientific method.

etc., etc..

Although I did mention scientific confirmation of ghosts as one possible way to satisfy my curiosity, it isn't the only one. If I were to have an experience myself, under the proper circumstances, it could convince me as well. If what I saw was also seen by other witnesses and/or if the ghost had a discernible effect on a physical object (such me witnessing a levitating lamp fly across the room and break against a wall. The breaking part is key: I might conceivably hallucinate a lamp levitating if it was just me who saw it, but I can actually confirm physically if it broke). The best confirmation would be if both of these circumstances were met at the same time. Even if I did experience that, all it would tell me is that the phenomenon is real: it wouldn't tell me what the phenomenon is.

I most certainly would like to see proof of the paranormal. There is a supposedly haunted road not too far from where I live and I want to go there some night and check it out. I've been during the day time, but the road has been blocked off for a while so that cars cannot pass (it's a dirt road that is subject to flooding from the nearby river). I would need somewhere to park my car so that it is safe.

I can't help but think of parapsychologists who are convinced of ghosts when I read YOUR signature quote. Please re-read your signature quote and think if it might apply here.

The difference is that, unlike the scientists that Wallace was speaking of, I don't think ghosts are impossible.

 

[Thief]

Ghosts....or spirits?
Destiny awaits.

 

[George-ananda]

Even if I did experience that, all it would tell me is that the phenomenon is real: it wouldn't tell me what the phenomenon is.

Exactly. For this to mean anything to us the phenomena needs to be part of a larger picture of the universe. For multiple reasons I believe the Hindu worldview is the most advanced and complete and best fits the evidence. The physical-only worldview is to me clearly dramatically incomplete.

Like things in other fields like chemistry, physics, medicine etc. we don't figure things out for ourselves from scratch but look to the explanation of masters in the field that came before us. The worldview of the east/India gives us a hypothesis to consider as opposed to figuring things out on our own.

 

[Sapiens]

Wallace was not referring to Ghost Busters. This comes under the suggestion that you keep an open mind, just not so far open that your brains fall out.

 

[Thief]

Open minded?.....as in spiritual?

 

[George-ananda]

Wallace was not referring to Ghost Busters. This comes under the suggestion that you keep an open mind, just not so far open that your brains fall out.

I think he was certainly referring to those who wish to just dismiss the serious investigators on a priori grounds of absurdity or impossibility.

I might see a trace of that kind of attitude in your choice of the term 'Ghost Busters' when I was talking about serious parapsychologists.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

serious parapsychologists

*giggle*

 

[George-ananda]

*giggle*

you don't realize how you unwittingly work so well to demonstrate my points sometimes

 

[Kilgore Trout]

you don't realize how you unwittingly work so well to demonstrate my points sometimes

And you don't realize how you unwittingly work so well to invalidate your own points most of the time.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Yes. Even to posit, "I cannot know," is a positive claim.

A negative is not a positive just because you acknowledge it.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

The way I see it the one making the claim has the burden of proof. So if a theist makes the claim that God exists, the burden of proof is on them to support that proposition.

However the proposition that no God exists (which I think goes beyond disbelief until proportional evidence to the claim is given) also seems like a positive claim as well and needs justification/proof too even though the claim is negative.

So who has the burden of proof, one or the other, both, neither?

Maybe it's a shared knowledge pool. Forget 'who' postulates there is a god, and 'who' doubts. What does the evidence say? The truth is independent of who believes what. The predictions can be made on both sides, and the results can be tabulated.

Maybe god is under the bed? No.
Maybe god is on Mount Olympus? No.
Maybe god cannot be seen? Hum, what's the point?

Maybe god created life? Maybe, do you have anything other than conjecture?
Mabbe life evolved since its orgin? Oh yes, that seems to be confimed everywhere we look?

Maybe god will come back in a few years? tick...tock
Maybe satan is possessing poor souls?
Maybe they have mental issues?

Maybe snakes talk about apples?
Maybe people make up the wierdest stuff?

Maybe David did pay 30 sheckles of silver for the threshing floor. But em no, that would contradict the passage where he paid 50 sheckles of gold for the threshing floor.

Belief in a fact that has never presented evidence is called day-dreaming.

 

[Thief]

Maybe it's a shared knowledge pool. Forget 'who' postulates there is a god, and 'who' doubts. What does the evidence say? The truth is independent of who believes what. The predictions can be made on both sides, and the results can be tabulated.

Maybe god is under the bed? No.
Maybe god is on Mount Olympus? No.
Maybe god cannot be seen? Hum, what's the point?

Maybe god created life? Maybe, do you have anything other than conjecture?
Mabbe life evolved since its orgin? Oh yes, that seems to be confimed everywhere we look?

Maybe god will come back in a few years? tick...tock
Maybe satan is possessing poor souls?
Maybe they have mental issues?

Maybe snakes talk about apples?
Maybe people make up the wierdest stuff?

Maybe David did pay 30 sheckles of silver for the threshing floor. But em no, that would contradict the passage where he paid 50 sheckles of gold for the threshing floor.

Belief in a fact that has never presented evidence is called day-dreaming.

Maybe....just maybe.....some believers have thought about it more than you.

 

[Sapiens]

Maybe....just maybe.....some believers have thought about it more than you.

Umm ... I rather doubt it, belief and thought are not harmonious bedfellows.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Maybe....just maybe.....some believers have thought about it more than you.

I'm sure some have, most have not. The ability to boil things down to essentials is hardly indicitive of failing to give long careful thought to a subject.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Maybe....just maybe.....some believers have thought about it more than you.

And maybe, just maybe, some non-believers have thought about it more than you or them.

Truth does not reside with "whoever thinks the most". It resides with "whoever's opinion is a more accurate reflection of reality". The question is what is the best methodology for determining the veracity of accuracy of a given view of the world? Experience, and history, tells us that the most demonstrably reliable method for doing that is the scientific method, so subjection to the scientific method should be what all opinions on the nature of reality should strive for - not avoid. You may argue that science is "limited", but I have yet to see a successful argument as to why paranormal or supernatural claims can not ever be subject to scientific investigation, beyond arguments from credulity. If an idea is true, it has nothing to fear from scientific investigation. In fact, the proponents of that idea, if honest, should always attempt to demonstrate their ideas in the scientific arena. Not to do so is a clear indication that their ideas are flawed, or that they are outright dishonest.

 

[Thief]

And maybe, just maybe, some non-believers have thought about it more than you or them.

Truth does not reside with "whoever thinks the most". It resides with "whoever's opinion is a more accurate reflection of reality". The question is what is the best methodology for determining the veracity of accuracy of a given view of the world? Experience, and history, tells us that the most demonstrably reliable method for doing that is the scientific method, so subjection to the scientific method should be what all opinions on the nature of reality should strive for - not avoid. You may argue that science is "limited", but I have yet to see a successful argument as to why paranormal or supernatural claims can not ever be subject to scientific investigation, beyond arguments from credulity. If an idea is true, it has nothing to fear from scientific investigation. In fact, the proponents of that idea, if honest, should always attempt to demonstrate their ideas in the scientific arena. Not to do so is a clear indication that their ideas are flawed, or that they are outright dishonest.

I like science....it helps me believe in God.
But science can't go all the way.
The experiment won't fit in the petri dish.

Accurate reflection of reality......hmmmmm....
Like reflecting your Creator?

That sounds right to me.