Who has the burden of proof?

[Sunstone]

Tell me more

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim -- not with anyone else to disprove. Russell argued there was a teapot in orbit around the sun somewhere between the earth and mars. He then placed the burden of proof on anyone who wished to disprove his claim. In doing so, he was committing a logical fallacy.

But Russell was a preeminent mathematician and logician. So, some people have argued, that Russell intentionally misplaced the burden of proof in order to ironically illustrate his real point. His real point being that those who claim there is or might be a god because you cannot prove there isn't a god have misplaced the burden of proof. That is, they have committed the same error that Russell (presumably intentionally) commits with his teapot argument.

 

[idav]

Sapiens is correct in my view. God’s non-existence can never be proved and while “God does not exist” implies no contradiction, God’s existence remains possible none the less; therefore it is not a wholly positive assertion but more of a conclusion waiting to be addressed. But no such distinctions are given in “God exists”, which is an adamant assertion without caveats or qualification. “God does not exist” cannot logically be more than a response to the affirmative claim which bears the burden of demonstrating why “God exists” must be true.



But there has never been any objective evidence for such a being.

This is a good point. The only reason that someone would need evidence for "no god" is a response to the claim that there is a god. When there is no evidence for something there usually isn't any need to prove non-existence, it is assumed. Without objective evidence of a god it is a silly thing to ask even a strong atheist for evidence, they will have reasons, yet there is no reason to assume atheists are wrong without theists bringing confirmed evidence to the table.

 

[George-ananda]

Thank you for bringing to this discussion your failure to comprehend the meaning of "burden of proof".

I am aware of its meaning in affairs of the physical world.

But in realms of metaphysical speculation wouldn't anyone with the 'burden of proof' be the side guaranteed to lose? Am I taking the word 'proof' too literally maybe? Maybe in metaphysical speculation it's really the 'burden of showing your position the most reasonable'?

It almost sounds like you're heading to the point of saying we shouldn't accept anything without proof. Hence we should adopt a physical only world view on metaphysical questions. Where I'm saying is what we should do is accept the most reasonable position to us considering all evidence and argumentation.

(i'm interested. please serious not sarcastic response)

 

[idav]

I am aware of its meaning in affairs of the physical world.

But in realms of metaphysical speculation wouldn't anyone with the 'burden of proof' be the side guaranteed to lose? Am I taking the word 'proof' too literally maybe? Maybe in metaphysical speculation it's really the 'burden of showing your position the most reasonable'?

It almost sounds like you're heading to the point of saying we shouldn't accept anything without proof. Hence we should adopt a physical only world view on metaphysical questions. Where I'm saying is what we should do is accept the most reasonable position to us considering all evidence and argumentation.

(i'm interested. please serious not sarcastic response)

What is something that makes you assume it is of metaphysical origins?

I once had compelling video of an invisible entity pulling on my bed sheets. I can't completely deny the explanation from my wife that it was the cat somehow hiding.

If things like ghosts existed someone ought to get it on their smartphone by now. Lack of evidence is a serious issue in that respect.

To me is seems the most reasonable explanations are naturalistic when evidence is considered. Crying ghost, demon or aliens doesn't seem all that reasonable, unless one assumes they exist to begin with.

 

[outhouse]

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim -- not with anyone else to disprove. Russell argued there was a teapot in orbit around the sun somewhere between the earth and mars. He then placed the burden of proof on anyone who wished to disprove his claim. In doing so, he was committing a logical fallacy.

But Russell was a preeminent mathematician and logician. So, some people have argued, that Russell intentionally misplaced the burden of proof in order to ironically illustrate his real point. His real point being that those who claim there is or might be a god because you cannot prove there isn't a god have misplaced the burden of proof. That is, they have committed the same error that Russell (presumably intentionally) commits with his teapot argument.

We don't even need ole russel


We have mountains of credible evidence, only man has created deities, and defined them to mirror the ever changing cultures that describe them.


As it stands now, there is no god scientifically, because there is nothing to test for. [Something has to exist to be tested]

 

[George-ananda]

What is something that makes you assume it is of metaphysical origins?

I once had compelling video of an invisible entity pulling on my bed sheets. I can't completely deny the explanation from my wife that it was the cat somehow hiding.

If things like ghosts existed someone ought to get it on their smartphone by now. Lack of evidence is a serious issue in that respect.

To me is seems the most reasonable explanations are naturalistic when evidence is considered. Crying ghost, demon or aliens doesn't seem all that reasonable, unless one assumes they exist to begin with.

Come on,... seriously? A skeptic is going to get convinced by someone's smart phone picture??? I scour the internet for paranormal type stuff and video claims are always out there in plenty.

 

[outhouse]

It almost sounds like you're heading to the point of saying we shouldn't accept anything without proof. Hence we should adopt a physical only world view on metaphysical questions. Where I'm saying is what we should do is accept the most reasonable position to us considering all evidence and argumentation.

We are accepting the most reasonable position.


With education, one sees clearly the mythology many people want to claim as valid with ZERO evidence outside mythology and imagination.


To date dualism or spirits are mythology. They are factually ancient mens mythology due to their ignorance of what the conscious mind is.

We do not mix mythology and science, because people want mythology to be real.

 

[George-ananda]

We are accepting the most reasonable position.


With education, one sees clearly the mythology many people want to claim as valid with ZERO evidence outside mythology and imagination.


To date dualism or spirits are mythology. They are factually ancient mens mythology due to their ignorance of what the conscious mind is.

We do not mix mythology and science, because people want mythology to be real.

Reasonable people can differ.

My opinion is the so-called paranormal evidence requires me to accept a more than physical-only view of the universe. And the teachings of the many masters and mystics of the eastern world present to me the most reasonable explanation of the universe. The physical-only worldview you espouse I believe fails as incomplete in the face of the evidence.

 

[idav]

Reasonable people can differ.

My opinion is the so-called paranormal evidence requires me to accept a more than physical-only view of the universe. And the teachings of the many masters and mystics of the eastern world present to me the most reasonable explanation of the universe. The physical-only worldview you espouse I believe fails as incomplete in the face of the evidence.

Science doesn't really espouse a "physcial-only" world. We know what we perceive isn't all there is.

 

[idav]

Come on,... seriously? A skeptic is going to get convinced by someone's smart phone picture??? I scour the internet for paranormal type stuff and video claims are always out there in plenty.

Thats why there needs to be evidence and verification of that evidence.

 

[ScuzManiac]

Reasonable people can differ.

My opinion is the so-called paranormal evidence requires me to accept a more than physical-only view of the universe. And the teachings of the many masters and mystics of the eastern world present to me the most reasonable explanation of the universe. The physical-only worldview you espouse I believe fails as incomplete in the face of the evidence.

And what is this paranormal evidence you speak of?

:sarcastic

 

[Sapiens]

There is no evidence for the paranormal, that's what the "para" part of the word means.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But in realms of metaphysical speculation wouldn't anyone with the 'burden of proof' be the side guaranteed to lose?

Indeed, which is why those who make fantastical, unsupporable claims tend to try to weasel out of inconvenient things like meeting their burden of proof.

 

[George-ananda]

Science doesn't really espouse a "physcial-only" world. We know what we perceive isn't all there is.

So where do we differ then? I think it's that I accept the worldview of the mystics and Hindu masters that I revere as presenting the most believable understanding of the universe I've heard. I think they explain the 'what we perceive isn't all there is' stuff. I think your position is it will just be mysteries for the rest of our lifetimes.

 

[George-ananda]

Thats why there needs to be evidence and verification of that evidence.

Most paranormal events are not predictable before they happen and leave no physical trace. Paranormal phenomena does not play well with the scientific method. That doesn't mean I can't objectively consider it from all viewpoints in forming my view of the universe.

 

[ScuzManiac]

Most paranormal events are not predictable before they happen and leave no physical trace. Paranormal phenomena does not play well with the scientific method. That doesn't mean I can't objectively consider it from all viewpoints in forming my view of the universe.

Consider what?

The non-existence of its...well....existence?

:sarcastic

 

[idav]

So where do we differ then? I think it's that I accept the worldview of the mystics and Hindu masters that I revere as presenting the most believable understanding of the universe I've heard. I think they explain the 'what we perceive isn't all there is' stuff. I think your position is it will just be mysteries for the rest of our lifetimes.

My position is that everything is ultimately knowable while you say things remain out of our grasp and can't be measured or detected, except by people in some sort of deep meditation. If our bodies can sense these subtleties more so can instruments specifically designed to do so.

Science explains how reality is more than our basic perceptions and they are able to even measure the changes in our brains as we do deep meditations, and they can measure the increasing of brain power for people who do consistent meditations for years.

The underlying reality is part of our world, it is still in the realm of physics, but goes beyond space and time, there is no when, there is no where. I can confirm this using science. Such is the micro world, the unseen.

 

[icehorse]

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?

My view is that I'm 99.9999999% certain that there is no God as described in any scripture that I've ever heard of. I allow for the remote possibility, but I'd love to be able to bet on it.

Most of the atheists I know fall into the similar 99.999.. camp not the 100% camp. So I don't feel any burden to prove anything to anyone. Theists make a claim, I don't find their arguments persuasive. I'm not making any absolute claims in this domain.

 

[9Westy9]

Agnostics are just atheists with no guts.

That's a pretty ignorant thing to say.

 

[Sapiens]

Ignorant, perhaps ... but true. It's good to have an open mind, but that's not the same thing as being indecisive.