Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[atanu]

All the atheist is saying to the theist is "your 'proof' does not convince me." What kind of burden is subsumed in ........

Burden vests with atheist to prove that the stance of taking the opposite proposition as true is valid.

If I find evidences in favour of your proposition inadequate, I cannot claim that the converse proposition automatically stands proven.

Absence of evidence cannot constitute evidence of absence.

 

[Sir Doom]

Ok, but in the meantime, believers have an answer to that question and you don't.

Unless you'd like to prove otherwise.

As I said, speculate away!

And in case you didn't know, those purple letters making up my name indicate I am one of those believers.

 

[outhouse]

Burden vests with atheist to prove that the stance of taking the opposite proposition as true is valid.

If I find evidences in favour of your proposition inadequate, I cannot claim that the converse proposition automatically stands proven.

Absence of evidence cannot constitute evidence of absence.

Then prove my yellow ducky did not create the universe and all life.

 

[Nakosis]

Everyone knows my yellow platic ducky created everything. Because you cannot prove it did not


And thankfully to the OP, I dont have to worry about the burden of proof

Actually can you post a picture of your yellow plastic ducky? Kind of curious here of what God looks like....


Actually I believe the argument is the universe could not exist without a "intelligent" creator. The universe is too ordered to have come to exist without intelligence behind the design.

 

[steeltoes]

Actually can you post a picture of your yellow plastic ducky? Kind of curious here of what God looks like....


Actually I believe the argument is the universe could not exist without a "intelligent" creator. The universe is too ordered to have come to exist without intelligence behind the design.

Intelligence is a product of evolution but you are free to get it backwards.

 

[Sir Doom]

Chaos and order are merely perceptions. They are not actual traits of reality.

Consider you have a picture of a bunch of red paint splattered in little droplets. Is this chaos or order? Every drop is a different size, there is no uniform distance between them, and their placement is in no discernible pattern. But then again the canvas is made of hundreds of threads in neat orderly rows and is almost entirely uniform in color. The drops themselves are all the same color, as well. They are all from the same mixture of paint. There is a finite number of droplets.

So can we really say it is chaos manifest? Or order?

Even if we could, consider an identical picture but the drops are blue. Is the blue painting more or less orderly or chaotic than the red picture? Is it possible to be 'equally chaotic' as another thing?

It's all a matter of perception depending on who is assigning which term and why they've done so.

To say the universe is orderly, is just adding a trait through perception. No one is bound to see it that way.

EDIT: I wanted to add that the question then becomes:
If the universe is too ordered to be from anything but God, how much less order would there be without God? Without being able to quantify this difference (and you definitely can't) then there is no weight to the original statement that the universe is too ordered.

 

[Ingledsva]

Burden vests with atheist to prove that the stance of taking the opposite proposition as true is valid.

If I find evidences in favour of your proposition inadequate, I cannot claim that the converse proposition automatically stands proven.

Absence of evidence cannot constitute evidence of absence.

This seems sound, until you get to invisible beings, and as in Christianity, for instance. a Zombie Jesus and his Zombie cohorts supposedly rising from their graves and walking around for everyone to see.

One would assume that the horror of Zombies crawling out of their graves, and wondering through the city, in their grave coverings, covered in dust/dirt, and perhaps crushed skulls (or whatever caused their deaths,) would be a well documented event!


It isn't, because it didn't happen.


The reality is that there is absolutely no reason for non-believers to give any credence what-so-ever to such stories.


*

 

[outhouse]

Actually can you post a picture of your yellow plastic ducky? Kind of curious here of what God looks like....


Actually I believe the argument is the universe could not exist without a "intelligent" creator. The universe is too ordered to have come to exist without intelligence behind the design.

No my yellow ducky says its against his religion.


You can believe what you want. But to date, there is no place one can attribute any mythology to nature with any credibility.

Its appealing to ignorance

 

[outhouse]

Chaos and order are merely perceptions. They are not actual traits of reality.

.

Well said.

 

[Sir Doom]

This seems sound, until you get to invisible beings, and as in Christianity, for instance. a Zombie Jesus and his Zombie cohorts supposedly rising from their graves and walking around for everyone to see.

Is that really necessary? Do you find it compelling to completely skew the story for base shock value? What exactly are you trying to do with a statement like this other than simply ridiculing Christianity?

One would assume that the horror of Zombies crawling out of their graves, and wondering through the city, in their grave coverings, covered in dust/dirt, and perhaps crushed skulls (or whatever caused their deaths,) would be a well documented event!

It isn't, because it didn't happen.

Which makes one wonder just where exactly you got this tale of horror from? Oh right... you just made it up! Is there some Christian attempting to say that zombie hordes shambled about in the city? I don't seem to recall that story from the Bible. Do you have a verse? Or is this yet again another hackneyed attempt at bad-mouthing Christian mythology by completely re-writing it?

The reality is that there is absolutely no reason for non-believers to give any credence what-so-ever to such stories.

There is no reason for anyone to give any credence to your stories. I agree.

 

[Ingledsva]

This seems sound, until you get to invisible beings, and as in Christianity, for instance. a Zombie Jesus and his Zombie cohorts supposedly rising from their graves and walking around for everyone to see.

Is that really necessary? Do you find it compelling to completely skew the story for base shock value? What exactly are you trying to do with a statement like this other than simply ridiculing Christianity?

ING -- I skewed nothing. This is not meant to ridicule, but to show why non-believers can logically assume such are just stories. I used Zombie as that is what we today think of when dead people crawl out of their graves and walk around the city.

One would assume that the horror of Zombies crawling out of their graves, and wondering through the city, in their grave coverings, covered in dust/dirt, and perhaps crushed skulls (or whatever caused their deaths,) would be a well documented event!

It isn't, because it didn't happen.

Which makes one wonder just where exactly you got this tale of horror from? Oh right... you just made it up!

ING - The Bible.

Is there some Christian attempting to say that zombie hordes shambled about in the city? I don't seem to recall that story from the Bible. Do you have a verse? Or is this yet again another hackneyed attempt at bad-mouthing Christian mythology by completely re-writing it?

ING - I suggest you re-read it.

The reality is that there is absolutely no reason for non-believers to give any credence what-so-ever to such stories.

There is no reason for anyone to give any credence to your stories. I agree.

LOL!


Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

Mat 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

Mat 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared to many.



*

 

[Sir Doom]

ING -- I skewed nothing. This is not meant to ridicule, but to show why non-believers can logically assume such are just stories. I used Zombie as that is what we today think of when dead people crawl out of their graves and walk around the city.

No, zombies are very specific. And you know that. Why not vampires? Why not ghouls? Why not wights? Why not wraiths? Why not ghosts? Why not depict the ressurection as it is written instead of adding in the horror aspect as if it IN ANY WAY is supposed to resemble that or has EVER been conveyed in such a way from one Christian to another? PS: I already know why.

ING - The Bible.

The verse describing Jesus as a zombie. Feel free to post it.

ING - I suggest you re-read it.

Sure, post it.

LOL!


Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

Mat 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

Mat 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared to many.

*

WOW! What a shocker. Nothing about cannibalism, decayed flesh, or even the caved in skulls you mentioned. No dirty burial shrouds. No HORROR at all. So why did you add all of that, again?

Thanks for making it clear as day that you rewrote these versus for your own ends, by the way. That was handy of you.

 

[Ingledsva]

No, zombies are very specific. And you know that. Why not vampires? Why not ghouls? Why not wights? Why not wraiths? Why not ghosts? Why not depict the ressurection as it is written instead of adding in the horror aspect as if it IN ANY WAY is supposed to resemble that or has EVER been conveyed in such a way from one Christian to another? PS: I already know why.



The verse describing Jesus as a zombie. Feel free to post it.



Sure, post it.



WOW! What a shocker. Nothing about cannibalism, decayed flesh, or even the caved in skulls you mentioned. No dirty burial shrouds. No HORROR at all. So why did you add all of that, again?

Thanks for making it clear as day that you rewrote these versus for your own ends, by the way. That was handy of you.

LOL! Now you are just angry and being obtuse. Go back and look at why I wrote this.

Burden vests with atheist to prove that the stance of taking the opposite proposition as true is valid.

If I find evidences in favour of your proposition inadequate, I cannot claim that the converse proposition automatically stands proven.

Absence of evidence cannot constitute evidence of absence.

There is no logical reason to put rising dead/Zombie stories in the same category.


2. I didn't say anything about cannibalism, - however - the story says they crawled out of their graves, so one could logically assume - grave cloth - decayed flesh - and the visible remnants of whatever killed them.

Also - dead people crawling out of the grave and walking around would be a "horror" to anyone that saw it happen.


*

 

[Skwim]

Burden vests with atheist to prove that the stance of taking the opposite proposition as true is valid.

As Alex Michalos says in his Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p. 370.

"usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed."
​

If I find evidences in favour of your proposition inadequate, I cannot claim that the converse proposition automatically stands proven.

And the atheist doesn't say his proposition automatically stands proven. All the atheists I know of don't care whether you believe them or not. All they are saying is, "you haven't substantiated your claim that god exists." You presume too much here, atanu.
Should a sailor assert that giant gem-encrusted sea serpents exist, as a doubter faced with a lack of convincing evidence I feel confident in saying that they don't exist. And I feel no burden whatsoever to prove my lack of belief.
The atheist has no interest in what you think of his disbelief, which is unlike those who assert the existence of god. Theists make such an assertion in expectation/hope that they will be believed--why else bother making it? A burden is only created when an assertion is expected to be taken as true. Atheists have no such expectation. Don't want to believe me that god doesn't exist? Fine. No skin off my nose.

Absence of evidence cannot constitute evidence of absence.

The theist position is an assertion of fact: there is a god. Not, "I think there is a god," or "I believe there is a god," or even "I have faith there is a god," but "there is a god." Were it not for this assertion there would be no atheistic position. Atheism only exists because theists have declared the existence of a god. So the burden of proof falls only on the theist.

Without the assertion that giant gem-encrusted sea serpents exist I have no reason to bother asserting they don't. People don't go around saying that purple dotted dogs don't exist in nature, or that there isn't a real Superman, because such claims are unreasonable if not outright stupid. However, they may very well do so if some knucklehead insists that these oddities do exist.

 

[McBell]

They have never supplied any evidence at all.

Sadly, this is just plain flat out wrong.

 

[Sir Doom]

LOL! Now you are just angry and being obtuse. Go back and look at why I wrote this.

I know what you were responding to. Now explain how modifying the resurrection of Jesus by calling him a zombie lends ANY weight to your point?

There is no logical reason to put rising dead/Zombie stories in the same category.

Then why are you attempting to assert exactly that?

2. I didn't say anything about cannibalism,

Zombies are cannibals. At least they eat the flesh of the living (in case that doesn't technically count as cannibalism) and actively pursue doing so. That is well-known staple of the zombie genre. Was I supposed to assume you meant non-cannibalistic zombies?

- however - the story says they crawled out of their graves,

Actually, it says they rose from their graves (at least according to the verse you posted). I understand how it serves your purposes to invoke the visual of them crawling from their graves as a zombie might. But it isn't in the verse, and thus does not elude to them being zombies, either. You added that. For effect.

so one could logically assume - grave cloth - decayed flesh - and the visible remnants of whatever killed them.

Interesting. So its perfectly reasonable to dismiss that the event happened at all, but if it did happen, then I am somehow BOUND to believe that they looked like a shambling horde of zombies because God is an idiot and wouldn't know better than to do that to the people he was trying to inspire?

Run that by me again. How am I logically assuming something about an event that didn't even happen? How am I suspending logic to assume the event, but not suspending logic when it comes to their appearance?

Also - dead people crawling out of the grave and walking around would be a "horror" to anyone that saw it happen.

And now you are telling me how I would react to such an event. And not just me, but the entire human species. Kudos. You're doing a really good job of adding credibility to your position.

 

[outhouse]

Sadly, this is just plain flat out wrong.

prove it

 

[McBell]

prove it

The use of the word "evidence" in the way you presented it, without any conditional modifiers, simply means "grounds for belief".

Thus anything that a theist uses to support their belief is technically "evidence".

 

[Ingledsva]

I know what you were responding to. Now explain how modifying the resurrection of Jesus by calling him a zombie lends ANY weight to your point?

Then why are you attempting to assert exactly that?

ING - As already pointed out I am using Zombie as Walking Dead. And just as we don't have real Zombies - It is also logical to assume we don't have Walking Dead Jesus and friends.

Zombies are cannibals. At least they eat the flesh of the living (in case that doesn't technically count as cannibalism) and actively pursue doing so. That is well-known staple of the zombie genre. Was I supposed to assume you meant non-cannibalistic zombies?

ING - There are many types of Zombie myths in modern society, and we were talking about rising dead walking around.

Actually, it says they rose from their graves (at least according to the verse you posted). I understand how it serves your purposes to invoke the visual of them crawling from their graves as a zombie might. But it isn't in the verse, and thus does not elude to them being zombies, either. You added that. For effect.

Interesting. So its perfectly reasonable to dismiss that the event happened at all, but if it did happen, then I am somehow BOUND to believe that they looked like a shambling horde of zombies because God is an idiot and wouldn't know better than to do that to the people he was trying to inspire?

ING - It says - the ground shook, even the rocks were torn apart, and the dead arose from their graves, and then headed for town, where they were seen by many.

Doesn't sound like in this story they popped all clean and pretty above their graves to me.


And AGAIN - Zombie, as in illogical. myth of Walking Dead - that Christianity wants us to accept as truth.

Run that by me again. How am I logically assuming something about an event that didn't even happen? How am I suspending logic to assume the event, but not suspending logic when it comes to their appearance?

ING - We are discussing written Christian myth, that Christians expect us to accept as true. I am comparing it to a modern myth of "walking dead" to show it is illogical to expect non-believers to give any credence what-so-ever to either "walking dead" myth.

And now you are telling me how I would react to such an event. And not just me, but the entire human species. Kudos. You're doing a really good job of adding credibility to your position.

I don't care how you say you would react - the reality of such an event - the ground shaking and ripping open the graves - and dead people crawling out - or popping above their graves - either way - would cause horror and panic.



Both stories are myth. I have read the Bible, and it appears "to me" that they meant Jesus did not stay in the grave - in the "soul" sense (though they could have though Jesus "alone" actually did rise as proof for them,) whereas non-believers stay in the grave. The walking dead myth is added later.


What Jesus says in the Bible - does not mesh with what later Christianity claims he meant. He was a Jew. No trinity, only ONE God, Jesus is not God, etc. He was claiming to be the awaited Hebrew Messiah - who is not God.



*

 

[Mycroft]

"Burden of proof" does not mean you have to prove something to others,

Burden of Proof means that if you make a particular claim, then the onus upon the claimant to present evidence of said claims.