Why the burden of proof lies on God ?

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no "burden of proof". That's just a phrase someone made up and it stuck.

When making a truth claim, there is the expectation of it being accompanied by logical justification.

AKA, the burden of proof.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In any sense that a behavior deviates from what it would be in the absence of a belief in God.

So a Jihadist detonating his suicide vest in a crowded market for the glorification of Allah, is evidence for the existence of Allah?
An Aztec sacrificing 16 year old virgins to lord Quetzalcoatl, is evidence for the existence of Quetzalcoatl?
Ancient Greeks placing coins on the eyes of the dead so that they could pay the boatman to cross the river Styx, is evidence for said boatman and the river Styx?
Vikings going on suicide missions on the battle field to die a glorious death by the sword in glorification of Odin and Thor to be able to dine with them in the Great Halls of Whalhalla, is evidence for Odin, Thor and Whalhalla?



Likewise, when nutjob X in room 5423 of the psychiatric ward doesn't come outside without a tinfoil had on to block the CIA spy satellites from reading his mind, is evidence for the existence of such satellites capable of mind reading?

What influenced Tom Cruise's behavior?

His scientologist beliefs.

 

[SalixIncendium]

So a Jihadist detonating his suicide vest in a crowded market for the glorification of Allah, is evidence for the existence of Allah?

Did Allah influence that behavior? If so, then yes.

By the way, 'Allah' is simply Arabic for 'God.'

His scientologist beliefs.

Which are?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Did Allah influence that behavior? If so, then yes.

You just changed the language in there......................

You said the impact of BELIEFS in a god.
And you confirmed that several times.


Now, suddenly, it changed to god him/her/itself impacting behavior.

So no, the impact was from the beliefs. As you said at first.


If "god influencing / impacting behavior" is what you meant all along, then I'm changing my response to "then there doesn't seem to be such evidence", since I have no knowledge or evidence of any god ever having any impact on any behavior whatsoever.


Beliefs inform actions. And it doesn't matter if the beliefs are true or false. They still inform actions.
So the way actions are impacted, are evidence of the presence of those beliefs. They are not evidence of the beliefs being accurate.

Which are?

In light of the sudden change of language / terminology above, this doesn't seem relevant any longer.

 

[PureX]

AKA, the burden of proof.

Nope, not a burden of proof. Only an expectation of logical justification. No evidence required, and no one else's approval needed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope, not a burden of proof. Only an expectation of logical justification. No evidence required, and no one else's approval needed.

Logical justification = evidence

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No, that isn't what it means. The requirement is not "evidence". The requirement is the reasoning upon which the claim is being based. This may include evidence, but evidence is not a necessity.

Evidence is required to be convinced a proposition is true. Some may say that the reasoning is the evidence.

What the claimant 'wants' is irrelevant to anyone but the claimant.

ok.

Evidence is unnecessary. So is anyone else's acceptance of the claim.

Evidence is what convinces people a claim is true. The evidence could be just the claimants say so.

'Atheists' these days treat evidence as though it's mandatory and absolute when it is neither because they want to play 'kangaroo judge' in their own imaginary kangaroo courtroom. It's just silly fantasyland stuff.

It is required to be convinced something is true. Everything you are convinced is true is based on some sort of evidence you think is persuasive. How can you be convinced something is true without some sort of evidence?

I agree. "Proof" is a subjective value that is almost always held by bias.

Everyone has their own standards of evidence, that is why people can see the same evidence and disagree on a propositions truthfulness.

 

[PureX]

Logical justification = evidence

No it doesn't, except in your own mind.

 

[PureX]

Evidence is required to be convinced a proposition is true.

No it's not, and there is no reason anyone needs to be convinced of anything.

Some may say that the reasoning is the evidence.

Yes, but that would be a sloppy use of language.

Evidence is what convinces people a claim is true.

No, evidence is what convinces YOU that a claim is true. But convincing you was never the claimant's responsibility.

The evidence could be just the claimants say so.

Again, this is a poor use of the language.

It is required to be convinced something is true.

Only for you. But your requirements are not the claimant's responsibility. Which is why they cannot logically be expected to apply to the truth claim.

Everything you are convinced is true is based on some sort of evidence you think is persuasive.

No, it's not. What I or anyone else thinks is true is based on all kinds of criteria. Which is why the truth does not depend on convincing anyone if anything.

How can you be convinced something is true without some sort of evidence?

My being convinced is irrelevant to the truth claim.

Everyone has their own standards of evidence, that is why people can see the same evidence and disagree on a propositions truthfulness.

I agree.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No it's not, and there is no reason anyone needs to be convinced of anything.

You cannot help it, it is not a choice you have. Can you believe the earth is flat? or can you not believe you go by PureX on this site? You are either convinced or not. You cannot choose to believe anything.

Yes, but that would be a sloppy use of language.

Well that is how humans use language.

No, evidence is what convinces YOU that a claim is true. But convincing you was never the claimant's responsibility.

It is if they want to convince you ten claim is true.

Again, this is a poor use of the language.

Humans

Only for you. But your requirements are not the claimant's responsibility. Which is why they cannot logically be expected to apply to the truth claim.

If someone wants me to believe a claim is true it is their responsibility to provide the evidence. How is it not?

No, it's not. What I or anyone else thinks is true is based on all kinds of criteria. Which is why the truth does not depend on convincing anyone if anything.

I agree

My being convinced is irrelevant to the truth claim.

I agree

 

[Stevicus]

Its me making this claim, not God.
I don't know what made you think that God is making this claim.

It was the question you asked at the beginning of the thread. If a human makes a claim, then the reasonable expectation is that they would be able to support it with evidence and/or some sort of logical argument. If (hypothetically) God made a claim, then the expectation might be much the same, but since I've never heard God make any claims, I can't possibly hold God to any burden of proof, which was the premise of your original question.

 

[PureX]

You cannot help it, it is not a choice you have. Can you believe the earth is flat?

Of course I can, because it is flat when considered within a practical surface-bound context.

or can you not believe you go by PureX on this site? You are either convinced or not.

Human understanding of what is true is both subjective and relative. It changes as the context of experience and validation changes. Because I know this, I can change what I determine to be true relative to the context of my assessment. And I can be aware of doing this while doing it.

You cannot choose to believe anything.

We are choosing to believe whatever we believe the moment we recognize that we can and are doing so. If you cannot recognize that you have a choice, then I suppose from your perspective, you don't. But the choice is still there, you just aren't recognizing it as an option.

Well that is how humans use language.

There is no honest justification for deliberately using sloppy language.

It is if they want to convince you ten claim is true.

That's their own personal problem. It does not determine whether their truth claim is valid or not. Neither does your opinion of it.

If someone wants me to believe a claim is true it is their responsibility to provide the evidence. How is it not?

What one believes to be true or not is irrelevant to the truth claim. If one asserts a truth claim we then expect them to also share their logical justification for asserting it. Otherwise, it is of no practical value to us, and there was no reason to assert the claim in the first place. But once the claim is posed, and logically justified, whatever we do with that information is our own business.

I agree

I agree

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Of course I can, because it is flat when considered within a practical surface-bound context.

But you cannot choose to believe that without your evidence.

Human understanding of what is true is both subjective and relative. It changes as the context of experience and validation changes. Because I know this, I can change what I determine to be true relative to the context of my assessment. And I can be aware of doing this while doing it.

We are choosing to believe whatever we believe the moment we recognize that we can and are doing so. If you cannot recognize that you have a choice, then I suppose from your perspective, you don't. But the choice is still there, you just aren't recognizing it as an option.

I cannot choose to believe I was born on the moon, neither can you. You can say you do and act like you do but you can not believe that when all the evidence does not support that claim.

There is no honest justification for deliberately using sloppy language.

Who said it was deliberate?

That's their own personal problem. It does not determine whether their truth claim is valid or not. Neither does your opinion of it.

Valid or true?

What one believes to be true or not is irrelevant to the truth claim. If one asserts a truth claim we then expect them to also share their logical justification for asserting it. Otherwise, it is of no practical value to us, and there was no reason to assert the claim in the first place. But once the claim is posed, and logically justified, whatever we do with that information is our own business.

I agree.

 

[PureX]

But you cannot choose to believe that without your evidence.

I think I will concede to your use of the term "evidence". I've gotten so used to people on this site demanding "evidence" when what they are actually demanding is objective physical proof, that I tend to object automatically. It does not appear that you are (mis)using the term in that way, so I will stop objecting to the use of it.

Yes, we do all decide what to believe at any given time based on the available evidence. but we are also picking and choosing what evidence we think applies and carries the most weight. And once we realize that we are doing this, we can choose to change those assignations to attain a different result. It's as easy as just changing our minds.

I cannot choose to believe I was born on the moon, neither can you.

Of course you could. There most likely have been people that have believed that about themselves. They just chose the "believe in" whatever "evidence" they had that led them to that conclusion.

Some people believe that Donald Trump was sent by God to save America. They just chose to ignore all the evidence to the contrary, and focus only on whatever evidence they think they have as support.

You can say you do and act like you do but you can not believe that when all the evidence does not support that claim.

I decide what evidence supports what claim. And when, and how, and why. So do you.

 

[RestlessSoul]

There can be no burden of proof in matters of faith. Faith is tested by experience, not argument, and grows stronger or weaker, according to it's fruits.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Let’s not use the term God but instead reality. Is there possibly another reality outside the human reality? The painting has a painter but not in the same reality yet the painter must exist for the painting to exist. But the painting, the canvas, oils and colours are not in the same dimension as the painter yet the painting itself is proof and evidence of a painter despite the painting not being capable of producing any proof or evidence except its own existence.

 

[Soandso]

Let’s not use the term God but instead reality. Is there possibly another reality outside the human reality? The painting has a painter but not in the same reality yet the painter must exist for the painting to exist. But the painting, the canvas, oils and colours are not in the same dimension as the painter yet the painting itself is proof and evidence of a painter despite the painting not being capable of producing any proof or evidence except its own existence.

You're comparing something that we only ever have examples of existing because of a creator vs. something that has yet to be proven that it requires a creator at all. It's apples and oranges

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you make claims that you don't believe?
When you believe things, aren't the things you believe claims?

I've explained this many times and still for the life of me I can't see what is so hard to understand about that.

I am not making any claims. I believe the claims made by Baha'u'llah, so I am a Baha'i believer.
The things I believe are claims that Baha'u'llah made, but I am not making any claims of my own.

I've explained this many times and still for the life of me I can't see what is so hard to understand.

A belief is not a claim, that is why there are two different words.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
claim means - Google Search

Claim: to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it: claim

Belief:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
https://www.google.com/search

Belief:
the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:
His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times.
Recent scandals have shaken many people's belief in (= caused people to have doubts about) politicians.
belief

An acceptance that my belief is true is not a claim that it is true.
I believe that my belief is true. I never claimed that my belief is true.

As nouns the difference between claim and belief is that claim is a demand of ownership made for something (eg claim ownership, claim victory) while belief is mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence.
What is the difference between claim and belief? | WikiDiff

Baha'u'llah made a claim to be a Messenger of God so he claimed ownership of the title Messenger of God.
I believe His claims but I am making no claims because I have nothing to claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

Don't be fooled by the word "proof" in the saying "burden of proof".

It doesn't mean that one has to provide "proof". It merely means that the onus of supporting / justifying / defending the claim (with evidence OR proof) falls on the one making the claim.

That is correct, and since Baha'u'llah is the one who made the claims, the onus of supporting the claims with evidence fell on Baha'ullah.

As a believer in His claims, all I can do is tell you what He offered as evidence in support of His claims.

 

[Altfish]

Seriously what made you think that the burden of proof lies on God ?

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens