Burden Of Proof

[derek]

I've always assumed the burden of proof rests on the theist. It seems that instead of assuming something's real because we haven't officially disproven it, that we should assume it's not real until it's proven. Can anybody disprove that invisible, undetectable flying unicorns are pushing the earth and playing a role in its rotation? (a silly analogy, but I think you get my point)

[Zhavric]

This one has been done to death here. These threads always go the same way; theists denying that all atheists need to do is dispell theistic claims.

[derek]

no prob.... I'm new here and didn't realize it had been done so much... :) ... no need to reply if that's the case

[Jack]

In all other aspects of life, we expect those who propose that something exists, that something happened, that something is factual to provide evidence of their claim. How many times have we heard someone say, "prove it"? If I claimed to have seen a rock leap into the air, everyone would expect me to provide evidence or they'd rightly dismiss my statement as fanciful. Only when it comes to superstitious beliefs do we, for no good reason, drop our expectation of evidence and permit ourselves to be convinced of something based on nothing more than wishful thinking.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: derek I've always assumed the burden of proof rests on the theist. It seems that instead of assuming something's real because we haven't officially disproven it, that we should assume it's not real until it's proven. Can anybody disprove that invisible, undetectable flying unicorns are pushing the earth and playing a role in its rotation? (a silly analogy, but I think you get my point)

The burden of proof depends on the claim in question.
If I were to propose that a divine being created the universe and exists, I would need to provide evidence for my claim. If I do not provide sufficient evidence, my claim remains unproven. I might go on believing it, but it would be a belief that has no backing in logic or rationale.

If, however, we reverse the situation so that it is not I who proposes a claim but YOU, and your claim is that no divine being created the universe, and this being (God) does not exist, it is you who would then have the burden of proof for your claim. If you do not provide sufficient evidence, your claim remains unproven. You might go on believing that God does not exist, but it would be a belief that has no backing in logic or rationale.

There's no reason (except in a pragmatic or practical standpoint) that we should assume that something does not exist simply because it has not been proven to exist. In just a purely logical or philosophical fashion, no practicalities necessitate this assumption. We simply understand that both claims (God exists/God does not exist) are unproven, and let it be at that, without assuming one way or the other unless either claim actually is proven.

[rez]

Quote by: Fangrim If, however, we reverse the situation so that it is not I who proposes a claim but YOU,

Nice try, but you can not reverse the situation. I would have never made the claim that god does not exist if someone never proposed the idea in the first place. I would of filled my imagination with completely natural explanations, and not have ever been bothered by superstitious explanations.

If you do not provide sufficient evidence, your claim remains unproven. You might go on believing that God does not exist, but it would be a belief that has no backing in logic or rationale.

I wonder, what you find as sufficient evidence? How about the math that points to the fact the universe has 11 dimensions and that within the 11 dimension contains membranes that move around each other. These membranes are really an infinite amount of universes moving around each other. Sometimes when these membranes (universes) move around each other they collide forming a singularity for a new membrane ( our universe)?

This theory is called M-Theory and is backed up with math and physics. The fact that the universe is intrinsically random and chaotic debunks the notion that a divine intelligent god created the universe. Unless of course, maybe this god was as dumb as nails and made the universe random and complex because it didn't know how to create a simple and elegant universe.

[Jack]

your claim is that no divine being created the universe, and this being (God) does not exist

That's not a claim, it's a refutation of the claim gods do exist. But then very few atheists claim to know for a fact that gods don't exist. We maintain the evidence of their proposed existence is lacking, therefore making testing that theory impossible.

[tinybear]

The general rule is that he who positively alleges that something exists bears the burden of proof. It's notoriously difficult to prove a negative, you know. :)

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Isherwood That's not a claim, it's a refutation of the claim gods do exist. But then very few atheists claim to know for a fact that gods don't exist. We maintain the evidence of their proposed existence is lacking, therefore making testing that theory impossible.

Yes, "God does not exist" is most certainly a claim upheld by hard atheists.
Regular atheists are a different, more rational matter.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: rez Nice try, but you can not reverse the situation. I would have never made the claim that god does not exist if someone never proposed the idea in the first place. I would of filled my imagination with completely natural explanations, and not have ever been bothered by superstitious explanations.

Baloney. Why does it matter that you would never have made that claim if the theists did not make their claim first? Sequence of claims or the timing of their proposition does not affect the validity or nature of the claims themselves.

This theory is called M-Theory and is backed up with math and physics. The fact that the universe is intrinsically random and chaotic debunks the notion that a divine intelligent god created the universe. Unless of course, maybe this god was as dumb as nails and made the universe random and complex because it didn't know how to create a simple and elegant universe.

Pointing out a "fault" in the universe that's purely subjective in nature and totally dependent on your viewpoint of "elegance" being a positive trait is hardly proof for God's non-existence.

[rez]

Quote by: Fangrim Baloney. Why does it matter that you would never have made that claim if the theists did not make their claim first? Sequence of claims or the timing of their proposition does not affect the validity or nature of the claims themselves.

like isherwood said, I am just refuting your claim and a proposing a claim that IS backed up by evidence. I am not proposing that god does not exist, by doing this.

Pointing out a "fault" in the universe that's purely subjective in nature and totally dependent on your viewpoint of "elegance" being a positive trait is hardly proof for God's non-existence.

So then I guess you have no problem with the fact that M-Theory is a better explanation then "goddidit".

Point being is that if you want to stick with your "god did it" explanation then you need to support it. Until then atheists are going to be logical and rationale studying the math and physics of M-Theory and you will have the burden of proof lying on your shoulders.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Isherwood Only when it comes to superstitious beliefs do we, for no good reason, drop our expectation of evidence and permit ourselves to be convinced of something based on nothing more than wishful thinking.

If by "we" you mean theists and some agnostics, then I'd agree.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim Yes, "God does not exist" is most certainly a claim upheld by hard atheists.

Nope. You're wrong.

Isherwood hit the nail on the head. Your allegation is just more arm chair philosophy. Nowhere in science or acadamia is your stance supported. Anyone familiar with rhetoric / logic / philosophy understands the difference between the responsibility to support an argument and the shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: rez like isherwood said, I am just refuting your claim and a proposing a claim that IS backed up by evidence. I am not proposing that god does not exist, by doing this.

My claim? I'm an atheist.

So then I guess you have no problem with the fact that M-Theory is a better explanation then "goddidit".

I don't propose that "goddidit" any more than I propose "unicornsdidit" or "i'malittleteapotshortandstout, hear me roar as I make the universe."

Point being is that if you want to stick with your "god did it" explanation then you need to support it. Until then atheists are going to be logical and rationale studying the math and physics of M-Theory and you will have the burden of proof lying on your shoulders.

Yes, atheists like me will continue to be logical and not hold to claims that aren't proven, including "God exists" AND "God does not exist."

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Nope. You're wrong. Isherwood hit the nail on the head. Your allegation is just more arm chair philosophy. Nowhere in science or acadamia is your stance supported. Anyone familiar with rhetoric / logic / philosophy understands the difference between the responsibility to support an argument and the shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

If anything, Isherwood's post actually backs me up, and I clarified.

"That's not a claim, it's a refutation of the claim gods do exist. But then very few atheists claim to know for a fact that gods don't exist. We maintain the evidence of their proposed existence is lacking, therefore making testing that theory impossible."

Here, Isherwood understands that some atheists, if not many, propose the claim that God does not exist.
I don't understand why Isherwood does not see that it clearly is a claim to say that God does not exist, just as God does exist is a claim. They're equal in "logical strength" and construction.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim My claim? I'm an atheist.

Not so much. From what we've gleaned in debating with you (unless you've suddenly changed your position) is that you claim to hold several stances including atheism and Christianity.

What you actually are is an agnostic who'd be dangerous on here if he took a logic class

Yes, atheists like me will continue to be logical and not hold to claims that aren't proven, including "God exists" AND "God does not exist."

The bolded bit is how I know you're agnostic. Atheists understand the claim "god exists" contradicts too many existing proven claims to be anything but false. As I've stated before, a thing can be possible and considered false.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim If anything, Isherwood's post actually backs me up, and I clarified. "That's not a claim, it's a refutation of the claim gods do exist. But then very few atheists claim to know for a fact that gods don't exist. We maintain the evidence of their proposed existence is lacking, therefore making testing that theory impossible."

Testing isn't the issue. The issue is implied claims that are made with "god exists" and how they contradict what is evidenced.

Here, Isherwood understands that some atheists, if not many, propose the claim that God does not exist. I don't understand why Isherwood does not see that it clearly is a claim to say that God does not exist, just as God does exist is a claim. They're equal in "logical strength" and construction.

Isherwood understands the difference between burden of proof and the responsibility of supporting an argument.

Let's look at an example:

Isherwood: "You stole my credit cards! I have your fingerprints in my house and heard noise last night. It must have been you."

Fangrim: "I did not steal your credit cards."

In this argument, Isherwood has the burden of proof which he's attempted to meet with the evidence he has. You have the responsibility to supporting your side of the argument by challenging Isherwood's allegation.

• If Isherwood hadn't said anything to you, there'd be no reason for you to make that claim. I'm sure you haven't gone around to your friends and co-workers today saying, "DUDE! I didn't take your credit cards!" They'd prolly look at you funny...
• If your reply is only "nuh-uh" that's not a strong argument. You've simply denied his allegation without giving us any compelling reason to do so.
• Your burden in this argument would be to explain why your fingerprints are in Isherwood's place... maybe from a party last week... and explain how impossible it would be for you to be at his house last night. "Man, I was watching a film and then went for coffee. Here are my reciepts from both." In this way you've supported your argument, but you've never actually carried the burden of proof. That's still Isherwood's.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Not so much. From what we've gleaned in debating with you (unless you've suddenly changed your position) is that you claim to hold several stances including atheism and Christianity. What you actually are is an agnostic who'd be dangerous on here if he took a logic class

I've basically settled into atheism now. Very little pretensions of actually believing in the tenets of Christianity. The great evil beast of Atheism grows one person larger, I suppose.
I am, however, very defensive of any attacks on theism in general. Eh.

The bolded bit is how I know you're agnostic. Atheists understand the claim "god exists" contradicts too many existing proven claims to be anything but false. As I've stated before, a thing can be possible and considered false.

Wrong. Atheists simply lack a belief in God.

From there, some atheists go further and actively believe that no god exists.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Isherwood understands the difference between burden of proof and the responsibility of supporting an argument. Let's look at an example: Isherwood: "You stole my credit cards! I have your fingerprints in my house and heard noise last night. It must have been you." Fangrim: "I did not steal your credit cards." In this argument, Isherwood has the burden of proof which he's attempted to meet with the evidence he has. You have the responsibility to supporting your side of the argument by challenging Isherwood's allegation. If Isherwood hadn't said anything to you, there'd be no reason for you to make that claim. I'm sure you haven't gone around to your friends and co-workers today saying, "DUDE! I didn't take your credit cards!" They'd prolly look at you funny... If your reply is only "nuh-uh" that's not a strong argument. You've simply denied his allegation without giving us any compelling reason to do so. Your burden in this argument would be to explain why your fingerprints are in Isherwood's place... maybe from a party last week... and explain how impossible it would be for you to be at his house last night. "Man, I was watching a film and then went for coffee. Here are my reciepts from both." In this way you've supported your argument, but you've never actually carried the burden of proof. That's still Isherwood's.

Zhavric, if you use one more judicial example of burdens of proof, I'm going to smash something. We've been over this. Want me to go looking for that thread? I will.

I'll edit this once I find it. [decided to make it a new post]

[Fangrim]

Found it.

Quote by: Fangrim It's probably the worst analogy you could possibly come up with. The courts operate under various guidelines, varying based on the nature of the suit or crime, that do not follow standard logic because it is presumed that it is far worse to convict an innocent person than it is to let a guilty person go unpunished. The courts err on the side of "not guilty." The courts also face the need to come up with some verdict. It doesn't really make sense for a court of law to just say it's unproven if Joe commited the crime and its also umproven that he didn't commit the crime; it's pointless for a societal institution to say "I dunno" when it's supposed to be arbiting justice, and really twists and warps criminal justice by putting the burden of proof on both the prosecution and the defense. The courts thus place the burden of proof on the prosecution and eliminate the burden of proof of the defense, like so: Claim A: Joe is guilty. Claim B: Joe is innocent. Normally: Pro has burden of proof for Claim A. If he fails to prove Claim A, it does not mean that Claim B is true. Claim A could very well be true even though Pro failed to prove it. If Def isn't content with the ClaimAB Hypothesis remaining unproven both ways, Def must prove Claim B. In the court of law: Pro has the burden of proof for Claim A, but because the courts err on the side of innocence, if Pro fails to prove Claim A, the court rules that Claim B is true even if Def was unable to fulfill the burden of proof for Claim B. Your example is even worse. The courts do not operate under normal burdens of proof. Further, the incredulous defenses that the Defense makes using "Dave" would of course not be taken in a court of law. You failed to address my response to the OP where I contested much of your analysis, including your assertion that God violated CoE. Address the response yourself or drop these unsubstantiated assertions.