Where Does The Burden Of Proof Fall?

[Vixentrox]

So does Santa Claus exist or not? I'm confused here with all these mythological (or not) beings running around (or not).

[Samurai Tailor]

The Burden of Proof is more than a matter of pragmatics.

 

Elements of reality is defined by an ontology that possesses discrete and identifiable attributes and properties that constitute what it is.  A is A.

 

Anything in a proposition that violates this principle immediately invalidates said proposition.  Placing the Burden of Proof on the nonsubstantive side results in ALL substantive claims (no matter how ridiculous) as being equally valid... thus, the Burden of Proof must rest on the substantive side.  In metaphysics, this is the side that proclaims "The entity X exists."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are, of course, correct. Unfortunately, the situation in which we find ourselves is somewhat beyond the rigors of logic; our sides already affirm the truth of their respective positions. Placing the burden of proof correctly is a rhetorical exercise now.

[dogmatically_challenged]

You are, of course, correct.  Unfortunately, the situation in which we find ourselves is somewhat beyond the rigors of logic; our sides already affirm the truth of their respective positions.  Placing the burden of proof correctly is a rhetorical exercise now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the xers want to play with logic for thier god and go against scripture doing so, less they stray, then they sin against logic as well as against thier paper god.

 

No one should give xers the time of day unless they have doubts in thier faith.

[spamandham]

I have a different take on "burdon of proof". It is nothing more than a courtesy, thus it is not possible to prove who has the burdon. Generally, the "innocent until proven guilty" guideline is used because it's much more difficult (and often impossible) to prove a negative than a positive, and because it seems fair that people should not make claims that they are unwilling to back up. But what if they do?

 

The burdon lies on whoever wishes to make their case. If I tell you there is an undetectable dragon in my garage, and you tell me "prove it", it is my prerogotive to say "no. I really don't care if you believe it and so I provide no proof, but you have been warned. The dragon will haunt you in your dreams if you refuse to believe." You can screem "burdon of proof" all day long, and I can just laugh at your demands content in my knowledge that you will have dragon induced nightmares.

 

Now, I haven't made a compelling case, but if I don't care about making a compelling case, then I have no burden. What are you going to do? Sue me?

[dogmatically_challenged]

In the context of metaphysics, a statement that claims the EXISTENCE of an entity possesses the Burden of Proof.  This is because if the Burden of Proof is placed on the opposing side, EVERYTHING imaginable must exist because it is impossible to disprove their existence, no matter how ridiculous the claim.

 

Thus, the statement "God exists" must be proven.

 

Furthermore, TR, please refine your posts in the future.  You jump from discrete topic to discrete topic with little unifying multiple themes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bump.

[Sokudo Ningyou]

Ahem.

 

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God.

The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.'

'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next pedestrian crossing.

[Ouroboros]

From TJR666 to Hans:

 

Yes, the burden of proof falls on the one making the assertive proposition. For example, if you insist that “Santa clause does not exist”, then you must prove it. If I say “Santa Claus does exist”, then I must prove it.

Hmm. How can someone prove that something does not exist?

 

Well, you maybe know from our other discussions that I'm agnostic, so hence my POV is that God can't be proven to exist or to not exist. So we probably are on the same page here...

 

Next, you make an assumption that I “despise” agnostics or “hate” non-Christian deists. Not so; or are you making an assertion that requires proof? No, just joking. Where have I ever said something like this?

Nah, you haven't said it. I was testing you, to see if you took the bait.

 

I have said many times before that I recognise that I am merely a guest on this site. Like guests sometimes do, I suspect that my welcome is wearing a bit thin. I have also stated that I’m here to discuss things with other people who do not believe the same as me; they are more interesting. I have also expressed my belief several times that I have “a snowball’s chance in hell” of converting those here. I’m visiting merely to raise issues and discuss things and see how other people think.

I like that attitude. That's better than most that come here to preach rather then to discuss.

 

So, where do I fit in? I appear to have your tolerance for now, but do I have your respect? I certainly respect not just your opinion, but many of the others here also. If nothing else, I have triggered some lively discussions of late.

Respect? Well, maybe we need to start a thread to discuss what respect is...

 

I respect people that can show respect themselves, and as long as you can continue a discussion without stepping on my toes (which you have not done so far), you're fine, and there is some form of respect.

 

I do respect other peoples beliefs, I just can't respect when belief becomes assumptions. And I'm sure you feel the same. One of my pet-peeves is the "you've never been a Christian", as long as that is not said, I'm ok.

 

My position as a Christian is as much an assertive position as that for the atheist or agnostic or ex-Christian or whatever. Thus, you are absolutely correct when you say that if I desire you to believe in my God, then I will have to prove it. But first, one must believe that the something called “god” (any deity; something beyond time and space; call it what you may) does actually exist. That’s what I’m trying to get people thinking about.

But you understand that I used to believe in God, and now I'm just not sure, and if God of any kind does exist, I can't see the Bible to give the correct description of him. I rather see God as the Deist does, or a Naturalist, but not as a Christian anymore. You could say I don't believe there can be a "relationship" with God, the way Christianity depicts it.

 

The example that I put forward about the arrowhead; I note that it has not been commented upon yet. Is it proof? Certainly not. Is it good circumstantial evidence? I believe it to be so.

I have to go back and read the arrowhead again... so no comment now, probably later.

 

TJR666

[Ouroboros]

Ahem.

 

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God.

The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.'

'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it?  It could not have evolved by chance.  It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't.  QED.'

'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next pedestrian crossing.

 

I love the Hitchhikers Guide. One of the best books every written.

[qadeshet]

The burden of proof always lies with the one making the extraordinary claim. If I claim that Santa exists, then it's up to me to prove his existance. Except in logic or mathmatics, it is impossible to prove a negative.

[Ouroboros]

Okay, I checked back to the arrowhead.

 

The Design argument

 

Consider this: if complex design in life (arrowhead made by humans) is the argument that all complex structures must have had an intelligent design; then it naturally follows that God also must have a designer.

 

So if we go down that path, why stop at God? Why not continue the same argument further and prove that God has a God too?

 

Then you might answer “that’s absurd, it has to stop somewhere”, but then my question is “what is your logical argument, based on natural phenomenon, for God NOT having a God?” Just saying “absurd” won’t do, that’s just an emotional argument.

 

I see the discussion of God or NoGod basically like this little story.

 

Two men are walking on a beach, when they suddenly find a box a few feet wide and tall. It’s closed and there doesn’t seem to be any patterns or marking on the outside.

 

Of course they get curious and start walking around it and contemplating what the box is for and what could be inside.

 

One of the men suddenly comes up with the idea that the box contains cold coins and if they can open it they’ll get rich and can buy whatever they want. Their life will be perfect!

 

But the other man is a bit skeptic and don’t think there’s any valuables in the box.

 

They start the process of trying to figure out what’s in it, and the first man still consistently insists that the box is full of gold coins. While the other man claims it’s very improbable.

 

Now, the second man picks up the box and shakes it, and weigh it, and concludes that there’s no chance the box can contain coins, since it doesn’t rattle and it’s way to light to be full of heavy golden coins.

 

The first man, with full fervor, doesn’t want to leave his dreams of the castle he’s going to buy and the nice cars and so on, so he comes up with the clever explanation that the coins are embedded in feathers, and have some sort of antigravity field surrounding them, so that explains why it’s so light and no rattling can be heard.

Which one of these men has proven anything?

How strong are their proofs?

And who is more likely correct in their assumption?

[dogmatically_challenged]

The burden of proof always lies with the one making the extraordinary claim.  If I claim that Santa exists, then it's up to me to prove his existance.  Except in logic or mathmatics, it is impossible to prove a negative.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats my stance even if god exists.

 

I've already broke it down as to why its ok for everyone to say god does not exist. No evidence for said god, then no awareness of said god. No awareness for said god then said god does not exist yet to us. Logic in no way demands belief in what there is no evidence for but thats not to say we should ignore any evidence offered by xers.

 

As Hans said the burdon of proof rests on God more so than the xers. Until evidence is given I can righlty say god does not exist as it is only logical to believe in what there is evidences for and illogical to believe in what has ZERO evidences for it like the bible claims have ZERO evidences for its extrordinary claims. Xers have no logical reasons to say bible god exists. We can say bible god does not exist until we are aware that it exists and they can not say that he does exist until they prove it. Hehe.

[Ouroboros]

The claim of Gods existence can only be done through emotional arguments, and since emotional arguments are based on personal experience and assumptions, there will never be any proof of God.

 

What's next? Can the emotional need for faith in God to be proven to be a mental and totally biological function in the brain? If we can remove a part of the brain and thereby remove someones need to believe in God or conviction of Gods existence, wouldn't that prove that the religious mind is biological and not metaphysical, and with that we would know that belief is not based on Gods existence but on a biological need to believe.

 

Did I mess that up? Did it even make sense? I'm a bit sleepy so it probably is a bit confusing... I see if I can correct it tomorrow...

[dogmatically_challenged]

The claim of Gods existence can only be done through emotional arguments, and since emotional arguments are based on personal experience and assumptions, there will never be any proof of God.

 

What's next? Can the emotional need for faith in God to be proven to be a mental and totally biological function in the brain? If we can remove a part of the brain and thereby remove someones need to believe in God or conviction of Gods existence, wouldn't that prove that the religious mind is biological and not metaphysical, and with that we would know that belief is not based on Gods existence but on a biological need to believe.

 

Did I mess that up? Did it even make sense? I'm a bit sleepy so it probably is a bit confusing... I see if I can correct it tomorrow...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Makes sense to me.

 

The claim of Gods existence can only be done through emotional arguments, and since emotional arguments are based on personal experience and assumptions, there will never be any proof of God.

 

Be'ens that is all they got for thier invisible friend, and as we know humans can decieve themselves, suffer mental illness, and can mistake fuzzy feelings as evidence in a story, (that they were brainwashed to believe), that they already have an a priory belief in....then even they have not narrowed things down logicaly for even them to have belief in thier invisible friend. They illogicaly connect the warm fuzzies to thier a priory belief in a myth that they were taught to believe in uncriticaly.

 

Remember? The warm fuzzies? The euphoria? These feelings are just feelings that can't be shown to have any connection to bible god.

 

When we were little we were told about bible god and the warm fuzzies came later as we learned to put ourselves in that state of mind through practice in prayor and speaking in tongues.

 

I can still get the warm fuzzies without belief in gods. I bet if I worked myself up I could again experience the really strong euphoria that I used to feel even now as an atheist. It is so distasteful to me that I think I never really gave it the effort that I used to when I spoke in tongues.

 

But I can make myself feel the warm fuzzies as I used to when I thought of god through meditation instead.

[Ouroboros]

Remember? The warm fuzzies? The euphoria? These feelings are just feelings that can't be shown to have any connection to bible god.

 

When we were little we were told about bible god and the warm fuzzies came later.

I can still get the warm fuzzies without belief in gods. I bet if I worked myself up I could again experience the really strong euphoria that I used to feel even now as an atheist. It is so distasteful to me that I think I never really gave it the effort that I used to when I spoke in tongues.

 

But I can make myself feel the warm fuzzies as I used to when I thought of god through meditation.

 

Good point. I get the warm fuzzies when I listen to certain music, and it varies what kind, sometimes techno, trance or meditation music etc, all non religious...

 

I think it's all about putting the mind into that alpha state (or whatever it's called) and you feel like nothing matters and life is all good, and all answers is right there. And you need to God to do it, just find the right music and surroundings and you can experience it.

 

Sometimes I can get the same "spiritual" feeling (goosebumps etc) from some regular secular song! So whazup with that, huh? Devils music can give me feeling of the Holy Goat, oh sorry, Gosh... Glob, Goscht, Gost...

 

Friggin who came up with the Holy Ghost? It's so absurd to call Gods special spirit a Ghost. Is he some kind of ectoplasma? Or is he an poltergeist?

[dogmatically_challenged]

I am going to try to put myself in that state again. This time as an atheist. hehe.

[Ms. K]

Ahem.

 

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God.

The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.'

'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it?  It could not have evolved by chance.  It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't.  QED.'

'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next pedestrian crossing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I love that particular literary reference....

 

*Ms. K is on the floor, with tears streaming down her face from the giggles*

[quicksand]

Yes, the burden of proof falls on the one making the assertive proposition. For example, if you insist that “Santa clause does not exist”, then you must prove it. If I say “Santa Claus does exist”, then I must prove it.

Someone, I think Samuri, mention this is no more than a rhetorical exercise... I have to tell you I laughed out-loud when I read this statement.

 

So whatever-your-name-is-christian, you can go and try to turn Theistic belief into atheism all you want, we won't mind at all. You're just trying to remove the middle ground between the two. Not so simple though, because like atheist and theistic belief, there is a big distinction between a chair and table, medicine or poison.

 

Welcome to atheism now.

[spamandham]

But I can make myself feel the warm fuzzies as I used to when I thought of god through meditation instead.

 

I can cause this state of mind at will, but it only lasts for a few seconds. Somehow, I figured out how to give myself goosebumps when I was a kid. The weird thing is, that when I do it, a sense of peace overwhelms me for as long as the bumps last. I don't have any mental images or chants or anything else that brings it on, I just directly make it happen just like lifting my arm.

 

IMHO, this is proof that the euphoric state is related to a release of the same electrical/chemical stimulation that causes goosebumps.

[Vigile]

TJR666,

 

So you're saying all religions are true then? Because no religion has to be proven true, but should be assumed true, and it's up the the atheist to prove each and everyone of these to be untrue. And do you claim it's the atheists responsibility to also prove that Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, etc doesn't exist either.

 

I think TJR has some faulty reasoning wires. This stuff is just way too obvious.

 

TJR, just a suggestion. Consolidate your posts a bit, or better, a lot. I think you can probably sum up your arguments and substantially cut back on the size of your posts. If you have a large argument to make and you need the verbiage, piece it out to us and as we discuss and digest your arguments add more as appropriate. This is just a message board and most likely no one is reading your posts entirely.

[Ouroboros]

And here’s another twist to the debate.

 

According to the Bible the Holy Spirit guides and leads every True Christian™, and according to Jesus only a True Christian™ listens to his voice and follows it.

 

So there is a way to test if Christianity is true or not.

 

This is my argument:

 

If the True Christian™ hears God’s voice and acts on it, then every interpretation he/she does would be accurate according to God’s intentions and will.

 

There are 2.2 billion Christians in the world, and 33,000 denominations. How can there be disagreement of the basic liturgy when the Holy Spirit guides them all and all of them obey God. (If they don’t obey they are not True Christian™)

 

This shows that either:

 

1. Only a few a True Christians™ and the extreme majority are astray or were never Christians. – God failed in saving the world. This makes God fallible and not perfect.

 

2. God intentionally gives them different interpretations. – This would make God deceitful, and that is a discord with the description of him in the Bible.

 

3. God doesn’t talk to his followers. – Also a disagreement with the Bible, God is supposed to talk to them.

 

4. God doesn’t exist. – Explains it all. It is the only explanation that doesn’t contradict anything.

 

---

 

Here’s another argument:

 

1. The Universe came from Nothing

2. Nothing can not be Something

3. So God must be Nothing

[Lunar Shadow]

In doing this, those who profess atheism are insisting that the burden of proof belongs with those like me who assert the affirmative proposition (ie, “That God exists”) as opposed to those who assert the negative proposition (ie, “That God does not exist”), which they know is ultimately unprovable anyway.

 

TJR666

 

 

You are going on the presupposition that it is impossible to prove a universal negative how ever, Jeffery Jay Lowder did a very interesting article which comes to the conclusion that it is in fact possible if you care to take a gander here is the link.

 

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jef...er/ipnegep.html

[dogmatically_challenged]

You are going on the presupposition that it is impossible to prove a universal negative how ever, Jeffery Jay Lowder did a very interesting article which comes to the conclusion that it is in fact possible if you care to take a gander here is the link.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jef...er/ipnegep.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It can be done.

 

Thats why concentrating on the claims given us by holybooks through pointing out internal contradictions as well as how the claims from holybooks contradict what we see in the world is the best way. I will not let an xer get away with hiding in philosophy while ignoring the fact that bible claims are absurd, internaly contradicts itself as well as contradicts what we see in the world. They must prove to me that THIER god is THE god and not just prove a god thingy.

 

If they admit the bible has errors and contradictions then they haven't a leg to stand on in thier belief of the god given them by thier holybook as it is absurd as well as contradictory that we must believe any extraordinary claims within a mundane book that is so incoherent.

 

Personaly I don't care if there is a creator, I am only interested in debunking human stories of gods.

 

Thanks for the link Jester!

[dogmatically_challenged]

I can cause this state of mind at will, but it only lasts for a few seconds.  Somehow, I figured out how to give myself goosebumps when I was a kid.  The weird thing is, that when I do it, a sense of peace overwhelms me for as long as the bumps last.  I don't have any mental images or chants or anything else that brings it on, I just directly make it happen just like lifting my arm.

 

IMHO, this is proof that the euphoric state is related to a release of the same electrical/chemical stimulation that causes goosebumps.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I sit crosslegged and just try to rid myself of emotion and reflect on things ( my personal technique) and I can feel mild euphoria for as long as I am able to maintain the state of mind.

 

But I will try a different method to get the pure extasy that I had when speaking in tongues and prayor. Since I learned to get the high from imagery of "closeness/connection to god" I will replace that with something else. I plan on going to triple falls and sitting underneath a water fall while letting the water hit my forehead and imagine the feeling is power drawn from the water. I can make myself believe it for as long as I need to.

 

If the water makes it hard to breathe, hehe, ill just remember the feeling of the water on my forehead and use that experience in my imagery in meditation later at home.

[Lunar Shadow]

Thanks for the link Jester!

 

 

no problem D_C, the sec web kicks ass it has been a great tool for me. I love reading Carrier and Lowder among the many other there. I find it to be a great reference and refuting site. Lokmer is the one who showed me the site in the first place. Thanks Lok

 

I just sit here and read and throw in my $0.02 when I can. But I know that most of the subject matter is over my head here so I do not appear to be the fool (Jester) I only post round here when I have a good link for the topic. But hey I am learning

 

 

--Jester

[dogmatically_challenged]

no problem D_C, the sec web kicks ass it has been a great tool for me. I love reading Carrier and Lowder among the many other there. I find it to be a great reference and refuting site. Lokmer is the one who showed me the site in the first place. Thanks Lok 

Yea Lokmer rocks. I wish he would post in the debating xers and theological issues forums more often. He has shared from a lota books. The guy is a walking talking library.

 

But I know that most of the subject matter is over my head here so I do not appear to be the fool (Jester) I only post round here when I have a good link for the topic. But hey I am learning

--Jester

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yea. Fact is; the more you read/learn/do, the more you can understand. Me, I always have a browser open to wikipedia and websters dictionary just in case. Its a good habit. Ignorance is a hole that will be filled. Reason for excitment. If I don't understand but only think I do and spew ignorance the embarrasment will help me remember what another heathen pointed out to me. I have shame but not enough to keep me from sharing my understanding. To freely be a know it all ass is another kind of accelerated learning, because then folks will be more interested in rubbing your nose in your ignorance. Hehe.