Burden of Proof
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-05-2012, 01:09 PM
RE: Burden of Proof
I get both points based on "the burden of proof lies on the person making a claim"
From the Atheist point of view it would mean that I am very certain of there being no god and therefore the religious person is making the claim that there is one or more god/s.
From the religious point of view it would mean that I know there is a god because I have been taught so just like it would be science. And therefore the Atheist is making the claim that there is no god / are no gods.

As for my personal point. I have to disaggree with kingchosen.
I do know, yes know, that there is no god. I am not only thinking or believing that this is true, I know it. But at the same time I do not even feel the slightest need to proof anything. I do not start conversations about the topic and when I get asked about such things, the conversation (at least in real life) is over in a matter of minutes.
For me god or gods are on the same level as santa clause, unicorns, gnomes, and the invisible pink unicorn. I am too old for that crap. Apart from it being completely unlogical and never having been proofed, I don't need imaginary friends and believe systems to cope with life. I don't understand how people in this century still need such believes, because for earlier cultures I do understand how and why religion and god/s came up. But nowadays the human race should be smarter...

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2012, 01:21 PM
RE: Burden of Proof
(01-05-2012 01:09 PM)Leela Wrote:  As for my personal point. I have to disaggree with kingchosen.
I do know, yes know, that there is no god. I am not only thinking or believing that this is true, I know it. But at the same time I do not even feel the slightest need to proof anything. I do not start conversations about the topic and when I get asked about such things, the conversation (at least in real life) is over in a matter of minutes.
For me god or gods are on the same level as santa clause, unicorns, gnomes, and the invisible pink unicorn. I am too old for that crap. Apart from it being completely unlogical and never having been proofed, I don't need imaginary friends and believe systems to cope with life. I don't understand how people in this century still need such believes, because for earlier cultures I do understand how and why religion and god/s came up. But nowadays the human race should be smarter...
That's claiming omniscience, which is a completely flawed way of thinking.

No matter how improbable something is, there is always a chance. Based on the theory of the multiverse, you could very well be living among unicorns and not know it.

A human can never claim an absolute because we are not omniscient. You can be very, very sure, though.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2012, 01:29 PM
RE: Burden of Proof
[quote='kingschosen' pid='111576'
But, like I said, this argument is invalid because definitive proof for either case can never be found.

[/quote]

Spoken like someone who believes in absolutes. Tongue

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
01-05-2012, 01:51 PM
RE: Burden of Proof
(01-05-2012 01:21 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  That's claiming omniscience, which is a completely flawed way of thinking.

No matter how improbable something is, there is always a chance. Based on the theory of the multiverse, you could very well be living among unicorns and not know it.

A human can never claim an absolute because we are not omniscient. You can be very, very sure, though.
I don't think it is a flawed way of thinking.
I know that Santa Claus doesn't exist and no adult person will question this because everyone knows that Santa Claus is made up.
Problem is, as much as god/s and religion is made up as well, the moment you say the same thing about those, suddenly it is a claim or something that cannot be disproven.
Everything that you make up and claim to be true will be not disprovable because you find loopholes and excuses. Ask a four year old to prove Santa Claus "He brought my presents and ate the cookies!"

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Leela's post
01-05-2012, 06:38 PM
RE: Burden of Proof
(01-05-2012 11:10 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  My personal answer is "no one" or "invalid".

As an atheist, it is not your job to convince a theist of no deity. You can present evidence as to why you believe a certain way, but your purpose shouldn't be to convince.

Proving that God absolutely does not exist is impossible.

As a theist (Christians in particular), it is not your job to convince an atheist that there is a deity. You can present evidence as to why you believe a certain way, but your purpose shouldn't be convince. It is that deity's job to convince non-belief into belief.

Proving that God absolutely exists is impossible.

Since there is no definitive proof, the belief or non-belief is based on faith. A non-believer bases their faith on the knowledge and proof that points to the non-existence of a deity. A believer bases their faith on the knowledge and proof that points to the existence of a deity.

Since faith is not empirical, and it is the crux of the proof for the debate, the argument become invalid.
Proving that anything is "absolutely" true is impossible. Science doesn't deal in absolutes, but rather adding to our knowledge to the best of our current ability.

Still, science and logic have standards. A hypothesis has to be testable, falsifiable, fall within our scope of knowledge, have predictive power, etc. Otherwise it's just a "guess"... not scientific. Because of this, "the God hypothesis" is not really a hypothesis but rather just a "God guess" at best.

Logic determines how the burden of proof falls, and the only ideas that are free from requiring proof are "axioms" by necessity. Belief in God is not axiomatic.

It's been said many times before, but any positive assertion requires evidence. That includes the assertion that God exists, or the existence of anything... even my existence requires evidence, although I think I provide sufficient evidence of that every time that I post.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
01-05-2012, 08:31 PM
RE: Burden of Proof
(01-05-2012 11:26 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  Let's say something can prove itself like Me. My friend claims that I exist. You refute that claim. My friend is the one that has the burden of proof so he introduces me to you. I say Hello and have thus proved myself.

The above is an example of a claim/ debate/ argument that was resolved.

Look for the key element how it was closed/ resolved.

You showed yourself.... in flesh and blood!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2012, 08:46 PM
RE: Burden of Proof
Hey, KC.

Bravo. I love your first post. I agree completely.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 09:46 AM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2012 09:47 AM by kingschosen.)
RE: Burden of Proof
(01-05-2012 06:38 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(01-05-2012 11:10 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  My personal answer is "no one" or "invalid".

As an atheist, it is not your job to convince a theist of no deity. You can present evidence as to why you believe a certain way, but your purpose shouldn't be to convince.

Proving that God absolutely does not exist is impossible.

As a theist (Christians in particular), it is not your job to convince an atheist that there is a deity. You can present evidence as to why you believe a certain way, but your purpose shouldn't be convince. It is that deity's job to convince non-belief into belief.

Proving that God absolutely exists is impossible.

Since there is no definitive proof, the belief or non-belief is based on faith. A non-believer bases their faith on the knowledge and proof that points to the non-existence of a deity. A believer bases their faith on the knowledge and proof that points to the existence of a deity.

Since faith is not empirical, and it is the crux of the proof for the debate, the argument become invalid.
Proving that anything is "absolutely" true is impossible. Science doesn't deal in absolutes, but rather adding to our knowledge to the best of our current ability.

Still, science and logic have standards. A hypothesis has to be testable, falsifiable, fall within our scope of knowledge, have predictive power, etc. Otherwise it's just a "guess"... not scientific. Because of this, "the God hypothesis" is not really a hypothesis but rather just a "God guess" at best.

Logic determines how the burden of proof falls, and the only ideas that are free from requiring proof are "axioms" by necessity. Belief in God is not axiomatic.

It's been said many times before, but any positive assertion requires evidence. That includes the assertion that God exists, or the existence of anything... even my existence requires evidence, although I think I provide sufficient evidence of that every time that I post.
Yep. And, I agree with all of this.

But, God cannot be proved. It is impossible. So, this question is invalid.


(01-05-2012 08:46 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, KC.

Bravo. I love your first post. I agree completely.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Thanks.

You know, Ghost. You and I actually have a lot in common. It's weird.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 09:50 AM
RE: Burden of Proof
(02-05-2012 09:46 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(01-05-2012 06:38 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Proving that anything is "absolutely" true is impossible. Science doesn't deal in absolutes, but rather adding to our knowledge to the best of our current ability.

Still, science and logic have standards. A hypothesis has to be testable, falsifiable, fall within our scope of knowledge, have predictive power, etc. Otherwise it's just a "guess"... not scientific. Because of this, "the God hypothesis" is not really a hypothesis but rather just a "God guess" at best.

Logic determines how the burden of proof falls, and the only ideas that are free from requiring proof are "axioms" by necessity. Belief in God is not axiomatic.

It's been said many times before, but any positive assertion requires evidence. That includes the assertion that God exists, or the existence of anything... even my existence requires evidence, although I think I provide sufficient evidence of that every time that I post.
Yep. And, I agree with all of this.

But, God cannot be proved. It is impossible. So, this question is invalid.


(01-05-2012 08:46 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, KC.

Bravo. I love your first post. I agree completely.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Thanks.

You know, Ghost. You and I actually have a lot in common. It's weird.
Probably because you're both agnostic. Tongue

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 09:56 AM
RE: Burden of Proof
(02-05-2012 09:50 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(02-05-2012 09:46 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Yep. And, I agree with all of this.

But, God cannot be proved. It is impossible. So, this question is invalid.


Thanks.

You know, Ghost. You and I actually have a lot in common. It's weird.
Probably because you're both agnostic. Tongue
True, but I'm way more gnostic than he is.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: