Burden of Proof
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-05-2012, 12:30 PM
RE: Burden of Proof
Results on the other forum:

Atheists - 7
Believers - 19
Both - 10

It quickly turned into a fight where believers stated that atheists have ignored the evidence that they have already provided. The Atheists replied that there has not been any concrete proof provided at all. Each side is now starting to talk about how the other party is detrimental to society. Of course, the believers are bringing up "red-colored" literature and how "oppressive" atheism was during the last century. I told them that they were confusing atheism with Communist governments that crack down on religion in order to garner total obedience to the state. I'm not holding out any hope that the thread will ever come back on topic.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 06:11 PM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2012 06:16 PM by angry-santa.)
RE: Burden of Proof
(01-05-2012 01:06 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(01-05-2012 12:58 PM)angry-santa Wrote:  Ghost, You murdered my sister, I know you did, I am taking you to court, I won't bring any papers or even hire a lawyer.


Good luck proving you didn't commit murder while I read a book and wait for the jury to convict you.

Can we understand now why the burden of proof lies on the claimant? You(The religious, Not the op) are claiming God exists, I reject that claim, For me to believe this you must provide proof. Further more if you want to insist that your sky daddy should be governing how I live then you damn sure better have irrefutable,testable evidence.
No, that's a bad example. The murder is provable. God is neither provable or unprovable.

It also depends on the point of view. For most Christians, God exists and is accepted as truth. If you say He doesn't exists to a person that accepts it as truth, then it is up to you to hold the burden of proof.

But, like I said, this argument is invalid because definitive proof for either case can never be found.
I was trying to demonstrate that I can't just up and claim something happened or exists without evidence.

They have to first prove their definition of god is accepted as truth by everyone before I have to prove it is not as such.


(02-05-2012 12:30 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  Results on the other forum:

Atheists - 7
Believers - 19
Both - 10

It quickly turned into a fight where believers stated that atheists have ignored the evidence that they have already provided. The Atheists replied that there has not been any concrete proof provided at all. Each side is now starting to talk about how the other party is detrimental to society. Of course, the believers are bringing up "red-colored" literature and how "oppressive" atheism was during the last century. I told them that they were confusing atheism with Communist governments that crack down on religion in order to garner total obedience to the state. I'm not holding out any hope that the thread will ever come back on topic.
Except believers have not shown me, and more importantly peer reviewed (EVIIL DEBEL!) science journals anything even resembling evidence, They rely on emotional appeals, Anecdotal experiences and faces on toast bread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2012, 06:36 PM
RE: Burden of Proof
(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.
Well... technically I think you're right. Many of us atheists have admitted that we don't know exactly what would constitute convincing proof of God. But on the other hand I think there are still things that would make the weight of evidence for God outweigh the evidence against.

Prayer, for instance, leaps straight to mind. We atheists love to use the argument that "God hates amputees" because he doesn't heal them, but what if he did? What if amputees did find themselves getting their limbs replaced through prayer on a regular basis? Now positing God as a "cause" to this regeneration without proof of causation is an Argument from Ignorance, but I'll admit that I'd be persuaded nonetheless. In fact, if prayer had "predictive power" and you could actually say with a good degree of certainty that things without a natural explanation would happen and they did, that would be good evidence of prayer's power, and by association would demonstrate God's power

Shared experiences would also lend a lot of weight to the evidence for God. Personal experience is subject to a person's natural faults, but things that happen to a large group of people are harder to explain. It's not impossible for a group of people to share a delusion, but it's rare. If I met an angel, for instance, with a group of people that all claimed to witness the same thing, that would be good evidence for biblical truths.

Again, I agree with you, KC. There are people that claim God can't be proven and there's good logic and reason behind that claim. But if there's a God, He would at least know the things that would persuade me, and He has failed to even attempt them. My skepticism hasn't even been put to the test. Why not?

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
02-05-2012, 11:38 PM
RE: Burden of Proof
(02-05-2012 06:36 PM)Starcrash 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.
Well... technically I think you're right. Many of us atheists have admitted that we don't know exactly what would constitute convincing proof of God. But on the other hand I think there are still things that would make the weight of evidence for God outweigh the evidence against.

Prayer, for instance, leaps straight to mind. We atheists love to use the argument that "God hates amputees" because he doesn't heal them, but what if he did? What if amputees did find themselves getting their limbs replaced through prayer on a regular basis? Now positing God as a "cause" to this regeneration without proof of causation is an Argument from Ignorance, but I'll admit that I'd be persuaded nonetheless. In fact, if prayer had "predictive power" and you could actually say with a good degree of certainty that things without a natural explanation would happen and they did, that would be good evidence of prayer's power, and by association would demonstrate God's power

Shared experiences would also lend a lot of weight to the evidence for God. Personal experience is subject to a person's natural faults, but things that happen to a large group of people are harder to explain. It's not impossible for a group of people to share a delusion, but it's rare. If I met an angel, for instance, with a group of people that all claimed to witness the same thing, that would be good evidence for biblical truths.

Again, I agree with you, KC. There are people that claim God can't be proven and there's good logic and reason behind that claim. But if there's a God, He would at least know the things that would persuade me, and He has failed to even attempt them. My skepticism hasn't even been put to the test. Why not?
You know, I read this, and then I look over at my D&D books, and I think "if I could learn to cast Cure Minor Wounds or Bear's Endurance, I would totally start worshipping god." Alas, this has yet to be true.

On a more serious note, at first I thought just a lot of odd or impossible things would be enough evidence of god, but now that I think about it, I realize that people in the past saw plenty of odd and even supernatural things, like lightning, rainbows, tornadoes, and so on, that we now have perfectly rational explanations for. Even things that we're unsure of right now, such as the actual origin of the universe and the big bang, we're slowly developing technology that could answer even that - likely not within our own lifetimes, but sometime far in the future, perhaps. And I realize, right now we consider god to be supernatural, with no proof of his existence, but if we did have proof, if he was real, we'd be able to some day study and observe him... and suddenly, this supernatural divine being, would become another part of our natural world.

...Admittedly I have no idea where I'm going with this tangent, kinda just letting thoughts tumble out of my mind and land on my keyboard >.>
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2012, 08:37 AM
RE: Burden of Proof
(02-05-2012 06:36 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Again, I agree with you, KC. There are people that claim God can't be proven and there's good logic and reason behind that claim. But if there's a God, He would at least know the things that would persuade me, and He has failed to even attempt them. My skepticism hasn't even been put to the test. Why not?

Do you want my theological answer to this?

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
03-05-2012, 09:44 AM
RE: Burden of Proof
(03-05-2012 08:37 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(02-05-2012 06:36 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Again, I agree with you, KC. There are people that claim God can't be proven and there's good logic and reason behind that claim. But if there's a God, He would at least know the things that would persuade me, and He has failed to even attempt them. My skepticism hasn't even been put to the test. Why not?
Do you want my theological answer to this?
I think I already know what your answer will be, but out of curiosity I'd like to hear it anyway, if you don't mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sethala's post
03-05-2012, 04:03 PM
RE: Burden of Proof
(03-05-2012 08:37 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(02-05-2012 06:36 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Again, I agree with you, KC. There are people that claim God can't be proven and there's good logic and reason behind that claim. But if there's a God, He would at least know the things that would persuade me, and He has failed to even attempt them. My skepticism hasn't even been put to the test. Why not?

Do you want my theological answer to this?
Yes. The question was rhetorical, but it was also one that I can't posit an answer to. I'd appreciate your point of view.

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
03-05-2012, 11:39 PM
RE: Burden of Proof
I feel the burden of proof is strictly held to the believer in x. Be it the atheist or theist, While evolution has it's own ways to be proven, if you are arguing for it you still have the burden on you to bring forward the truth which already exists. The one huge difference though is that the actual burden lays on the gnostic. Those who claim full understanding must prove full understanding. So anyone asserting a definite understanding of non-existance is just as deserving of the burden as someone insisting existance.

Just follow the basic ideas of science that there is almost no definite and you should generally call all things highly probable instead of definite. As long as you avoid being gnostic then you do not hold this burden. Though, once the evidence is provided to you by a gnostic you now have the burden of proving why it isn't evidence =p

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lilith Pride's post
04-05-2012, 01:01 AM
RE: Burden of Proof
(03-05-2012 11:39 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I feel the burden of proof is strictly held to the believer in x. Be it the atheist or theist, While evolution has it's own ways to be proven, if you are arguing for it you still have the burden on you to bring forward the truth which already exists. The one huge difference though is that the actual burden lays on the gnostic. Those who claim full understanding must prove full understanding. So anyone asserting a definite understanding of non-existance is just as deserving of the burden as someone insisting existance.

Just follow the basic ideas of science that there is almost no definite and you should generally call all things highly probable instead of definite. As long as you avoid being gnostic then you do not hold this burden. Though, once the evidence is provided to you by a gnostic you now have the burden of proving why it isn't evidence =p
I do want to add to this (or rather, your first paragraph). Yes, if someone were to say "God definitely does not exist", they would have the burden of proof. Instead, atheists are saying that it's not possible to prove that god exists (or rather, that there isn't any proof he exists), which means the burden of proof is on the one attempting to say that god does exist

Of course, going by this idea, a lack of evidence of god's existence is then very likely evidence of his non-existence. For instance, replace "god" with "vampires" and "the Bible" with "the Twilight series", and see how any argument that consists of "you can't disprove god therefore god exists because he exists in the Bible" suddenly holds a lot less water.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 03:34 AM
RE: Burden of Proof
I was under the impression that proof has already been presented?
I think the problem now is if people accept the truth or not.

But putting that aside, if we were going back like 150years then I would say that the proof would be on the atheist. I say this because if the overwhelming majority believe in God and it is the social norm to believe in God then if you say that he aint real then you better have the proof to back it up.
I think that is what has happened and I think that proof has more then been presented in a variety of different ways (not just science, but history as well, human nature etc..) and now it is just up to theists to accept it or not OR show some counter-proof, which I also think is currently being done in the form of "oh, it's not suppose to be taken literally", which isn't flying IMO, so now theists might believe that it is back on us, BUT really, theists haven't proven anything so atheists think it's still on them to prove otherwise.
That is just how I see it however.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: