Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2010, 08:31 PM
 
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(08-04-2010 08:20 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  The guy is right, Cline is it? You can shift the burden of proof on us, as it does shift between sides in a functional debate. You first have to present WHY Jesus existed, and then it is up to us to explain why you are wrong, and then back to you for explaining why we wrong. It goes back and forth, like a tennis ball, if that helps you visualize it. It starts with the positive claim, saying that something does exist. That could be an unknown creature, a reaction that occurs between two substances, god, or Jesus. Once you make an argument as to why Jesus existed, the burden is on us. So I suggest you proceed with that.

Provide us with some sort of evidence as to why something happened/someone existed.

Respectfully, from yesterday's post Unbeliever said in his response to What are each of your views on Jesus? Said "He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time.EDIT: With a healthy dose of mythology added, too." I asked him to show support or proof for his claim and he could not or would not do it. I know this is boring for most, but is a learning experience for Unbeliever. He made the claim, he needs to support it.

If I start a post that says "WHY Jesus existed" then the proof is on me. If you start a post that says "Jesus doesn't exist" then the proof is on you. The idea that you can't prove a negative is somewhat true (there are cases that you can prove a negative) is an elementary response.
Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 08:34 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(08-04-2010 08:31 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Respectfully, from yesterday's post Unbeliever said in his response to What are each of your views on Jesus? Said "He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time.EDIT: With a healthy dose of mythology added, too." I asked him to show support or proof for his claim and he could not or would not do it. I know this is boring for most, but is a learning experience for Unbeliever. He made the claim, he needs to support it.

I have. You ignoring this doesn't make it untrue.

Quote:If I start a post that says "WHY Jesus existed" then the proof is on me. If you start a post that says "Jesus doesn't exist" then the proof is on you.

And the case has been made. The case against Jesus is that there is no case for Jesus. I don't know how many ways this can be stated.

Quote:The idea that you can't prove a negative is somewhat true (there are cases that you can prove a negative) is an elementary response.

Then why do you not understand it? Asking someone to disprove the existence of Jesus is asking them to prove a negative, which is, in this case, impossible.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 08:46 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(08-04-2010 08:21 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(08-04-2010 07:44 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  I'm somewhat confused as to when you believe the burden of proof is on who. Originally, you seem to say it's the person going against the majority, then you bring up(And agree with) this argument that basically says that if you present something, you need to support it(Fulfill the burden of proof), and the defensive side doesn't get the burden of proof until you first construct and present your argument.

I agree with the article too, so I'm somewhat lost here as to where exactly we disagree.

(08-04-2010 07:15 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  If I claim first that God exists then the burden of proof is on me. If you claim God doesn’t exist first, the burden is on you.

Keep in mind most of us are not claiming that there if defiantly no god, just that according to the evidence we have examined, we see no logical reason to believe in god. No god is the default position, the defense. It works like this because there are countless things that could exists, most of which can never be conclusively proven not to exist, and we would be consistently trying to figure what isn't, rather than figuring out what is.

First of all, again, I agree with you. If I meet you on a street, and you say to me "Hi, I'm an atheist, I don't believe God exists" The burden of proof is on you to prove that God does not exist. If I meet you on the street, and I say "Hi, I'm a theist, I believe God exists" the burden of proof is on me to prove my claim. Unbeliever in his limited knowledge does not believe that because he has only gone as far as the basic atheist refutation.

As always, I take objection to personal insults, but that is you and Unbeliever.

Often times numbers of believers are substitutes for real evidence. If I go to the east coast, and talk about Mormons, they typically talk about how absurd it is. I grew up in a heavily Mormon community, so their belief don't come off as far-fetched. Do you agree that this is a faulty way of determining truth? I will presume so, but if not please speak up so that we can go to back. I'm starting to build on it now, so we will never see eye to eye unless we get to the base of our disagreements.

Continuing on, If we substitute god, something that is commonly believed, with something that is not commonly believed, we'll stick with leprechauns, we should be able to get to the base of things quicker. After-all, justification of beliefs should not be based on the number of people who believe it. So, if two people meet on the street, and the first one says, "Hi, I don't in Leprechauns", the second person shouldn't reply, "Oh yeah, why not?".

I think a distinction should be made. Lets take the Heliocentric model versus the Geocentric model. In a case like this, your analogy would fit perfectly, as both sides have the burden of proof at the same time, and should be addressed one at a time. So, the person who says that the Earth goes around the sun, they would have to justify it. Same goes for the person who says the sun goes around the Earth. The ideal position would to reject both claims until one is properly justified.

Now, as to why the two things are different. The one about Heliocentric and Geocentric is actually two subjects in direct conflation. God is just one. Is the Heliocentric model correct? The burden of proof belongs to the person saying yes. Does god exist? Same thing, it is on the people who say yes, making the positive claim, that have the burden of proof.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 08:50 PM
 
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(08-04-2010 08:28 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(08-04-2010 08:21 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  If I meet you on a street, and you say to me "Hi, I'm an atheist, I don't believe God exists" The burden of proof is on you to prove that God does not exist.

No, it is not. If I walk up to you on the street and say "Hi, I don't believe Martians have visited Earth," the burden of proof is not on me to prove that, as there is no evidence in favor of their visiting us in the first place. Only once the case for something has been established is the burden of proof on those making a case against it.

Quote:Unbeliever in his limited knowledge does not believe that because he has only gone as far as the basic atheist refutation.

Drop the insults and back up your arguments with logic instead. You'll find that it gets you a lot further, and that people have higher opinions of you as well. Insults are meaningless. As easily as you can say this, I can say that you have only gone as far as the basic theist refutation. However, the evidence is on my side. Your constant attempts to twist things around and to misrepresent the burden of proof do not change this.

You are not capable of even understanding the basics. Ashley gets it you do not so, it is a waste of time to discuss it with you. Pat yourself on the back and tell yourself how smart you are!
(08-04-2010 08:46 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  
(08-04-2010 08:21 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(08-04-2010 07:44 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  I'm somewhat confused as to when you believe the burden of proof is on who. Originally, you seem to say it's the person going against the majority, then you bring up(And agree with) this argument that basically says that if you present something, you need to support it(Fulfill the burden of proof), and the defensive side doesn't get the burden of proof until you first construct and present your argument.

I agree with the article too, so I'm somewhat lost here as to where exactly we disagree.

(08-04-2010 07:15 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  If I claim first that God exists then the burden of proof is on me. If you claim God doesn’t exist first, the burden is on you.

Keep in mind most of us are not claiming that there if defiantly no god, just that according to the evidence we have examined, we see no logical reason to believe in god. No god is the default position, the defense. It works like this because there are countless things that could exists, most of which can never be conclusively proven not to exist, and we would be consistently trying to figure what isn't, rather than figuring out what is.

First of all, again, I agree with you. If I meet you on a street, and you say to me "Hi, I'm an atheist, I don't believe God exists" The burden of proof is on you to prove that God does not exist. If I meet you on the street, and I say "Hi, I'm a theist, I believe God exists" the burden of proof is on me to prove my claim. Unbeliever in his limited knowledge does not believe that because he has only gone as far as the basic atheist refutation.

As always, I take objection to personal insults, but that is you and Unbeliever.

Often times numbers of believers are substitutes for real evidence. If I go to the east coast, and talk about Mormons, they typically talk about how absurd it is. I grew up in a heavily Mormon community, so their belief don't come off as far-fetched. Do you agree that this is a faulty way of determining truth? I will presume so, but if not please speak up so that we can go to back. I'm starting to build on it now, so we will never see eye to eye unless we get to the base of our disagreements.

Continuing on, If we substitute god, something that is commonly believed, with something that is not commonly believed, we'll stick with leprechauns, we should be able to get to the base of things quicker. After-all, justification of beliefs should not be based on the number of people who believe it. So, if two people meet on the street, and the first one says, "Hi, I don't in Leprechauns", the second person shouldn't reply, "Oh yeah, why not?".

I think a distinction should be made. Lets take the Heliocentric model versus the Geocentric model. In a case like this, your analogy would fit perfectly, as both sides have the burden of proof at the same time, and should be addressed one at a time. So, the person who says that the Earth goes around the sun, they would have to justify it. Same goes for the person who says the sun goes around the Earth. The ideal position would to reject both claims until one is properly justified.

Now, as to why the two things are different. The one about Heliocentric and Geocentric is actually two subjects in direct conflation. God is just one. Is the Heliocentric model correct? The burden of proof belongs to the person saying yes. Does god exist? Same thing, it is on the people who say yes, making the positive claim, that have the burden of proof.

Totally impressed with the response! But based on what I and others know about the burden of proof, including the atheist I posted, I disagree. You don't need to believe me, as I am a theist with an agenda, but an atheist with the agenda that God does not exist says "An even more basic principle to remember here is that some burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it"

I did not put this quote in my first post that Unbeliever claims I picked and chose from "The principle that the claimant has the initial burden of proof is often violated, however, and it isn’t unusual to find someone saying, “Well, if you don’t believe me then prove me wrong,” as if the lack of such proof automatically confers credibility on the original assertion. Yet that simply isn’t true — indeed, it’s a fallacy commonly known as “Shifting the Burden of Proof.” If a person claims something, they are obligated to support it and no one is obligated to prove them wrong"

It is simple If I claim "He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time" I need to show proof. He did not, so his point is not to be taken seriously.
Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 10:01 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(08-04-2010 08:50 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Totally impressed with the response! But based on what I and others know about the burden of proof, including the atheist I posted, I disagree. You don't need to believe me, as I am a theist with an agenda, but an atheist with the agenda that God does not exist says "An even more basic principle to remember here is that some burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it"

I did not put this quote in my first post that Unbeliever claims I picked and chose from "The principle that the claimant has the initial burden of proof is often violated, however, and it isn’t unusual to find someone saying, “Well, if you don’t believe me then prove me wrong,” as if the lack of such proof automatically confers credibility on the original assertion. Yet that simply isn’t true — indeed, it’s a fallacy commonly known as “Shifting the Burden of Proof.” If a person claims something, they are obligated to support it and no one is obligated to prove them wrong"

It is simple If I claim "He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time" I need to show proof. He did not, so his point is not to be taken seriously.

I'm going to try a different tact with you, let's see how it goes. I'm wondering if our responses are getting a little bit too wordy. So I'm going to keep this sort and sweet(Plus it's getting late where I am).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are asserting that the person saying something, anything, has to back it up, regardless of if their claim is positive or negative. So, I hear theists trying to prove that god does exist, and I feel that their arguments don't hold weight. Then I go listen to atheists, and they merely say it's not their job to prove that god doesn't exist. If I were to follow your definition of burden of proof, I would reject both claims, not believing that god does or doesn't exist. Would that be the ideal stance for the situation?

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 10:12 PM
 
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(08-04-2010 10:01 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  
(08-04-2010 08:50 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Totally impressed with the response! But based on what I and others know about the burden of proof, including the atheist I posted, I disagree. You keeping it short don't need to believe me, as I am a theist with an agenda, but an atheist with the agenda that God does not exist says "An even more basic principle to remember here is that some burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it"

I did not put this quote in my first post that Unbeliever claims I picked and chose from "The principle that the claimant has the initial burden of proof is often violated, however, and it isn’t unusual to find someone saying, “Well, if you don’t believe me then prove me wrong,” as if the lack of such proof automatically confers credibility on the original assertion. Yet that simply isn’t true — indeed, it’s a fallacy commonly known as “Shifting the Burden of Proof.” If a person claims something, they are obligated to support it and no one is obligated to prove them wrong"

It is simple If I claim "He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time" I need to show proof. He did not, so his point is not to be taken seriously.

I'm going to try a different tact with you, let's see how it goes. I'm wondering if our responses are getting a little bit too wordy. So I'm going to keep this sort and sweet(Plus it's getting late where I am).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are asserting that the person saying something, anything, has to back it up, regardless of if their claim is positive or negative. So, I hear theists trying to prove that god does exist, and I feel that their arguments don't hold weight. Then I go listen to atheists, and they merely say it's not their job to prove that god doesn't exist. If I were to follow your definition of burden of proof, I would reject both claims, not believing that god does or doesn't exist. Would that be the ideal stance for the situation?

Keeping it short because it is late for you. If you said "God does not exist" to me first, you need to show support. If I said to you first "God exists" I need to show support. You understand the burden of proof! Unbeliever said "He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time" He needs to show support for his claim. He did not so his claim is rejected.
Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 10:24 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(08-04-2010 10:12 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Keeping it short because it is late for you. If you said "God does not exist" to me first, you need to show support. If I said to you first "God exists" I need to show support. You understand the burden of proof! Unbeliever said "He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time" He needs to show support for his claim. He did not so his claim is rejected.

This will be my post for the night. Although I don't necessarily agree with what you are saying, I think I understand it.What I was asking however, is not from the view point of a debater, but from an undecided onlooker. From someone who is trying to decide if there is a god, what stance should they take? They don't find compelling reason to believe there is a god, but the only atheist argument they hear is that the atheists don't have the burden of proof. What stance should this undecided person take?

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 10:33 PM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(08-04-2010 08:50 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  You are not capable of even understanding the basics. Ashley gets it you do not so, it is a waste of time to discuss it with you. Pat yourself on the back and tell yourself how smart you are!

No, martin, it is you who does not understand the basics, and your constant ad hominem attacks against me are getting very old. You didn't even attempt to respond to what I wrote. You simply insulted me.
This doesn't make your position look very strong.
In addition, in case you hadn't noticed, ashley and I are arguing the same thing. Your new strategy for attempting to "beat" me is rather shallow, martin.

Quote:I did not put this quote in my first post that Unbeliever claims I picked and chose from

Where did I say that? I said that I couldn't believe that you had read the article and still believed yourself to be in the right. Stop strawmanning.

Quote:It is simple If I claim "He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time" I need to show proof. He did not, so his point is not to be taken seriously.

Except that I did. I have provided my reasoning several times. Stop pretending that you didn't hear me.

Quote:Unbeliever said "He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time" He needs to show support for his claim. He did not so his claim is rejected.

I did show my support for this claim. I even showed it in this thread. You simply ignored that post entirely and hoped that everyone on this site was stupid enough to not notice your dishonesty. In case you're planning on ignoring it again, here it is in big, bold, bright letters:

There were "prophets" during the time when the Bible was written.
There is no evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus.
Since there is no evidence to support the idea of a real Jesus existing, it is most likely that he was a fictional character based off of the prophets of the time.


Understand now? Or do I need to make it in Technicolor?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 11:02 PM
 
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(08-04-2010 10:33 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(08-04-2010 08:50 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  You are not capable of even understanding the basics. Ashley gets it you do not so, it is a waste of time to discuss it with you. Pat yourself on the back and tell yourself how smart you are!

No, martin, it is you who does not understand the basics, and your constant ad hominem attacks against me are getting very old. You didn't even attempt to respond to what I wrote. You simply insulted me.
This doesn't make your position look very strong.
In addition, in case you hadn't noticed, ashley and I are arguing the same thing. Your new strategy for attempting to "beat" me is rather shallow, martin.

Quote:I did not put this quote in my first post that Unbeliever claims I picked and chose from

Where did I say that? I said that I couldn't believe that you had read the article and still believed yourself to be in the right. Stop strawmanning.

Quote:It is simple If I claim "He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time" I need to show proof. He did not, so his point is not to be taken seriously.

Except that I did. I have provided my reasoning several times. Stop pretending that you didn't hear me.

Quote:Unbeliever said "He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time" He needs to show support for his claim. He did not so his claim is rejected.

I did show my support for this claim. I even showed it in this thread. You simply ignored that post entirely and hoped that everyone on this site was stupid enough to not notice your dishonesty. In case you're planning on ignoring it again, here it is in big, bold, bright letters:

There were "prophets" during the time when the Bible was written.
There is no evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus.
Since there is no evidence to support the idea of a real Jesus existing, it is most likely that he was a fictional character based off of the prophets of the time.


Understand now? Or do I need to make it in Technicolor?

I will let others on this decide if you showed proof of your claim. This will be a great test of intellectual honesty!

He just said

1. There were "prophets" during the time when the Bible was written.

2."There is no evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus.

3. Since there is no evidence to support the idea of a real Jesus existing, it is most likely that he was a fictional character based off of the prophets of the time.

Outside of his saying that, which holds zero weight, what proof did he show.

My response

1. I will grant that there were prophets during that time.
2. You said there is NO evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus. Super just linked a debate where the atheist, with impressive credentials, had no problem in admitting that Jesus existed. The idea that there is no evidence to support Jesus, whether you believe Jesus existed or not, is just as stupid as saying that the sky is green.
3. Obviously your argument is fallacious and should not be taken seriously.
Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2010, 01:38 AM
RE: Burdon of proof HOPEFULLY once and for all!
(08-04-2010 03:15 AM)Germanatheist007 Wrote:  ok, martin. I think you don´t understand the point...
We don´t want to proof that jesus was anything, we want you to show us that he existed.
You can compare that to a court. You are unguilty until it´s proofen (in the eyes of the judge) that you are guilty. But you can´t just say that anybody is guilty without any evidences. And you will probably recognize that it doesn´t make any sense to say that anything exists, just because you can´t proof the opposite. Under this circumstances you can pretty much worship anything...
NOW, proof to me that there was a jesus, that there is no allah, no vishnu, no flying spaghetti monster, that there are no oompa loompas and smurfs.

If i don´t get an answer immediatly i guess that they just undoubtedly exist.
I think you will recognize that it isn´t a question of the rules of discussion.
It´s a question of intelligence.

And now excuse my, i have to pray to his noodliness...

Dear flying spaghetti monster, because nobody could disproof you, i came to the conclusion that you exist. Let this unbelievers be touched by your noodly appendages.

In the name of Noodle, Sauce and the Holy Parmesan.

R’Amen

we already had this. First proof that he existed. Before we can talk about what he was.

PS: you started the thread so you have to give answers
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: