Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-09-2012, 08:44 AM
Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
The dynamic allocation of the burden of proof is a legal term/theory that basically says that the part who is in the best condition to provide the proof for an alleged fact must provide it.

This theory obviously drifts away from the classic system, this is because sometimes is too costly or even impossible for a part to provide said proof, the typical example is the clinical history, that is usually in the hands of the doctor or the medical institution, if you were to sue that doctor then he should provide the clinical history because there's no way for you to do it.

With that in mind, and noticing that a vast majority of theists are completely and utterly incapable of providing a logically sound argument for the existence of god, and that thinking atheists, as you guys are, well... most of you (the atheist part... aaand the thinking too) are by far in a better condition to prove something logically. I thought that we should try to be fair and see if we can come up with something like a proof of the non existence (or at least as close as we can) of god.


But HOW?! you may ask. So I summon "MODUS TOLLENS":

if P --> Q
and -Q
--> -P

this would read something like this: If god exists, this implies X. If X doesn't exist, then there's no god.


So, what would the existence of god imply? and before that! what is a god?

And there's where I pose the challenge, can we come up with an universal, omni-comprehensive definition of god? If so, then we can move on to what does that imply... and if we can prove that wrong we would have proved god doesn't exist Smartass

So, what do you guys think? can we? Consider

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 08:48 AM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
(13-09-2012 08:44 AM)nach_in Wrote:  If god exists, this implies X. If X doesn't exist, then there's no god.

X = Babel fish.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
13-09-2012, 09:23 AM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
I don't think it's possible. Because god is an idea, there's no limit to how abstract or flexible theist 'facts' can be. You can't squeeze logic out of BS.

"You want proof of god? The universe exists. If there was no god, the universe wouldn't be here." This would probably be followed by 'we can't understand the divine, perfection, god's plan, etc.'

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 09:53 AM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
(13-09-2012 09:23 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  I don't think it's possible. Because god is an idea, there's no limit to how abstract or flexible theist 'facts' can be. You can't squeeze logic out of BS.

"You want proof of god? The universe exists. If there was no god, the universe wouldn't be here." This would probably be followed by 'we can't understand the divine, perfection, god's plan, etc.'

but right there you have a definition: god is an individual entity not bound by the principle of causality and with the power to create an universe. Is this definition enough? and if so, what does imply?

I'm not too interested in how a theist would react, I'm trying to see if first we can make their case as solid as possible... then destroy it [Image: Evil.gif]

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 10:39 AM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
(13-09-2012 08:44 AM)nach_in Wrote:  So, what would the existence of god imply? and before that! what is a god?

And there's where I pose the challenge, can we come up with an universal, omni-comprehensive definition of god?
This is where I think you will run into the biggest obstacle. One could come up with a definition of god, but there are as many possible definitions as there are already conceived gods plus all the gods that can simply be imagined and don't actually exist in anyone's belief system. Furthermore, even people within the same faith can't always agree on the definition of their one god.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
13-09-2012, 10:46 AM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
(13-09-2012 10:39 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(13-09-2012 08:44 AM)nach_in Wrote:  So, what would the existence of god imply? and before that! what is a god?

And there's where I pose the challenge, can we come up with an universal, omni-comprehensive definition of god?
This is where I think you will run into the biggest obstacle. One could come up with a definition of god, but there are as many possible definitions as there are already conceived gods plus all the gods that can simply be imagined and don't actually exist in anyone's belief system. Furthermore, even people within the same faith can't always agree on the definition of their one god.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but there's a limit for the definition or it's just not a god anymore. The only characteristic I think is the most fundamental is that a god must participate in the creation of EVERYTHING, without that it's just a glorified alien. I think that it should also be some sort of sentient being, but I'm not sure about that one Undecided

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 10:51 AM (This post was last modified: 13-09-2012 10:55 AM by Vosur.)
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
(13-09-2012 10:46 AM)nach_in Wrote:  Yes, I'm aware of that, but there's a limit for the definition or it's just not a god anymore. The only characteristic I think is the most fundamental is that a god must participate in the creation of EVERYTHING, without that it's just a glorified alien.
No, that's not a fundamental characteristic at all.

-> Polytheism
-> Norse gods
-> Egyptian gods
-> Greek and Roman gods

(13-09-2012 10:46 AM)nach_in Wrote:  I think that it should also be some sort of sentient being, but I'm not sure about that one Undecided
A god doesn't have to be sentient either.

-> Deism
-> Pantheism

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 11:08 AM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
I agree that the definition of god is the limiting factor here. Especially if we are talking about a "personal god". You could come up with an individual's definition of god, but then you would be disproving that specific god, not "god" as a whole.

Honestly, I think that the only reason there are still so many believers in this world is because they all define god differently. I can't count how many times I've heard, "well, that's not MY god!"
It's a convenient way to make sure that no matter how much logic you apply, the believer can always change the rules.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stark Raving's post
13-09-2012, 11:14 AM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
So you want to prove that something non-existent is in fact non-existent.
I don't have an invisible, intangible apple in my hand. How can I go about proving that ?

Hmmmm ??

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
13-09-2012, 11:15 AM
RE: Dynamic allocation of the burden of proof
No. 'Cause we go, "God is an assmunch," and they go, "not my God." There's too much ambiguity in the terminology. I consider "Gwyneth Paltrow is God" to be a hundred percent in keeping with the spirit of scripture, and mofos wanna quibble about letter of the law. Dodgy

And who gives a fuck? Who cares that we define "x" if we're just gonna say, "x does not exist?"

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: