Burden of proof

[rosey]

Atheists/Agnostics generally claim that the burden of proof is upon the religious, particularly the Christian religious. If you ask them to disprove the Resurrection of Christ, the flood, etc., they remind you that you have the burden of proof, not them, so it's up to you to prove it, not them to disprove it. But to me, the burden of proof is generally on those who provide new ideas/theories that are against the establishment. Christianity was the establishment for round abouts 1700 years, and then all of a sudden the Atheists show up during the enlightenment with their wild new ideas and theories, and have the audacity to say Christians have the burden of proof. Please explain to me how this is possible. It is the atheistic ideas that are much more recent. You must provide ample evidence for your claims.

[Mithrae]

A fair point, but in the modern developed world Christianity (or even theism in general) is no longer the currently accepted paradigm. Its evidential underpinnings (primarily the bible and need for God to explain natural phenomena) have been largely undermined, or at least called very much into question in how we think of them.

Agh, yeah, it is. Over half of humanity conforms to one of the Abrahamic faiths. And on a Christian debate forum ... one can stand to reason that it is indeed the paradigm that needs to be knocked over.

And as I mentioned, the traditional/conservative paradigms (biblical inerrancy/literalism) have been knocked over. Of course some might deny that, perhaps believing that opposition to scientific heliocentrism and evolution were merely fringe elements not representative of paradigmatic views That aside, unless you're advocating the Quran as truth and less developed/educated countries as part of the same paradigm as we with the resources, time and money to use the interwebs at leisure, I think you've fallen from a fair point down into an argument from popularity here.

Here is one of my favorites, simply statistical analysis:

"Donald Page of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study has calculated that the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life is one out of 10x power124, a number beyond imagination."

http://jacktscully.wordpress.com/tag/pr ... -creation/

There is point in satistics when something is so improbable that it essentially becomes impossible. That generally being 10x power 50 ...

Ergo, its MUCH more probable that the universe was created rather than simply a random happenstance.

This is an excellent (and I suspect very much under-rated) point. Of course there are theories that a multitude of invisible undetectable universes exist, of which our remarkable world is but a single lucky one.

The problem is that the multiverse isn't even a theory, its just a guess with absolutely no faith. And when we have to take a multiverse, and infinitely recreating itself universe and an infinite number of universes doing the same thing to infinity ... simply to deny design, well, Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation hold sway.

I really don't know enough about the science (or science-based metaphysics) to comment intelligently on the various multiverse hypotheses, but my gut feeling is that they are indeed at least partly motivated by a denial of the fine-tuning idea.

[A Troubled Man]

Agh, yeah, its an explosion ... just like here on earth. There is an energy source, called pure energy, and it is constantly used throughout the known universe, its what released from fusion and literally powers stars. Yet these stars are created from the same thing ... which is odd, because stars are not exploding into knew universes, even if some of the massive ones do explode ... we must bear in mind that the explosion results from the running out of atoms that were created in the Big Bang in the first place ... leaving a magic ball of pure energy, a source, exploding for no reason, a detonator, for means entirely unknown.

Interesting fantasy you have there. Did you just make that up yourself? LOL

[We will argue about the semantics of what kind of explosion it was? One that just happened to leave a shock wave that is still detectable billions of years after the fact.

Sorry, but your explanation is about as silly as it gets, no argument there.

[dianaiad]

I was reading the Portable Atheist last night and I came across a quote by Carl Van Doren that, to me, seems to be a fairly irrefutable point in terms of religion. He stated that "there is no trustworthy evidence as to a god's absolute existence."

Let me explain this quote in the way that I viewed it when reading it. People who believe in God will always claim and stand true to the statement that he exists. Alright, but there is no absolute proof. 'God' has been rewritten over and over to fit different personas, religions, etc. There is no absolute form of him. And if we were to use faith to go back in history, there would quite possibly be millions of gods validated.

So it seems that the only logical response to acknowledging a magical super-being is to stand true to the fact that there is not one.

(Please excuse any naivety or lack of intellect. I've recently joined and am fascinated by these discussions!)

"absolute proof?"

What IS 'absolute proof?" Define 'absolute,' for me, would you be so kind?

[Danmark]

I agree with Dr. R, the person making the claim has the burden of proof. If I am going to publicly claim that God exists I need to prove it. However, to say you believe God exists is not a claim that God exists, only that you believe so, thus your only burden is to prove you believe God exists.

That statement of belief then is rather meaningless.

"I believe God is a Reese's Peanut butter Cup" requires only that I prove 'I believe.' So what? Does anyone care? Well, besides the folks that run the asylum?

[Danmark]

There are various burden's of proof at law; none require absolutes.

The typical civil case requires a mere preponderance of evidence; just tipping the scales one way or another. The burden is on he who alleges a fact. The plaintiff in a case bears the burden to prove his case.

In a criminal trial the burden is 'beyond reasonable doubt' [note, neither of these burdens is quantified].

In some special cases, the burden the party who alleges must bear is 'by clear, cogent, and convincing' evidence.' In the abstract at least, that is more than mere preponderance, and less than 'beyond reasonable doubt.'

In some cases, even in criminal ones, the burden re: an element may shift. For example, if the State proves the defendant was in possession of drugs, the burden then shifts to the defendant to show his possession was 'unwitting.'

Or in a murder or assault case, the State may prove the defendant shot the victim; then the burden shifts and the defendant must show he acted in self defense [by the way, self defense can be much more complicated than one might suppose].

When one alleges a fact or phenomenon that defies our generally accepted notions of science and causation (such as turning water into wine, or being dead for 3 days and becoming alive again without loss of function) the burden of proof should be higher, much higher, than if one merely asserts some natural event took place.

[ytrewq]

Moses Yoder wrote:

I agree with Dr. R, the person making the claim has the burden of proof. If I am going to publicly claim that God exists I need to prove it. However, to say you believe God exists is not a claim that God exists, only that you believe so, thus your only burden is to prove you believe God exists.

A better way of looking at this, is to say that the strength of evidence required depends on the strength of the assertion.

If someone says they are 100% dead certain that their God (or anything else) exists, then they have an onus to provide exceedingly strong evidence (proof) that their assertion is correct.

More likely, the wise theist/Christian would claim they are 'fairly certain' their God exists, in which case they have an onus to provide 'strong' evidence their God exists, but not necessarily 'proof'. Most people would agree that if someone says 'they believe' that their God exists, that is equivalent to saying they are fairly certain, but cannot completely exclude the possible that he does not, in which case 'strong evidence' rather than 'proof' will suffice.

Similarly, the wise atheist will not say he is '100% certain' that God does not exist, because that would incur the burden of proving it, which is unlikely to be possible, because in general it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. However, with that point noted, if literally no evidence is given for an assertion that something exists, we should presume that it does not, otherwise every crackpot claim under the sun would have to be assumed true unless proven otherwise.

All of this is just common sense, IMHO.

[d.thomas]

Moses Yoder wrote:

I agree with Dr. R, the person making the claim has the burden of proof. If I am going to publicly claim that God exists I need to prove it. However, to say you believe God exists is not a claim that God exists, only that you believe so, thus your only burden is to prove you believe God exists.

A better way of looking at this, is to say that the strength of evidence required depends on the strength of the assertion.

If someone says they are 100% dead certain that their God (or anything else) exists, then they have an onus to provide exceedingly strong evidence (proof) that their assertion is correct.

More likely, the wise theist/Christian would claim they are 'fairly certain' their God exists, in which case they have an onus to provide 'strong' evidence their God exists, but not necessarily 'proof'. Most people would agree that if someone says 'they believe' that their God exists, that is equivalent to saying they are fairly certain, but cannot completely exclude the possible that he does not, in which case 'strong evidence' rather than 'proof' will suffice.

Similarly, the wise atheist will not say he is '100% certain' that God does not exist, because that would incur the burden of proving it, which is unlikely to be possible, because in general it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. However, with that point noted, if literally no evidence is given for an assertion that something exists, we should presume that it does not, otherwise every crackpot claim under the sun would have to be assumed true unless proven otherwise.

All of this is just common sense, IMHO.

Yes, anything presented without evidence can be reasonably and summarily dismissed without evidence, especially ideas of a Santa Claus in the sky that adults hold on to. Sometimes I wish that people would just grow up.

[ytrewq]

Moses Yoder wrote:

I agree with Dr. R, the person making the claim has the burden of proof. If I am going to publicly claim that God exists I need to prove it. However, to say you believe God exists is not a claim that God exists, only that you believe so, thus your only burden is to prove you believe God exists.

A better way of looking at this, is to say that the strength of evidence required depends on the strength of the assertion.

If someone says they are 100% dead certain that their God (or anything else) exists, then they have an onus to provide exceedingly strong evidence (proof) that their assertion is correct.

More likely, the wise theist/Christian would claim they are 'fairly certain' their God exists, in which case they have an onus to provide 'strong' evidence their God exists, but not necessarily 'proof'. Most people would agree that if someone says 'they believe' that their God exists, that is equivalent to saying they are fairly certain, but cannot completely exclude the possible that he does not, in which case 'strong evidence' rather than 'proof' will suffice.

Similarly, the wise atheist will not say he is '100% certain' that God does not exist, because that would incur the burden of proving it, which is unlikely to be possible, because in general it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. However, with that point noted, if literally no evidence is given for an assertion that something exists, we should presume that it does not, otherwise every crackpot claim under the sun would have to be assumed true unless proven otherwise.

All of this is just common sense, IMHO.

Yes, anything presented without evidence can be reasonably and summarily dismissed without evidence, especially ideas of a Santa Claus in the sky that adults hold on to. Sometimes I wish that people would just grow up.

Well, yes, except that theists DO have evidence, even though it is usually subjective and inconclusive. Opinions will differ as to the quantity and quality of the evidence available, and the weight that should be given to scripture and 'personal feelings and experiences'. However, that is not the topic of this thread. IMHO, the principle of 'Burden of proof' is clear and logical, and applies equally to all that make a claim, but arguments about quality and quantity of evidence will likely go on forever.

[Darias]

Well, yes, except that theists DO have evidence, even though it is usually subjective and inconclusive. Opinions will differ as to the quantity and quality of the evidence available, and the weight that should be given to scripture and 'personal feelings and experiences'. However, that is not the topic of this thread. IMHO, the principle of 'Burden of proof' is clear and logical, and applies equally to all that make a claim, but arguments about quality and quantity of evidence will likely go on forever.

It's commendable that you understand and accept the burden of proof, and while the types of evidence could be many, there is no debate as to the nature of what evidence actually is. Subjective, personal revelation is by its very nature the opposite of evidence.

Evidence is available for anyone to examine and it provides the same information to everyone. Personal experience is highly subjective and varies from person to person.

When non-theists ask theists for evidence, we are not saying, "please give us your testimony and don't by shy about all the wonderful feelings you've experienced along the way." Sincerity, dreams, good feelings, delusions, or any of the above are not evidence; there is no debate for that.

The genuine sincere belief of a child in Santa, and any conversations the child might imagine having with said "being," does not constitute as empirical evidence for Saint Nick.

Personal experiences are not proof of god. They mean nothing to anyone apart from the person who experienced them; and they themselves have no intrinsic meaning apart from what is given to them.

For example, a Muslim may have a wonderful feeling of joy after prayer and may consider it an encounter with Allah's love. But this isn't proof of Islam; this is evidence that the person is experiencing brain chemistry -- nothing more.

[Student]

Here is one of my favorites, simply statistical analysis:

"Donald Page of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study has calculated that the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life is one out of 10x power124, a number beyond imagination."

http://jacktscully.wordpress.com/tag/pr ... -creation/

There is point in satistics when something is so improbable that it essentially becomes impossible. That generally being 10x power 50 ...

Ergo, its MUCH more probable that the universe was created rather than simply a random happenstance.

This is an excellent (and I suspect very much under-rated) point. Of course there are theories that a multitude of invisible undetectable universes exist, of which our remarkable world is but a single lucky one.

The problem is that the multiverse isn't even a theory, its just a guess with absolutely no faith. And when we have to take a multiverse, and infinitely recreating itself universe and an infinite number of universes doing the same thing to infinity ... simply to deny design, well, Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation hold sway.

How peculiar. You dismiss the idea of a multiverse, and present “evidence� for intelligent design, from [allegedly] Dr. Don Page.

However, it would appear that Dr. Page is in fact, a proponent of the hypothesis of a created multiverse e.g.: “Does God So Love the Multiverse?�
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/080 ... 0246v5.pdf

Furthermore, far from supporting the hypothesis of fine tuning for life, Dr. Page has published a paper refuting it: "Evidence Against Fine Tuning for Life"
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/110 ... 2444v1.pdf

Finally, while I would not suggest dismissing Dr. Page’s views, simply because he is an evangelical Christian, it is equally important to recognise that he is not quite the objective, disinterested scientific commentator, we might otherwise have been lead to suspect.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... ne-tuning/