Burden of proof
Moderator: Moderators
Burden of proof
Post #1Atheists/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.
Post #61
There are setting in which only one side has a burden of proof. In a high school debate club or in a legal courtroom there is a set burden of proof for one side.
In an adult discussion everyone has a burden of proof.
I think we all like the idea of only the other guy having a burden of proof. That way I can make wild attacks without worrying about my own position being able to stand up to the same criticisms.
If we are going to have a serious debate about anything of importance then we all need to abandon that approach. We must each accept the burden of proof or we will never be able to move forward.
In an adult discussion everyone has a burden of proof.
I think we all like the idea of only the other guy having a burden of proof. That way I can make wild attacks without worrying about my own position being able to stand up to the same criticisms.
If we are going to have a serious debate about anything of importance then we all need to abandon that approach. We must each accept the burden of proof or we will never be able to move forward.
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo
-
Fuzzy Dunlop
- Guru
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:24 am
Post #62
Hi. I'm the Emperor of Saturn and I am writing this message to you from my space yacht. Prove me wrong.bjs wrote: There are setting in which only one side has a burden of proof. In a high school debate club or in a legal courtroom there is a set burden of proof for one side.
In an adult discussion everyone has a burden of proof.
I think we all like the idea of only the other guy having a burden of proof. That way I can make wild attacks without worrying about my own position being able to stand up to the same criticisms.
If we are going to have a serious debate about anything of importance then we all need to abandon that approach. We must each accept the burden of proof or we will never be able to move forward.
It seems to me that it has long been accepted that in "adult discussions" the person making the positive assertion bears the burden of proof. It seems silly to me in an adult discussion that you would be expected to provide evidence that I am not the Emperor of Saturn. You disagree?
Post #63
It seems to me that the non-theist does claim something--viz, that our universe and our selves might well have come to be without the involvement of any personal causation.R34L1TY wrote:...The burden of Proof is on the person who claims something...
I have never seen a non-theist provide evidence for such claim. There doesn't appear to be any possible way for supporting evidence to be found.
What we have then are two alternative hypotheses--theism, which involves causal mechanisms of necessity and personal agency, and non-theism, which involves only necessary causation--and no way to empirically prove one hypothesis or another. There are debates over which position is more rational, but all such debates will be subjective and inconclusive.
For me, however, non-theism is akin to looking at a newspaper and seeing black markings; theism, by contrast, looks at the black markings and finds meaning. The question then is not, "Do newspaper publishers exist?" but rather, "Does the newspaper actually convey any objective meaning?"
I am a work in process; I do not claim absolute knowledge or absolute certainty; I simply present the best working hypothesis I have at the moment, always pending new information and further insight.
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
-
A Troubled Man
- Guru
- Posts: 2301
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:24 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #64
That point is that there is NO evidence for any involvement of anyone or anything aside from the physical laws of the universe. One obviously can't assert such a thing if no evidence is available to make the assertion.EduChris wrote:
It seems to me that the non-theist does claim something--viz, that our universe and our selves might well have come to be without the involvement of any personal causation.
I have never seen a non-theist provide evidence for such claim. There doesn't appear to be any possible way for supporting evidence to be found.
Post #65
How do you know there's no evidence? How many universes have you observed springing into being without any involvement from personal causation? How do you know such a thing could occur without any involvement from personal causation?A Troubled Man wrote:...That point is that there is NO evidence for any involvement of anyone or anything...
Where did these "physical laws" come from, and what are they? Are they material things? Did they evolve from chaos, from non-law? Or are they eternal? Might these "physical laws" have been different? Could there be other universes operating under different "physical laws"?A Troubled Man wrote:...aside from the physical laws of the universe...
I guess you'll need to drop you claim that our universe might possibly have come to be without any personal causation, given that there is absolutely no evidence for such claim.A Troubled Man wrote:...One obviously can't assert such a thing if no evidence is available to make the assertion.
I am a work in process; I do not claim absolute knowledge or absolute certainty; I simply present the best working hypothesis I have at the moment, always pending new information and further insight.
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
-
A Troubled Man
- Guru
- Posts: 2301
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:24 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #66
None has been produced, hence, no evidence. Just like we have no evidence for the existence of unicorns and leprechauns.EduChris wrote:
How do you know there's no evidence?
The evidence would show an involvement of personal causation, but it doesn't, hence we can't make that assertion without something to support it.How many universes have you observed springing into being without any involvement from personal causation? How do you know such a thing could occur without any involvement from personal causation?
You have lots of questions and there are answers for them if you choose to look and understand them. I'm not here to teach you those things, that is something you need to do.Where did these "physical laws" come from, and what are they? Are they material things? Did they evolve from chaos, from non-law? Or are they eternal? Might these "physical laws" have been different? Could there be other universes operating under different "physical laws"?
Sorry, but there is no evidence for personal causation and only evidence by physical laws. Sorry, that you don't understand such a simple concept.I guess you'll need to drop you claim that our universe might possibly have come to be without any personal causation, given that there is evidence for such claim.
-
Fuzzy Dunlop
- Guru
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:24 am
Post #67
How do you know it couldn't? Until strong evidence is available one way or the other, it would seem premature to jump to either conclusion. In the meantime I think "I don't know" is the reasonable position.EduChris wrote:How do you know such a thing could occur without any involvement from personal causation?
Post #68
Our universe and our selves are the evidence.A Troubled Man wrote:None has been produced...EduChris wrote:How do you know there's no evidence?
Many people do find evidence of personal causation. That is the matter to be decided, but you appear to be assuming your conclusion without any argument whatever.A Troubled Man wrote:...The evidence would show an involvement of personal causation, but it doesn't...
If you are going to adduce "physical laws" in support of your claim that impersonal "physical laws" fully account for our universe and our selves, then you need to understand these things well enough to explain and discuss them in a debate.A Troubled Man wrote:You have lots of questions and there are answers for them if you choose to look and understand them. I'm not here to teach you those things, that is something you need to do...Where did these "physical laws" come from, and what are they? Are they material things? Did they evolve from chaos, from non-law? Or are they eternal? Might these "physical laws" have been different? Could there be other universes operating under different "physical laws"?
Perhaps you need to investigate the concept of circular reasoning.A Troubled Man wrote:...there is no evidence for personal causation and only evidence by physical laws. Sorry, that you don't understand such a simple concept.
In other words, you can't logically claim that "physical laws" are impersonal if you don't know where physical laws come from, or why they operate as they do, or if they could be different than they are, or anything else about them. You can't logically claim that "physical laws" are impersonal if you can't tell the difference between impersonal physical laws and physical laws which derive from personal causation.
I am a work in process; I do not claim absolute knowledge or absolute certainty; I simply present the best working hypothesis I have at the moment, always pending new information and further insight.
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
Post #69
The evidence is already here, right before our eyes. Our universe and our selves are the only evidence we have to work with.Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...Until strong evidence is available one way or the other, it would seem premature to jump to either conclusion...
"I don't know" is a starting point for investigation. We can experiment with the consequences derived from theistic assumptions, and compare them with the consequences derived from non-theistic assumptions.Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...In the meantime I think "I don't know" is the reasonable position.
What the lazy non-theist does (in contrast to the due-diligent non-theist) is simply assert that non-theism is the "default position," failing to realize that non-theism involves a very real claim, and then refusing to evaluate and compare the respective consequences which derive from the alternative starting points.
I am a work in process; I do not claim absolute knowledge or absolute certainty; I simply present the best working hypothesis I have at the moment, always pending new information and further insight.
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
-
A Troubled Man
- Guru
- Posts: 2301
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:24 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #70
Yet, our universe and our selves are evidence only of the natural laws and nothing more.EduChris wrote: Our universe and our selves are the evidence.
No, they don't, they irrational believe due to incredulity there is evidence for personal causation.Many people do find evidence of personal causation.
Sorry, but I'm not here to provide you an education. Answering your questions, as you very well know, will take pages and pages and pages of discourse. And, this information is readily available all over the internet and in books.
If you are going to adduce "physical laws" in support of your claim that impersonal "physical laws" fully account for our universe and our selves, then you need to understand these things well enough to explain and discuss them in a debate.
I do understand it. What is your point?Perhaps you need to investigate the concept of circular reasoning.
On the contrary, I do understand those things, you don't, that is the difference.In other words, you can't logically claim that "physical laws" are impersonal if you don't know where physical laws come from, or why they operate as they do, or if they could be different than they are, or anything else about them.
You can't logically claim that "physical laws" are impersonal if you can't tell the difference between impersonal physical laws and physical laws which derive from personal causation.
There is no such thing as "impersonal physical laws" there are just physical laws.
