The Burden of Proof

[McCulloch]

Certain atheists claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is anything other than a collection of myths and tales.

Certain Christians claim that there is no proof that the Bible is in error about anything that it contains.

The question for debate: Where does the burden of proof lie? Is it the responsibility of the doubters to disprove the Bible? Is it the responsibility of the believers to show that it is true, or is it enough for them to rely on the lack of any disproof?

[Easyrider]

Rule # 3 in the sub-forum guidelines states: "For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence."

I can therefore claim, according to forum guidelines, the accounts of the individuals, places, and events in the Gospels are true. And while that is not entirely conclusive, it does rise to the level of evidence according to the forum guidelines.

Now, it's up to the skeptics to knock that evidence down with substantive arguments and evidence.

[Scotracer]

Couldn't the very same logic be used and say that all religious texts are evidence? We get no-where doing such a thing and as such I don't agree with circular reasoning (i.e. the bible says it's true because it says it's the word of god and the word of god is true) being used as reasoning of...well, anything.

The only way we can show that we even exist is that we have multiple, independent senses that all substantiate each other - I know I'm typing because I can see the screen and keyboard, feel the keys and hear myself tap the keys. Hence I come to the conclusion that I am doing so...to rely on just one sense is not enough proof as it is quite easily fooled.

[Easyrider]

The only way we can show that we even exist is that we have multiple, independent senses that all substantiate each other -

You mean like the four Gospels (and other NT writings) that all attest to Jesus being resurrected?

[Zzyzx]

.

Where does the burden of proof lie?

The burden of proof lies on the one making a claim. If the claim is that the Bible is a fairy tale, for example, then the one making such claim assumes the burden of proof.

EXCELLENT. I agree 100%

If the claim is made that bible is a fairytale, the maker of the claim is ethically required to furnish proof.

LIKEWISE, if a claim is made that bible stories are true, the one making the claim has the burden of proof.

In the C&A subforum the bible is not considered any more authoritative than any other book. See "Guidelines for C&A subforum"

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741

[Scotracer]

What, the 4 gospels that can't agree on most things? I really do fail to see why people use the gospels at all in an argument when 16 of them were not canonised. Like the truth can ever be found through popular opinion...

And the gospels were written in such a hap-hazard way over the course of a number of generations that they should be taken with a massive grain of salt as a condiment. They can't even agree on when Jesus was/may have been crucified...

[JoeyKnothead]

Rule # 3 in the sub-forum guidelines states: "For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence."

I can therefore claim, according to forum guidelines, the accounts of the individuals, places, and events in the Gospels are true. And while that is not entirely conclusive, it does rise to the level of evidence according to the forum guidelines.

Now, it's up to the skeptics to knock that evidence down with substantive arguments and evidence.

This is a problem for the C&A subforum - when a book that can't be shown to be true in the real world is somehow considered true on a debate site.

Seems there's no need to offer evidence, just point to the claim in the Bible and it is magically considered as evidence.

[Goose]

For someone that believes that little blue furred monkey-men with webbed feet are possible, I find the above rejection of the supernatural rather comical.

I demonstrated each of those traits as existing in the human population (usually in the form of a recessive allele), that's called evidence. All I did was compound them in to one creature, something that's feasible based off of known laws of inheritance. Or do you question my logical deduction based on those premises?(my deduction being that those genetic traits can be passed to offspring)

What you did was take some data that can be observed and then used your imagination to construct a proof for the idea that man evolved from an ape-like creature. That is hardly a deduction.

You said in post 7 of this thread:

It's not hard to prove donkeys and snakes don't talk to humans, or that people don't rise from the dead, or that you can't turn water into wine. Now wait a minute, what do we call tales that have fantastical fictional claims that can't be shown true in reality? You'll have to refresh my memory.

But the fantastical fictional claim that man can evolve into little blue furred monkey-men with webbed feet can't be shown true in reality either. Yet, you feel these bizarre fantastical creatures are entirely plausible.

I also noticed you backed off the thread, why was that?

Arguments from imagination and hypothetical are a waste of time IMHO. I wouldn't even have wandered into that thread in the first place if you hadn't directly requested my input in another thread.

My hypothetical offered much in the way evidence, much more than creationists searching for snake vocal chords could venture to find.

Your manipulated hypothetical offered a very remote possibility. Are you saying that the burden of proof need only be that we can imagine something? And that as long as that something could be possible given the right circumstances that is enough?

No. You haven't used my logic correctly.

Please, for my sake, could you clarify what you meant then?

Evidence for the Resurrection
Evidence and double standards

[SEALBoy]

I think an important point needs to be made with regards to the "Burden of Proof" question. My comments here apply not only to Christianity but to virtually all religions (including, some might say, Atheism).

When one asks for proof, what type of proof do they expect? Whoever is set with the Burden of Proof must come up with evidence that their claim is true. The only evidence that could be accepted beyond doubt would be scientific evidence that we can see/hear/smell/touch/whatever ourselves.

Here is where the "Burden of Proof" concept breaks down for religions. Religions are not supposed to be scientifically proved or disproved. There is a "Leap of Faith" involved in every religion that cannot be bridged by science. Logically, this makes sense - religion is seen as a test of faith from God, but how can it be a test of faith if it can be demonstrated scientifically that something is, in fact, true.

It is up to each person individually to determine whether they can make that leap of faith. Some will continue to demand hard scientific proof (such as seeing God, etc). Others will be able bridge what is written in the religious texts with what they see around them and make sense of it - thereby believing and completing the "Leap of Faith".

In the end, I don't think there IS a Burden of Proof. No, we can't prove that God exists - but neither can the Atheists DISPROVE that God exists. The lack of proof for God's existence does not constitute proof of God's non-existence (that is a logical fallacy). Belief in the existence of God is something one has to understand and realize themselves from context.

Anyways... those are my thoughts. Sorry for the long post.

[bernee51]

First – a welcome to the forum..I hope you find it interesting and stimulating.

I think an important point needs to be made with regards to the "Burden of Proof" question. My comments here apply not only to Christianity but to virtually all religions (including, some might say, Atheism).

Except that atheism is not a religion and, if the atheist makes no claims, other than a non belief in deities, there is no ‘burden of proof’ on the atheist.

Like wise if a theist merely states he has a belief in deities – no burden of proof.

When that theist makes specific claims about their god and its interactions with its ‘creation’ – a burden of proof arises.

When one asks for proof, what type of proof do they expect? ourselves.

Proof verifiable by objective evidence that is open to being falsifiable. Claims in religious documents such as the bible do not meet this criterion.

Here is where the "Burden of Proof" concept breaks down for religions. Religions are not supposed to be scientifically proved or disproved. There is a "Leap of Faith" involved in every religion that cannot be bridged by science. Logically, this makes sense - religion is seen as a test of faith from God, but how can it be a test of faith if it can be demonstrated scientifically that something is, in fact, true.

Exactly – if the theist says I believe in god and makes no other claims – no problems. When other claims are made – e.g. their god is the source of morals, their god came to earth and did stuff, and their god intervenes still in the matters of humanity and is going to smite me for not believing – then this is more than a ‘leap of faith’ is it not?

In the end, I don't think there IS a Burden of Proof.

There isn’t as long as the condition of belief are adhered to – as soon as other claims are made then there certainly is a ‘burden of proof’

No, we can't prove that God exists - but neither can the Atheists DISPROVE that God exists.

Now that is going to depend on the claims made in respect of that god.

The lack of proof for God's existence does not constitute proof of God's non-existence (that is a logical fallacy).

Indeed that is the case. But it is rather interesting how similar looking are the invisible and the non existent.

And as long as there is no need or reason for, nor evidence of, any god I have no option than to come to the conclusion that there is no god.

Belief in the existence of God is something one has to understand and realize themselves from context.

And that context is invariably that said belief brings meaning and legitimacy to the life of the believer in the face of the apparent suffering in that surrounds them

Anyways... those are my thoughts. Sorry for the long post.

Thank you fro contributing.

May you be happy, kind, loving and peaceful.

[byofrcs]

I think an important point needs to be made with regards to the "Burden of Proof" question. My comments here apply not only to Christianity but to virtually all religions (including, some might say, Atheism).

....only to the few atheists who make a positive claim that there is no god/s. Very few do. Atheists in general do not make such positive claims because they are atheist but when they are say, methodical naturalists and there is no room for god/s.

When one asks for proof, what type of proof do they expect? Whoever is set with the Burden of Proof must come up with evidence that their claim is true. The only evidence that could be accepted beyond doubt would be scientific evidence that we can see/hear/smell/touch/whatever ourselves.

Here is where the "Burden of Proof" concept breaks down for religions. Religions are not supposed to be scientifically proved or disproved. There is a "Leap of Faith" involved in every religion that cannot be bridged by science. Logically, this makes sense - religion is seen as a test of faith from God, but how can it be a test of faith if it can be demonstrated scientifically that something is, in fact, true.

It is up to each person individually to determine whether they can make that leap of faith. Some will continue to demand hard scientific proof (such as seeing God, etc). Others will be able bridge what is written in the religious texts with what they see around them and make sense of it - thereby believing and completing the "Leap of Faith".

In the end, I don't think there IS a Burden of Proof. No, we can't prove that God exists - but neither can the Atheists DISPROVE that God exists. The lack of proof for God's existence does not constitute proof of God's non-existence (that is a logical fallacy). Belief in the existence of God is something one has to understand and realize themselves from context.

Anyways... those are my thoughts. Sorry for the long post.

You have highlighted the difference between the subjective and objective which will always be at the centre of the arguments.

It is not unique to theology. For instance the ASA (Advertising Standards Association) in the UK is very specific and adverts can contain subjective claims in which there is no need to provide any material proof, or they can contain objective claims in which there must be shown to have proof.

Religion and Politics are the two major exclusions as well as other subjective i.e. "opinions". In the recent example of the Bus advertising, the ASA here highlights the issue in that "the ad was an expression of the advertiser’s opinion and that the claims in it were not capable of objective substantiation. "

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice shows here precisely how Christians twist the argument around and place the burden on the other party even though they refuse to accept that the burden is on the Christians to prove that there is a God in the first place.

The traditional approach of promoting a religion has been through force or proscription. This doesn't work in the west any more and we shouldn't permit it to apply in any forum.