Burden of Proof

[Flail]

Using American Jurisprudence as guide, are the developed judicial Burdens of Proof applicable for proving a god? Our judicial system is time tested as a reliable, although not perfect, method of testing and proving claims. It is governed by specific rules of evidence as discussed on other threads. Those rules dictate what types of evidence are admissible as reliable and trustworthy and what evidence is not.

Burdens of Proof are distinct from rules of admissable evidence. The claimant always has the burden of proving his claim by the evidence to clear certain standards or hurdles. These burdens are higher the more there is at stake. If someone's life or liberty is at stake(criminal law), the claim must be proved by evidence that is so strong and so convincing to the trier of fact(judge or jury) that it is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'; if punitive and compensatory damages are at stake(fraud, intentional tort), the claim must be proved by 'clear and convincing' evidence; if only compensatory damages are at stake(negligence,unintentional torts), the claim must be proved by a 'greater weight' of evidence, ie 'more probably true than not true'.

Question for debate:
Which of these Burdens of Proof should apply for evidence proving any 'God claims' or proving that a God exists?

1. Beyond any doubt(certainty).
2. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. By clear and convincing evidence.
4. By a greater weight of evidence, 'more probably true than not true'.
5. Other(explain)

[The Mad Haranguer]

One more thing, but this about the moderators. They are apparently a bunch of enabling imbeciles who cant see that posters use them and the posted rules as an excuse for diatribe.

[Flail]

The Mad Haranguer wrote:

Apologetics (from Greek , "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (usually religious) through the systematic use of reason.There is nothing in the definition that says apologetics needs to prove anything. Yet, there are several arguments for God's existence. Taken one at a time they fall short of being convincing even in my mind. Taken together, the strongest case atheism can make for itself is usually considered to be the "problem of evil," but that problem is something the believer need only answer to his own satisfaction. It's called "wrestling with God."

With maybe one exception, atheists is this forum favor disallowing reasoned arguments and hold steadfast to the belief that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This, by itself, shows what lengths atheists will go to in order to avoid genuine dialogue, but they go further. There is an irrational, even pathological insistence that God is something that is knowable like a table or chair. God must be objectively knowable or He cannot exist. They ignore what believers through history have said and they ignore statements like God being "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" (Anselm) and "God does not exist but is existence itself" (common to both Jewish and Christian mystical traditions). Some still think the parody of a "flying spaghetti monster" is a deeply profound argument.

You incorrectly assume that those who disagree with you are atheists. If someone makes a truth claim that no 'gods' exist but has no verifiable evidence for that claim, then I would agree that they are the same as the theist who claims without verifiable evidence that a 'God' does exist. Without a definition of an actual supernatural being and without evidence of such a being,how does one ascertain existence or non-existence? IMO, the difference between the atheist and the theist arises by indoctrination. Christianity and Islam for example, are fraught with all sorts of indoctrination processes that substitute for evidence and which are utilized by and upon the believer to convince him of things that IMO are not even probable let alone likely. This is flawed,unreasonable and irrational. I agree that gods could be spirit or almost anything, but why not wait for evidence rather than take leaps of faith that draw lines in the sand that put people on one side or the other? Why concoct a particular 'god' and support it with dogma and ritual? Why do muslims and christians insist upon such behavior?

[Crazy Ivan]

There is nothing in the definition that says apologetics needs to prove anything.

Reason proves belief in a claim is reasonable. Even if by your standards logic/reason does not prove something, it is accepted as support of an argument in this forum.

Yet, there are several arguments for God's existence. Taken one at a time they fall short of being convincing even in my mind. Taken together, the strongest case atheism can make for itself is usually considered to be the "problem of evil," but that problem is something the believer need only answer to his own satisfaction.

"Taken together", the arguments don't validate each other. A flawed argument is a flawed argument regardless of how much company it has. If the premises of an argument don't contemplate other arguments, their presence is irrelevant.

It's called "wrestling with God."

It's wrestling with theists, at best.

With maybe one exception, atheists is this forum favor disallowing reasoned arguments(...)

Not at all. Reasoned arguments for theistic claims are in short supply here, and are held in great esteem.

and hold steadfast to the belief that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

It is most definitely evidence of absent reasoned belief.

This, by itself, shows what lengths atheists will go to in order to avoid genuine dialogue, but they go further. There is an irrational, even pathological insistence that God is something that is knowable like a table or chair.

If "god" wasn't knowable in debating ways, theists would not be here to debate on the matter. It's not the atheist's fault if theists such as yourself come to a debate forum, presuming "god" is unknowable in any objective sense, thus challenging the very rules they agreed to abide by.

God must be objectively knowable or He cannot exist.

Certainly not debated on with non-believers.

They ignore what believers through history have said and they ignore statements like God being "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" (Anselm)(...)

This has been debated on. That's why some of us are here.

and "God does not exist but is existence itself" (common to both Jewish and Christian mystical traditions).

I don't think I ever challenged the existence of "god" as "existence itself". Like I never challenged the existence of "god" as my belly button fluff. People can call "god" to whatever they want, I don't have a problem with definitions. Just with the claims attached to them.

Some still think the parody of a "flying spaghetti monster" is a deeply profound argument.

Not at all. It's actually meant to convey how much the other gods lack actual depth, since they're based on the same flawed reasoning.

Okay, some atheists justify themselves by saying they are only addressing positive or "truth claims." Yeah, right. These are the same ones who criticize me for saying what I do about the limitations of concepts and different kinds of knowing.

You're not criticized for saying those things, or complaining about the nature of the forum and of debate, you're criticized for cluttering debate threads with them, instead of posting them in the appropriate subforums.

There's no counterpoint, no debate; just an unverified opinion or "truth claim," saying things like, "It seems as if some are ashamed of their indoctrination. They produce no verifiable evidence to their truth claims." HELLO!! I've never said that such evidence was possible.

This is like an alleged expert at something agreeing to offer an expert opinion in court concerning some evidence, knowing what the court is all about (agreeing to the rules), and then saying "HELLO!! I've never said that such evidence was possible." There's all kinds of problems with that.

And as far as being "ashamed," they are right: I'm ashamed to be part of a species that could produce such hypocrites and buffoons.

I often feel the same way.

[micatala]

Moderator Formal Warning

One more thing, but this about the moderators. They are apparently a bunch of enabling imbeciles who cant see that posters use them and the posted rules as an excuse for diatribe.

It is against the rules to challenge moderator decisions within a thread. This post is also uncivil. Referring to members as "imbeciles" is against the rules, whether or not they are moderators.



If you have questions on other users engaging in "diatribe", you can ask via PM. I will note that what constitutes diatribe can be in the eye of the beholder, and we have no explicit rule against diatribe.

[Flail]

Question for debate:
Which of these Burdens of Proof should apply for evidence proving any 'God claims' or proving that a God exists?

1. Beyond any doubt(certainty).
2. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. By clear and convincing evidence.
4. By a greater weight of evidence, 'more probably true than not true'.
5. Other(explain)

I'm going to go with curtain number 2, "Beyond a reasonable doubt". I'd like to note that a supernatural claim, in my opinion, leaves a lot more room for reasonable doubt than any mundane claim, so I think it would be much harder to prove that Jesus came back to life after being dead for 3 days than to prove that a person is a serial killer.

I don't think "clear and convincing evidence" is enough to conclusively prove the existence of a god, but I can say that if I was presented with it I would reconsider my position very seriously.

You make an excellent point. So the claim that Jesus existed as a preacher teaching the Gospel parables could be believed upon a lesser Burden of Proof than the supernatural claim that He was a God and resurrected. This is the idea that claims as to occurrences that defy natural law as we know it must default to fictional/delusional unless and until credible, verifiable evidence is produced in support. We have all known preachers, but no one has been able to demonstrate a single resurrection, let alone a 'God'. I think it reasonable to 'presume fiction' when reading a long ago story penned anonymously about something no one has ever verifiably observed at any time or place in the history of mankind.

[Flail]

Zzyzx wrote:

In my years of debate with Monotheists, I do not recall even one ever accepting that proposition. The attitude seems to be, "The evidence I present in favor of my favored 'god' (religious stories, hearsay, testimonials, conjecture, opinion, unverified claims, dogma, etc) should be accepted as evidence and proof, but exactly the same things presented in favor of competing 'gods' is not acceptable" -- and "All 'gods' except my favorite are false, even though the evidence presented is equal".

In response to the irrelevant and constant clamor for alternative claims as a ruse for inability to produce evidence, the above contains an implicit alternative consideration....ie, if religious stories,hearsay,testimonials, conjecture,opinion,unverified claims and dogma are considered sufficient and credible evidence, upon what basis do you distinguish Islam from Christianity?

Is there a difference in the type and quality of 'Christian evidence' as compared to 'Muslim evidence"? Upon what basis does one choose? ...or is it indoctrination that makes the decision on whether to become Muslim or Christian, rather than choice?

[gravydancr]

Using American Jurisprudence as guide, are the developed judicial Burdens of Proof applicable for proving a god?

Burdens of proof are social expectations, not something innate to claims. Thus, the degree to which a burden of proof is expected to be borne will be contingent upon the participants in a discussion.

[Zzyzx]

.

Burdens of proof are social expectations, not something innate to claims. Thus, the degree to which a burden of proof is expected to be borne will be contingent upon the participants in a discussion.

I agree. Those who are inclined to search diligently for truth tend to place a great "burden of proof" upon anyone who makes claims to KNOW truth.

Those who are inclined toward "belief" typically do not require ANY proof of that which agrees with their preconceived notions (or indoctrinations).

"Faith" requires no proof -- and is, in fact, suggested as a substitute for proof (or evidence). "Just believe what I say or they say so you can be rewarded" is the theme. "Believe that my favorite of the the thousands of proposed 'gods' is real and worship as I suggest and you too can have eternal salvation after you die" -- "just don't ask for any evidence that I speak truth because I can only offer opinions, conjecture, testimonials and writings of ancient storytellers promoting a splinter group religion"

[Flail]

.

Burdens of proof are social expectations, not something innate to claims. Thus, the degree to which a burden of proof is expected to be borne will be contingent upon the participants in a discussion.

I agree. Those who are inclined to search diligently for truth tend to place a great "burden of proof" upon anyone who makes claims to KNOW truth.

Those who are inclined toward "belief" typically do not require ANY proof of that which agrees with their preconceived notions (or indoctrinations).

"Faith" requires no proof -- and is, in fact, suggested as a substitute for proof (or evidence). "Just believe what I say or they say so you can be rewarded" is the theme. "Believe that my favorite of the the thousands of proposed 'gods' is real and worship as I suggest and you too can have eternal salvation after you die" -- "just don't ask for any evidence that I speak truth because I can only offer opinions, conjecture, testimonials and writings of ancient storytellers promoting a splinter group religion"

Agreed. So, whether one is a Muslim or a Christian depends entirely upon they story they choose to tell themselves. Neither is anything more than belief in a and adoption of a 'story'...not a God.

[Hawkins]

It concerns one's own life. So it's the individual's own responsibility to figure things out. No one else cares. Who should be more caring about your own life anyway.