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.
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #71
This dictionary atheist tells you that while most non-theists do claim that, it's not what atheism says.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.
The lack of an immediate observation of such an personal being is enough evidence to fulllfil that burden. The ball is filmly in the theist's count.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...
The answer is "I don't see any meaning, if you think claim there is, prove it."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?"
Post #72
I wrote, “In an adult discussion everyone has a burden of proof.�Fuzzy Dunlop wrote: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?
That means no one – not theist, not non-theist, not the Emperor of Saturn – can just say, “Prove me wrong.�
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 #73
Atheism IS the default position - you agree that "I don't know" is the starting point, right? The default position? If our default position is that we don't know what caused the universe, then our default position is agnostic atheism.EduChris wrote: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.
-
Fuzzy Dunlop
- Guru
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:24 am
Post #74
That doesn't sound like "everyone" has the burden of proof. That sounds like only the person who makes the positive claim has the burden of proof. Do you agree? If so perhaps I am only objecting due to a semantic confusion.bjs wrote:I wrote, “In an adult discussion everyone has a burden of proof.�Fuzzy Dunlop wrote: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?
That means no one – not theist, not non-theist, not the Emperor of Saturn – can just say, “Prove me wrong.�
I think where we would disagree is that atheism makes any positive claims. I do not find that it does.
Post #75
No one need prove or demonstrate or offer evidence that "I don't know." So yes, that is the default position. However, this is hardly implies that non-theism has any advantage over theism. For example, "I don't know that strictly impersonal necessary causation could, even in principle, produce a universe such as ours which contains personal agents such as ourselves." Does this simple admission of ignorance entail that "non non-theism" is the default position?Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...you agree that "I don't know" is the starting point, right? The default position? If our default position is that we don't know what caused the universe, then our default position is agnostic atheism.
There are only two alternatives:
1) strictly impersonal causation, or
2) personal agency
We don't know for certain which of these mutually exclusive alternatives is correct, so how can one be viewed as the "default" position?
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 #76
You will never find meaning unless and until you permit, at least momentarily, your worldview to entertain the notion that written markings can contain information.Bust Nak wrote:...The answer is "I don't see any meaning, if you think claim there is, prove it."
In other words, the non-theist (per our analogy) insists that written markings cannot contain any information. She then proceeds to analyze the chemical composition of the paper and the ink, blithely dismissing the theists' concern for discerning the meaning of the words.
You can't see what your worldview--your cognitive framework--doesn't permit you to see.
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
-
Fuzzy Dunlop
- Guru
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:24 am
Post #77
You don't know if impersonal causes could, in principle, cause the universe, and by implication you don't know if they couldn't. That puts you at the default starting point of agnostic atheism.EduChris wrote:No one need prove or demonstrate or offer evidence that "I don't know." So yes, that is the default position. However, this is hardly implies that non-theism has any advantage over theism. For example, "I don't know that strictly impersonal necessary causation could, even in principle, produce a universe such as ours which contains personal agents such as ourselves." Does this simple admission of ignorance entail that "non non-theism" is the default position?Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...you agree that "I don't know" is the starting point, right? The default position? If our default position is that we don't know what caused the universe, then our default position is agnostic atheism.
These are conclusions, not default positions - one claims god exists, one claims god does not. I am not saying that either of these two alternative positions is the default position. I am saying that agnostic atheism - "I don't know" - is the default position.EduChris wrote:There are only two alternatives:
1) strictly impersonal causation, or
2) personal agency
We don't know for certain which of these mutually exclusive alternatives is correct, so how can one be viewed as the "default" position?
Post #78
No, it simply means I don't know, and therefore I can't just assume that one of the only two available options enjoys some debating advantage over the other.Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...You don't know if impersonal causes could, in principle, cause the universe, and by implication you don't know if they couldn't. That puts you at the default starting point of agnostic atheism...
We do know that either there was personal agency, or else there was strictly impersonal causation. Knowing that options 1 and 2 are the only available options does not give one option an epistemic advantage over the other.Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...These are conclusions, not default positions...I am not saying that either of these two alternative positions is the default position. I am saying that..."I don't know"...is the default position.
"I don't know" is a starting point, sure, but the point of debate is not to vigorously cling to our state of ignorance, but rather to explore and test and evaluate and (perhaps even) make a tentative assessment of the available options.
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 #79
Why shouldn't agnostic theism be the default? Why shouldn't we assume, however tentatively, that the personal agency which we experience ourselves in umediated fashion can only arise from some prior personal agency? After all, we have never observed any unambiguous instance of personal agency arising from strictly impersonal causation. If the contingent personal agency we experience always seems to derive from some prior contingent personal agency, why should we not start with the assumption that all contingent personal agency most likely derives from some ultimate non-contingent personal agency?Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...I am saying that agnostic atheism - "I don't know" - is the default position.
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
-
stubbornone
- Banned
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:10 am
Post #80
Aside form simply taking the opposite of what is being pro-offered, how does this equate to you having no burden of proof?Bust Nak wrote:This dictionary atheist tells you that while most non-theists do claim that, it's not what atheism says.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.
The lack of an immediate observation of such an personal being is enough evidence to fulllfil that burden. The ball is filmly in the theist's count.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...
The answer is "I don't see any meaning, if you think claim there is, prove it."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?"
Either there is a logical path of evidence and reason that lead you to reject God, or there is not correct?
So, why, given that so many atheists claim that their decisions are logical, do we not see such a logical approach? Indeed, why do we apparently not need it at all?
