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.

[stubbornone]

.



God's invisible, prove he doesn't exist. Sure thing Sherlock, we'll get right on that.


.

So are black holes, oddly enough ... we can prove those. Not too atheists though ... they are far to logical to be fooled by these nefariously fallacious invisible black holes?

Again, atheists who claim they have no burden of proof are simply engaging in semantics and denial.

[EduChris]

...it requires us to defy all of the other theories, principles and knowledge that man has arrived at rationally and empirically...

Personal agency hardly defies all other theories; rather, personal agency is the means by which we weigh and evaluate all arguments and all evidence. Without personal agency, rationality itself is lost.

[d.thomas]

If atheists honestly consider rejection to be a default position, then their claims to logic and reason are clearly without merit.

In logic, any claim MUST be supported.

"God exists" is a claim, and must be supported. "God does not exist" is a claim, and must be supported. Agnostic atheism does not make either of these claims.

I don't believe you when you say there are invisible ancient gods out there because your claims are unsupported, that makes me an atheist.

To say there are no tooth fairies or that leprechauns don't exist is never questioned, but as soon as one says invisible gods don't exist people talk about burden of proof as if it suddenly matters. Well it doesn't, the only difference is that a lot of people believe that nonsense about gods.

Once again, this is a dodge. To say that you have concluded that there is no God because no one has ever given you a solid argument for it it simply dishonest ... indeed simply comparing God to a leprechaun is a fallacy ... the guilt by association fallacy. As in, we already know you think that God is fake, but simply comparing it something false and claiming the evidence is identical is, once again, intellectually dishonest.

The reverse? If I said God was real because surely grass is obviously green ... I rather doubt it that atheists would smack themselves in the forehead and claim, "Of course, of course ... its so obviously true!"

To claim that statements such as this should be treated not just as an intellectually valid position, but positive proof in support of a claim is patently silly.

The fact that you disagree with Christianity does bot automatically make your position the correct one.

Who said leprechauns are fake? Actually, to be honest, I happen to have no doubts that they are fake as well, but I do believe in them.

[d.thomas]

.



God's invisible, prove he doesn't exist. Sure thing Sherlock, we'll get right on that.


.

So are black holes, oddly enough ... we can prove those. Not too atheists though ... they are far to logical to be fooled by these nefariously fallacious invisible black holes?

Again, atheists who claim they have no burden of proof are simply engaging in semantics and denial.

I think a belief in invisible ancient gods suits you. You should continue maintaining it and not let anyone cause you to have any thoughts about it.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...I was under the impression that personal/impersonal causation, theism/nontheism, God/not God were all different ways of saying the same thing. So please, make it clear - what's the difference?...

The critical issue is whether non-contingent reality involves personal agency. If it does, then theism is the ontological reality. If only impersonal causation is involved, then non-theism is the ontological reality.

...And is your distinction between "personal agency" and "strictly impersonal causation" a true dichotomy or not?...

Per the norms of the English language it is a true dichotomy.

...So if "personal agency" and "strictly impersonal causation" are not a true dichotomy, then what are the other potential explanations that you have ruled out?...

The dichotomy is true, and therefore your question is irrelevant.

...Personal agency is a category that includes any number of personal causes that we might call God, does it not?...

Whatever personal cause you can think of, personal agency will be an apt description.

..."Strictly impersonal causation" is a category that includes any number of potential causes that are not personal, is it not?...

For any causation which does not involve personal agency, impersonal agency will be an apt description. If an entire set of causes lacks any personal agency, then that set of causes will be strictly impersonal.

I apologize but I am not entirely certain if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me with these responses. You objected to my terminology, but I am not sure what the specific nature of your objection is (I don't think you've mentioned it explicitly yet?). If it is a true dichotomy, I do not know why you brought up the mailman analogy which isn't one. Nonetheless, if it is a true dichotomy let's go back to the original issue before we got sidetracked.

Our default starting position is agnostic atheism. When we consider the various causes of the experience of personal agency, we can divide them into two categories: those that involve personal agency, and those that do not. We can also divide them into two categories in other ways: those that involve cosmic rays, and those that do not. Both of these are true dichotomies. Given this, why did you compare my true dichotomy with a false dichotomy like "either it makes a screech, or else it is silent"? Why did you claim I was multiplying entities when I was simply dividing potential causes into the exact same number of categories as you?

...You've taken all the potential causes, whatever they might be, and put them into two categories. You don't know which category contains the actual cause. It seems to me that this is equivalent to not knowing what the cause is...

Suppose I have a lottery ticket. Suppose I know, somehow, that my ticket is the grand prize winner if and only if the number on my ticket is an even number. Do I really care what the actual number is? All I need to know is whether the final digit is even or odd. That's all that matters.

Granted. But it is trivial to say that you know the winning lottery number will be either even or odd. The point remains that you do not know what the winning lottery number will be. The point remains that you don't know what the cause is. You don't get any closer to knowing the cause simply by categorizing all the potential causes, much like the knowledge that the lotto number will be odd or even doesn't get you any closer to knowing the winning number. All potential lotto numbers are still in play, all potential causes are still in play.

...the topic we are discussing is the default position and the burden of proof. Where do you stand on that? Do you agree that those who argue for theism bear the burden of proof? Do you agree that agnostic ignorance (that is, agnostic atheism) is the default position and does not bear the burden of proof?

Those who argue for theism bear the same burden of proof as those who argue for non-theism.

If you are saying here that those who argue for the existence of God bear the same burden of proof as those who argue for the nonexistence of God, I agree. Do you recognize that agnostic atheism is not a position that falls into either of these categories?

Those who rest in the comfort of their familiar ignorance bear no burden of proof unless and until they attempt to critique the actual arguments for or against either position. Once they enter the fray, they shoulder an intellectual responsibility to weigh the relative merits of each side of the dichotomy. In such case they might decide that one side has the better argument. The side with the better argument will then become the "default position."

The burden of proof is not met simply by having a slightly less poor argument than the alternative. If the burden of proof is not met, the default position remains. There is no obligation to choose between two poorly evidenced positions, and it is unreasonable to move away from the default position if that is all we have to work with.

On the other hand, if they decide that the respective arguments are equivalent, they will have become a slightly less ignorant agnostic.

And they could also be referred be an agnostic atheist, right?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

If atheists honestly consider rejection to be a default position, then their claims to logic and reason are clearly without merit.

In logic, any claim MUST be supported.

"God exists" is a claim, and must be supported. "God does not exist" is a claim, and must be supported. Agnostic atheism does not make either of these claims.

And it is, repeatedly. Why is yours not?

Your grammar is ambiguous here and I do not understand what you're saying.

"And it is, repeatedly." (and what is?)

"Why is yours not?" (why is my what not?)

[Danmark]

...it requires us to defy all of the other theories, principles and knowledge that man has arrived at rationally and empirically...

Personal agency hardly defies all other theories; rather, personal agency is the means by which we weigh and evaluate all arguments and all evidence. Without personal agency, rationality itself is lost.

I agree, until you attribute personal agency to the universe or a 'god' whose supernatural qualities constitute defiance of natural law.

[stubbornone]

.



God's invisible, prove he doesn't exist. Sure thing Sherlock, we'll get right on that.


.

So are black holes, oddly enough ... we can prove those. Not too atheists though ... they are far to logical to be fooled by these nefariously fallacious invisible black holes?

Again, atheists who claim they have no burden of proof are simply engaging in semantics and denial.

I think a belief in invisible ancient gods suits you. You should continue maintaining it and not let anyone cause you to have any thoughts about it.

As opposed to scorched earth denial at any cost? The, "I can never be wrong because I never actually make claim," version? Yes, that seems a much better option that believing in God and staking a case that charity, love, and forgiveness are important things.

Therefore, your derisive judgement means atheism in general has no burden of proof?


Like I said, such atheism is many things, logical or rational is not one of them.

[stubbornone]

...it requires us to defy all of the other theories, principles and knowledge that man has arrived at rationally and empirically...

Personal agency hardly defies all other theories; rather, personal agency is the means by which we weigh and evaluate all arguments and all evidence. Without personal agency, rationality itself is lost.

I agree, until you attribute personal agency to the universe or a 'god' whose supernatural qualities constitute defiance of natural law.

But then they do, don't they?

Either we are slaves to our genetic code bereft of actual morality and agency, or .. we have it and its origins are extra genetic ...

Natural laws and free will do not equate.

[d.thomas]

.



God's invisible, prove he doesn't exist. Sure thing Sherlock, we'll get right on that.


.

So are black holes, oddly enough ... we can prove those. Not too atheists though ... they are far to logical to be fooled by these nefariously fallacious invisible black holes?

Again, atheists who claim they have no burden of proof are simply engaging in semantics and denial.

I think a belief in invisible ancient gods suits you. You should continue maintaining it and not let anyone cause you to have any thoughts about it.

As opposed to scorched earth denial at any cost? The, "I can never be wrong because I never actually make claim," version? Yes, that seems a much better option that believing in God and staking a case that charity, love, and forgiveness are important things.

Therefore, your derisive judgement means atheism in general has no burden of proof?


Like I said, such atheism is many things, logical or rational is not one of them.

I don't want to deny you your belief that invisible ancient gods exist out there, by all means knock yourself out. I just don't happen to share in that little belief of yours because I just don't happen to find invisible gods and black holes to be analogous, call me illogical and irrational and whatever else it takes to make it real for you, just don't expect me to believe as you do.