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.

[EduChris]

...Would you not consider the potential adoption of false religious beliefs to be a negative consequence?...

There is nothing in the philosophical position of theism that entails or fosters the adoption of any religion, whether true religion or false religion. In similar fashion, the philosophical position of non-theism need not entail the adoption of, say, nihilism or social darwinism or nazism or communism, etc.

...there is nothing about remaining at the default position of agnostic atheism that implies a lack of education or critical awareness. I would also disagree that you don't learn very much by "sitting on the fence" and listening to various arguments. To the contrary, I think disinterested observation is the ideal way to learn...

Learning proceeds best when one tentatively adopts as sympathetic a view as possible, so as not to violate the logical principle of charity. In order to learn something, we must invest something of ourselves into it, so that we can best analyze it, and then proceed on the basis of our findings. We learn best by doing, by engaging, and not by simply watching with disinterest.

...since agnostic atheism is the default position, the burden of proof is on those who would argue for God's existence...

Strictly speaking, educated theism does not argue for God's "existence"; rather, it argues that the logically necessary source and fount of all possibility is not less than personal. Educated non-theism, by contrast, does not argue against God's "existence"; rather, it argues that the logically necessary source and fount of all possibility is less than personal.

...To ask for evidence that "theism need not be true" is to commit the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof...

I can provide an argument as to why theism must be the case.

1) Either this universe is logically necessary, or else it it is contingent.
2) The universe is not logically necessary, since there is no logical contradiction entailed by the statements, "this universe might never have come to be," or "this universe might have been other than it is."
3) Therefore, the universe is contingent and must have arisen through some sort of causation, and the ultimate source of this causal mechanism must itself be logically necessary.
4) The only causes we know of are "necessity" and "personal agency" ("chance" is the word we use when we cannot detect any causal mechanism).
5) If the cause of this universe is logical necessity, then the universe is logically necessary, which contradicts #2, above.
6) Therefore, the only remaining possible cause for this universe is some logically necessary personal agency.
7) Logically necessary personal agency, as the source of all contingencies, equates to theism.
QED

...if proof is not available...

Proof is never available. All we have are varying degrees of justification.

...as we build more unproven assumptions into the foundations of our worldviews, they become more problematic (Occam's razor)...

Non-theism entails more unproven assumptions than theism. Non-theism assumes that it is possible for personal agency to arise out of strictly impersonal causes. We have no unambiguous evidence of such, but our hospitals' birthing centers provide clear evidence that personal agency can and does give rise to personal agency.

[A Troubled Man]

The evidence is all around us. The evidence is our universe and our selves.

Repeating this fallacy does not make it true.

Please try to understand that when we actually do look at all the evidence in our universe, NONE of it shows gods in any way. Period.

Understand now? Thanks.

[EduChris]

...when we actually do look at all the evidence in our universe, NONE of it shows gods in any way...

If we find a corpse with several knives sticking in its back, we needn't catch the murderer on the scene in order to realize that someone committed the deed.

And note that I did not say the evidence is in our universe, but rather that our universe IS the evidence.

[Star]

...The person making the claim is the person with the burden of proof. Any claims asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence...

What evidence do you have that theism need not be true?

I thought I made myself abundantly clear that I'm not making any claim. Then you turn around and ask me for evidence of a claim I didn't make. I don't know what else I can do.

I have no way of knowing if theism "need not be true." I do know that our scientific understanding of many things contradicts what some religions say about certain things. And I do know evidence to support any religion, as far as I'm aware, hasn't been sufficient to justify belief.

[A Troubled Man]

If we find a corpse with several knives sticking in its back, we needn't catch the murderer on the scene in order to realize that someone committed the deed.

Or, the person fell down on a bunch of knives. Do you have a point? What does that have to do with anything?

And note that I did not say the evidence is in our universe, but rather that our universe IS the evidence.

And yet, the universe itself does not show any gods. Period.

How long is it going to take to get this through your head?

[d.thomas]

...The person making the claim is the person with the burden of proof. Any claims asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence...

What evidence do you have that theism need not be true? Non-theism is a complete non-starter unless there is some valid reason to suppose that theism need not be true. If you cannot provide evidence that theism need not be true, then (by your own admission) I can just dismiss your claim, leaving theism as the only option remaining.

I should add here that science cannot provide evidence for the assertion that theism need not be true, since science deals only with the physical, whereas theism and non-theism deal with the metaphysical.

You're just shifting the burden of proof onto those that don't believe your hollow claims of an ancient invisible god out there. Science rejects the notion of gods because there are no facts concerning gods. If science cannot provide evidence of an invisible god existing out there then there is no valid reason to formulate a god belief, unless of course you choose to believe gods exist on faith alone which is your prerogative. I certainly don't begrudge you a belief in invisible gods, just don't expect everyone to make such leaps of faith.

[R34L1TY]

The burden of Proof is on the person who claims something.

If I claimed that Humans are Apes, I would have the burden of having to prove it. Which I could very easily.

Darwin claimed Evolution, and then proved it.

The Bible became and we are all told to have faith, no proof at all.

For something that apparently explains everything, there should be some sort of proof like at least a shred of proof..but there is none. But there is Faith, in which is all you have to go on.

If you want to say "Christianity" came first, okay..we can play that game. Before Religion was nothing, so prove Religion? Generally speaking..before Religion..everyone was an Atheist, right??

/thread

I have no idea how this made it to this many pages lmao.

[d.thomas]

The burden of Proof is on the person who claims something.

If I claimed that Humans are Apes, I would have the burden of having to prove it. Which I could very easily.

Darwin claimed Evolution, and then proved it.

The Bible became and we are all told to have faith, no proof at all.

For something that apparently explains everything, there should be some sort of proof like at least a shred of proof..but there is none. But there is Faith, in which is all you have to go on.

If you want to say "Christianity" came first, okay..we can play that game. Before Religion was nothing, so prove Religion? Generally speaking..before Religion..everyone was an Atheist, right??

/thread

I have no idea how this made it to this many pages lmao.

Tautology knows no end to the madness.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...Would you not consider the potential adoption of false religious beliefs to be a negative consequence?...

There is nothing in the philosophical position of theism that entails or fosters the adoption of any religion, whether true religion or false religion. In similar fashion, the philosophical position of non-theism need not entail the adoption of, say, nihilism or social darwinism or nazism or communism, etc.

Agreed. Nonetheless, religious beliefs would have to be considered a nearly universal consequence of theism. Would you not consider the potential adoption of false religious beliefs to be a negative consequence?

...there is nothing about remaining at the default position of agnostic atheism that implies a lack of education or critical awareness. I would also disagree that you don't learn very much by "sitting on the fence" and listening to various arguments. To the contrary, I think disinterested observation is the ideal way to learn...

Learning proceeds best when one tentatively adopts as sympathetic a view as possible, so as not to violate the logical principle of charity. In order to learn something, we must invest something of ourselves into it, so that we can best analyze it, and then proceed on the basis of our findings. We learn best by doing, by engaging, and not by simply watching with disinterest.

Disinterested observation in no way impedes us from doing or engaging. What you are talking about doing seems to me to go beyond that into believing.

...since agnostic atheism is the default position, the burden of proof is on those who would argue for God's existence...

Strictly speaking, educated theism does not argue for God's "existence"; rather, it argues that the logically necessary source and fount of all possibility is not less than personal. Educated non-theism, by contrast, does not argue against God's "existence"; rather, it argues that the logically necessary source and fount of all possibility is less than personal.

What is the difference between these two statements?

"God exists"

"The logically necessary source and fount of all possibility is not less than personal."

If you are going to insist upon such distinctions, please be specific as to what distinction you see. Why are these statements not equivalent, and what bearing does this lack of equivalence have on the present conversation?

...To ask for evidence that "theism need not be true" is to commit the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof...

I can provide an argument as to why theism must be the case.

1) Either this universe is logically necessary, or else it it is contingent.
2) The universe is not logically necessary, since there is no logical contradiction entailed by the statements, "this universe might never have come to be," or "this universe might have been other than it is."
3) Therefore, the universe is contingent and must have arisen through some sort of causation, and the ultimate source of this causal mechanism must itself be logically necessary.
4) The only causes we know of are "necessity" and "personal agency" ("chance" is the word we use when we cannot detect any causal mechanism).
5) If the cause of this universe is logical necessity, then the universe is logically necessary, which contradicts #2, above.
6) Therefore, the only remaining possible cause for this universe is some logically necessary personal agency.
7) Logically necessary personal agency, as the source of all contingencies, equates to theism.
QED

Ok, good. As someone who makes a positive assertion, the burden is upon you to provide evidence or arguments such as this to support your claims. As far as this thread is concerned, we can conclude that the agnostic atheist is under no such obligation as they make no positive assertions about God's existence. To ask for evidence against God's existence is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, but to put forth arguments like this and solicit counterarguments is perfectly acceptable.

...if proof is not available...

Proof is never available. All we have are varying degrees of justification.

Right. And "the pursuit of truth" does not give us license to jump to conclusions that are not supported by the evidence, even if proof is unobtainable.

...as we build more unproven assumptions into the foundations of our worldviews, they become more problematic (Occam's razor)...

Non-theism entails more unproven assumptions than theism. Non-theism assumes that it is possible for personal agency to arise out of strictly impersonal causes. We have no unambiguous evidence of such, but our hospitals' birthing centers provide clear evidence that personal agency can and does give rise to personal agency.

Agnostic atheism does not assume anything about the source of personal agency. It is the default position - we don't know where personal agency came from. It is more parsimonious to leave all possible options on the table than to eliminate some options based on various arguments such as the one you provide here about hospitals. To assume personal agency could not have arisen out of impersonal consequences until evidence to the contrary is provided is to commit the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

[EduChris]

...You're just shifting the burden of proof onto those that don't believe...

I would say that the vast majority of non-theists claim that they are passionate for truth--and this is a good thing, in my opinion. Presumably you also are passionate for truth, right?

So, suppose for a moment that theism must be the case. If you were convinced that theism must be the case, you would be a theist, right? After all, you are passionate for truth, aren't you?

But you are not a theist. Therefore, you must hold the viewpoint that theism need not be the case.

...Science rejects the notion of gods because there are no facts concerning gods...

Science has nothing to say about theism, since science deals only with investigating the physical universe. Science does not investigate metaphysical matters, even though it (like all fields of human study) necessarily rests on unprovable metaphysical assumptions.

...just don't expect everyone to make such leaps of faith.

Where have I asked anyone to make "leaps of faith"?

On this forum, what counts is actual arguments, and it is unfortunate that we see much more angry rhetoric than actual arguments from many non-theists here.