Who Has The Burden Of Proof And When?

[DavidLeon]

In this thread I would like to discuss and debate the question of who has the burden of proof and when. Does the theist have a burden of proof? Does the atheist? What is a claim?

[DavidLeon]

Burden of proof? I think maybe either the atheists need to rethink Hitchen's Razor or it needs revision. Is the atheist or theist on trial? Okay, no trial just public discourse. That's fine but the burden of proof has no place in faith. What is the claim then, in this case of public discourse? First of all, verb: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof; noun: 1. an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt. 2. a demand or request for something considered one's due.

I avoid the futility of getting involved in disputes over the existence of gods except for questioning and rejecting the common use of the term gods and we all know how futile that was. A claim is the starting point of a debate, but is the demand or request of proof a valid one or just an empty claim of victory in the debate that never happened?

Burden of proof? In theism and atheism?! If the theist believes in a god and the atheist doesn't what is there to prove? Whether or not they believe? What they believe or don't believe? Does the agnostic have to prove that they don't know and the gnostic that they do?

In the video below the atheist makes the common claim that atheism is the default position. Babies are born atheist. Is that true? I don't think so. Ignorance is the default position and as much as I might like to equate atheism with ignorance, in fact, it isn't.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #2]

The "burden of proof" is owned by whomever is making a claim of truth. So then, as a Christian if I were to say, "Jesus rose from the dead", then I would own the burden to demonstrate my claim, and there may be Christians who make such claims. On the other hand, if I were to say, "I believe Jesus rose from the dead" this would only be a truth claim as far as my belief is concerned. It is not a truth claim that, Jesus indeed rose from the dead. I can then go on to claim, "there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead" and I would then own the burden to demonstrate this to be the case, which can be done.

The point here is, there are indeed facts, evidence, and reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Of course there may be some who look at these facts, evidence, and reasons, and come to a different conclusion, but if these folks were to go on to say, "there are no facts, evidence, and reasons to believe Jesus rose from the dead" then they are making a truth claim, and own the burden.

[Miles]

As the young fellow says at the outset,

"When it comes to steelmanning the atheist position boy does [William Lane Craig] fall short. In less than two minutes he not only completely misrepresents atheism and agnosticism, but he also manages to shift the burden of proof away from himself and on to those not making any active claims. This is frankly ridiculous . . . ."

Of course it is, but those ignorant of the nature atheism and the concept of the burden of proof will swallow it whole, and believe Craig has speared atheism right through its deceiving little heart.

The most disturbing part of Craig's remarks here is that if he's as knowledgeable about religion as he is said to be then he knows he's misrepresenting---lying about---atheism. Not a surprising tactic, but still disturbing.



.

[Tcg]

In this thread I would like to discuss and debate the question of who has the burden of proof and when. Does the theist have a burden of proof? Does the atheist? What is a claim?

It's not complicated and whether a person is an atheist or a theist is irrelevant. The person making a claim has the burden of proof.


Tcg

[Willum]

As a anti-theist, I'll take the burden of proof:

Conservation of matter disproves the need for a creator god.
If matter-energy, etc., is not created (or destroy-able) then there is no need for a creator.

Evolution, is observed, documented, has a diverse history, and disproves "original sin," wiping away Judeo-Christianity.

Geology washes away the flood.

In fact if there is any property of god you want disproved, let me know.

NOW IN THE MEANTIME, there is no proof of a deity.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Miles in post #4]

People mean different things by the term 'atheism.' If you look at philosophical sources like the SEP's article on "Atheism and Agnosticism" and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, among others, they will use the definition Craig uses in the video. That is the traditional definition in the history of philosophy. Many atheists began using the "lack of belief" (which was traditionally called agnosticism) definition from the 1970s on because of people like Antony Flew.

I'm not saying that's the only thing "atheism" should mean, but we must use the terms as people mean them when assessing their claims. When Craig says the burden is on the atheist, he is using it in its traditional use, not the more recent one that some philosophers (and many others) use. That traditional definition of atheism is making a positive claim and, therefore, has the burden. It's ridiculous to change the definition of a term someone uses and then fault them for the problems that ensue.

I could understand one saying that Craig should no longer use that term that way or, at least, clarify the different senses and then make his comments.

[Hawkins]

In this thread I would like to discuss and debate the question of who has the burden of proof and when. Does the theist have a burden of proof? Does the atheist? What is a claim?

More often people don't know what they talking about. You may need to first define who has the burden of proof in regards to histories written down by humans. Basically history is about what witnessed by human eyewitnesses then gathered by a historian back to the point when a piece of history occurred and only this single historian (and possibly his companions) has examined the credibility of the possible sources from eyewitnesses to have their stories (well history = his story) recorded down.

Now please define when you read such a history book, who has the burden of proof.


Similarly, the Bible is a testimony from those claimed eyewitnesses who encountered God (i.e., a piece of history). The credibility of these eyewitnesses are supposed to be examined by the Jews back to the point. An obvious significance is that the Jews deemed those eyewitnesses credible as they basically can prophesy and/or perform miracles on top of their righteous personality, that's why the witnesses are termed as the prophets.

[Diagoras]

People mean different things by the term 'atheism.'

Agreed. It’s always helpful to define terms in debate.

I'm not saying that's the only thing "atheism" should mean, but we must use the terms as people mean them when assessing their claims.

Agreed - and so those people would do well to define their terms, particularly when using a term which is known to be used in different ways.

I could understand one saying that Craig should no longer use that term that way or, at least, clarify the different senses and then make his comments.

Perfectly reasonable. I agree he should have clarified.

On that basis, do you consider Craig’s claims to remain valid if atheism is defined in terms of lack of belief?

[Athetotheist]

The burden of proof is on anyone who states anything as fact. We don't have to prove what we believe to be true, but we do have to prove whatever we claim is true.