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.

[A Troubled Man]

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.

Sorry, but the Guilt by Association fallacy states that a claim is rejected because the claim is rejected by others who are disliked.

Comparing one invisible, non-detectable entity to another is not a fallacy, it is valid.

[EduChris]

...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...

Let's suppose that flipping a coin can only result in either heads or tails. If we have slightly better reasons for believing it landed "heads," then "heads" will be the default position.

Or think of it another way. A dead body is found. The initial "default position" is ignorance as to the cause of death. However, a quick perusal of the crime scene provides some evidence that this was a drug-related murder. Given this quick perusal, "a drug related murder" becomes the working hypothesis, the new "default position," which is adopted tentatively unless and until additional contrary information is found.

And suppose that the detective works in a drug-infested city. Certainly not all deaths will be drug-related, but if more than 50% of deaths are drug-related, then any time the detective hears about a new corpse, it is reasonable for the detective to assume that, more than likely, the death was drug-related. The detective doesn't stop searching for new information and new evidence, but in the absence of compelling reasons, the detective will be justified in "playing the odds" as his default approach.

...it is unreasonable to move away from the default position if that is all we have to work with...

Ignorance is the default position. We have every reason to move away from ignorance as best we can, even if the path is dim. If you need food, you go looking for a grocery store even if you're uncertain of the way and no map is available. You don't just sit around the house waiting for the grocery store to come to you.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...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...

Let's suppose that flipping a coin can only result in either heads or tails. If we have slightly better reasons for believing it landed "heads," then "heads" will be the default position.

No, the default position will be that we do not know. If one wishes to claim that the coin landed on heads, then they bear the burden of proof. Whether the burden of proof is met or not depends on how good the reasons for belief are.

Or think of it another way. A dead body is found. The initial "default position" is ignorance as to the cause of death. However, a quick perusal of the crime scene provides some evidence that this was a drug-related murder. Given this quick perusal, "a drug related murder" becomes the working hypothesis, the new "default position," which is adopted tentatively unless and until additional contrary information is found.

Detectives have various pressures working upon them. Their job is to come to a conclusion in a limited time period. They have to do something, try things, follow up on whatever lead they have no matter how weak. It is also fully possible for the detective to actually reach a definitive conclusion in their inquiries. This is not analogous to the question of God's existence.

That aside, I agree that the default position is that the cause of death is unknown (analogous to the default position with regard to God being agnostic atheism). If the detective wants to put forth a specific cause of death, then she bears the burden of proof.

...it is unreasonable to move away from the default position if that is all we have to work with...

Ignorance is the default position. We have every reason to move away from ignorance as best we can, even if the path is dim. If you need food, you go looking for a grocery store even if you're uncertain of the way and no map is available. You don't just sit around the house waiting for the grocery store to come to you.

If you don't eat you die. If you go searching for food, it is possible to reach a definitive conclusion: you will find food, or you won't find food.

There is no analogous need to consider the existence of God. If you don't contemplate it, you go about living your life as normal. If you do contemplate it, you will never come to a definitive conclusion.

The detective must solve the mystery, the hungry person must eat. These examples are not analogous to the existence of God, because these examples have outside pressures exerted upon the situation forcing action to be taken on insufficient evidence. It is not reasonable to jump to conclusions based on scant evidence in the absence of such pressures.

[EduChris]

...There is no analogous need to consider the existence of God. If you don't contemplate it, you go about living your life as normal. If you do contemplate it, you will never come to a definitive conclusion...

There is no need to postpone consideration of personal agency at the root of all human existence. If you do not contemplate it, you will remain mired in a state of passive apathy toward ultimate concerns (or you will fill your life with lesser concerns) and you will never arrive at a more enlightened working framework for human existence.

...The detective must solve the mystery, the hungry person must eat. These examples are not analogous to the existence of God, because these examples have outside pressures exerted upon the situation forcing action to be taken on insufficient evidence...

We are meaning-seeking, meaning-finding, meaning-making creatures. That is our common lot, though some people are more drawn to this pursuit than others. Given that God is the highest possible source of ultimate meaning, it is reasonable for people to pursue God via whatever means available, even if we cannot ever find certainty in this life.

[Bust Nak]

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.

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.

Ok, I agree. But I don't think you've made it clear that the non-theist you had in mind in your analogy was as close minded as young earth creationists.

[stubbornone]

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.

Sorry, but the Guilt by Association fallacy states that a claim is rejected because the claim is rejected by others who are disliked.

Comparing one invisible, non-detectable entity to another is not a fallacy, it is valid.

No, what you are thinking about is called poisoning the well.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... -well.html

And, if you think the method is logical, then it stands that the reasoning is sound in any direction. Therefore, God is real because grass is green.

Simply because you THINK God is like a Leprechaun does not make it so. It is, not just a fallacy, its not just a failure to ACTUALLY provide evidence, its really nothing more than a rude restatement of your opinion.

We already know you don't believe in God, running around comparing God to any random thing known false is no different than us running around saying things like, "I believe in God because when I was four my mom told me about rocks, and they were quite real ... even if I could not see all of them .. therefore .. yadda, yadda, yadda."

Seriously, that is a direct play on words from a atheist yesterday.

Is that civil?

Is that discussing evidence?

Is that proof positive of a claim?

Is that an objective, reasoned analysis?

And yet, we get statements just like that when you engage far too many atheists about the reason they are so ready to preach.

It's simple, the burden of proof works both ways, and for many atheists, whom I would actually call nihilists, the issue is less about God than it is about derision toward religion. Its why you see so many redirection towards religion right here in this thread, and an abject failure to address the issue of why atheists do not have to support their claims.

[Bust Nak]

Simply because you THINK God is like a Leprechaun does not make it so.

Sure, but the simularity between God and a Leprechaun does make "God is like a Leprechaun" so.

We already know you don't believe in God, running around comparing God to any random thing known false is no different than us running around saying things like...

Strawman fallacy. If it was clear the first time round, it would be after he explicitly stated that he was comparing one invisible, non-detectable entity to another, as opposed to comparing one believed to be false entity to any known false entity.

It's simple, the burden of proof works both ways... an abject failure to address the issue of why atheists do not have to support their claims.

Yet another strawman. Every single atheist have said the same thing, we keep telling you, whoever makes a claim, have the burden of proof. Not one atheist have said atheists do not have to support our claims.

[A Troubled Man]

No, what you are thinking about is called poisoning the well.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... -well.html

Wrong again, poisoning the well means to bring in information about the claimant themselves and using that as an argument.

And, if you think the method is logical, then it stands that the reasoning is sound in any direction. Therefore, God is real because grass is green.

Simply because you THINK God is like a Leprechaun does not make it so. It is, not just a fallacy, its not just a failure to ACTUALLY provide evidence, its really nothing more than a rude restatement of your opinion.

LOL. Funny, how you can't see your own contradictions.

We already know you don't believe in God, running around comparing God to any random thing known false is no different than us running around saying things like, "I believe in God because when I was four my mom told me about rocks, and they were quite real ... even if I could not see all of them .. therefore .. yadda, yadda, yadda."

No, we are comparing invisible and non-detectable entities, hence they are all equally valid.

Seriously, that is a direct play on words from a atheist yesterday.

So what? Irrelevant.

Is that civil?

Is that discussing evidence?

Is that proof positive of a claim?

Is that an objective, reasoned analysis?

It is a strawman.

And yet, we get statements just like that when you engage far too many atheists about the reason they are so ready to preach.

You haven't actually successfully deviated away from the point, but you tried.

It's simple, the burden of proof works both ways, and for many atheists, whom I would actually call nihilists, the issue is less about God than it is about derision toward religion. Its why you see so many redirection towards religion right here in this thread, and an abject failure to address the issue of why atheists do not have to support their claims.

If an atheist makes a positive claim about your god, the burden of proof is on them.

However, it isn't atheists who are claiming the existence of gods, so the burden of proof is not on them.

[Star]

It's simple, the burden of proof works both ways, and for many atheists, whom I would actually call nihilists, the issue is less about God than it is about derision toward religion. Its why you see so many redirection towards religion right here in this thread, and an abject failure to address the issue of why atheists do not have to support their claims.

No. The burden of proof applies to the person making the claim. That's it.

Anyone claiming that god exists or doesn't exist has the burden of proof.

Most atheists take the default position of a lack of belief pending further evidence. They stop short of actually asserting there is no god. There's a difference.

[EduChris]

...Anyone claiming that god exists or doesn't exist has the burden of proof...

And anyone who claims that theism need not be true also has the burden of proof.

It seems to me that the position of complete, abject, apathetic ignorance is the one which entails no burden of proof. But only the comatose can qualify for such a condition, and the comatose don't generally participate on Internet forums such as this.

That means that those of us who participate on this forum do have an obligation to defend their positions.