THE BURDEN OF PROOF

[Josephhasfun01]

The Burden of Proof

This should end the debate over the who has the responsibility of the burden of proof once and for all. :shock:
Some one told me:“The burden of proof lies with the party making a proposition...
Just as an added afterthought, consider this relevant but not completely accurate analogy. The courtroom analogy. The party making a proposition is the prosecution. The proposition is - This said man is guilty. They aim to add on to the current available knowledge, and establish that the man is guilty. Hence, they bear the burden of proof. All the Defence has to do is refute their evidence. NOT prove that their client is innocent, but just that he is not guilty. Hence the verdicts - guilty, or not guilty; as opposed to - guilty or innocent"

My response to him was: “Your courtroom analogy is completely flawed so, inaccurate is an understatement. Somehow I am on the prosecution end and you are on the one on the defense end? That does not make any sense! Should I not be on the defense side since I claim to believe there is proof for God's existence while you say “hogwash, let me see the evidence? You would be on the prosecutor side claiming that there is no proof of God. Is that not correct?
Here is my problem with the burden of proof:
There is a great deal of difficulty determining who has the burden of proof. In the situation we have set before us, I have the burden of proof resting on my claim for the existence of God. I am fine with that as I am obligated to present evidence for my claim, which I gladly present. However the problem is the side that does not have the burden of proof, the atheists side, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. Which is utterly ridiculous because atheist can only claim "we don't know". However, just because you "don't know" does not mean that you don't know anything. You do know something. Or at least claim to. Even when one says they don't know, they still know something. They know that they don't know something.

In a courtroom analogy I am presumed innocent until proven guilty. You have to prove, or rather simply refute my claims with substantial evidence. That is your job being the prosecution. I am on the defense side and you are the one with the burden of proof on the prosecuting side. We both share the burden of proof. Maybe you don't see it that way. But in a courtroom the defense and prosecution both have work to do. You make accusations of my proof and I defend my proof against your accusations.
You are quite right. I don't think we will ever reach an agreement on the burden of proof. I believe it is not only myself that proposes a proposition. Do you not claim the non-existence of God? That sounds like a position to me. Nonetheless, I am fulfilling the burden of proof as best as I can. You are doing your best to refute my proof.
In a courtroom would the accused need to present evidence of his innocence? Certainly not! So your defense is to ask me to prove I am innocent? Sounds a little strange to me. Imagine the O.J trial with the prosecution saying, "we know you did it", "we know you killed Nichole Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Now prove to us that you did not do it! Prove to us that you did not kill them both!"
To add just one thought, but not to mean any disrespect, but it seems convenient for atheists to use the burden of proof as tactic which allows them to be able to throw jabs without incurring any counter punches. It is very despicable and quite frankly I am fed up with it! You propose "chance" and "luck" as the cause of everything and then smirk and piss on all the evidence that fully supports Gods existence. I hope you understand my frustration. I believe a courtroom analogy is relevant and we both share the burden of proof equally.
Imagine the defense side for O.J. when they had O.J. put on the glove. In the words of the infamous Johnnie Cockran. "The glove does not fit so you must acquit" But then think, what if the prosecution said "I don't care that the glove does not fit." I still say your guilty although I cannot prove it!"

So I conclude that atheism is also a claim in which the burden of proof is shared. If you claim that there is no God you need to provide the evidence supporting your CLAIM.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

If I say there is a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars, and you don't believe it, is it up to you to prove that it doesn't exist? No, so why should we be the ones showing that god doesn't exist? You make the claim he exists, so you should prove that he exists.

 

[Laurens]

I don't claim there is no God.

BAM you lose

 

[Prolescum]

Court =/= debate.

As you say, if you assert that gods or God exist, or indeed assert that [insert appropriate personal pronoun] doesn't exist, (this is the claim), the burden of proof lies with you. (I, for example, do not believe any anthropomorphic angry babies gods exist*.)

The requirements of evidence in court can be summed up as "beyond reasonable doubt"; it is the job of the defense to cast doubt upon the prosecution's evidence. In Scotland, the jury can actually give one of three verdicts: guilty, not guilty, and not proven.

The evidence required to show an assertion to be true in a debate is relative to the claim itself, (if you claim one exists you not only have to show evidence of its existence, but also that it is that particular one).

The analogy is crap under all circumstances.


*This isn't the same as saying they don't actually exist; I think the likelihood of any of those proposed so far existing is so extremely remote that for all intents and purposes, I live as if they don't.

I don't claim there is no God.

BAM you lose

Or this ^^^ :lol:

 

[Josephhasfun01]

If I say there is a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars, and you don't believe it, is it up to you to prove that it doesn't exist? No, so why should we be the ones showing that god doesn't exist? You make the claim he exists, so you should prove that he exists.

If I claimed that there is no teapot orbiting then by all means yes, I have the burden of proof in order to disclaim it. Otherwise I have no basis by which to disclaim it. If you have no basis in which not to believe in God, then when you claim that God does not exist you are making an empty claim. It's not rocket science.

 

[Gnug215]

Who came first, theists or atheists?

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

If you have no basis in which to believe in God, then when you claim that God does exist you are making an empty claim. It's not rocket science.

Fixed that for you.

 

[australopithecus]

I don't claim there is no God.

BAM you lose

This.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Joseph, are you going to go back and answer any of the questions raised in your other THREE topics?

 

[IBSpify]

If I say there is a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars, and you don't believe it, is it up to you to prove that it doesn't exist? No, so why should we be the ones showing that god doesn't exist? You make the claim he exists, so you should prove that he exists.

If I claimed that there is no teapot orbiting then by all means yes, I have the burden of proof in order to disclaim it. Otherwise I have no basis by which to disclaim it. If you have no basis in which not to believe in God, then when you claim that God does not exist you are making an empty claim. It's not rocket science.

Except that the default position for any claim is Non-belief, Most people don't believe in pixies, not because we have evidence that they don't exist, but because we have no evidence that they do exist.

It's the same with god, atheists don't believe in god because we have no evidence that he does exist. We are not saying that god doesn't exist, but rather that we have no reason to believe that he does.

 

[malicious_bloke]

In a courtroom analogy I am presumed innocent until proven guilty. You have to prove, or rather simply refute my claims with substantial evidence.

Statement 1 is correct, statement 2 is an inversion.

In a true/false binary (your hypothetical defendant is either innocent or guilty and god either exists or doesn't) the default state for both is 0 (false/innocent/nonexistence of god).

In a court situation, the prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the defendant is guilty. Not merely in showing that a crime was committed but also that THIS specific individual is the guilty party.

Likewise the theist must prove not only that any form of god exists, but also that their particular brand of theism provides the correct answer. As such, this sort of proof is sadly lacking, therefore we can safely default to atheism.

.....

Incidentally, it would be pretty funny to see a courtroom drama where the prosecution was restricted to the tactics used by biblical apologists.

"Your honour, I put it to you that 9 of the 12 jurors believe *someone* committed this crime, therefore THIS defendant MUST have done it!"

It'd be hilarious

 

[Frenger]

So I conclude that atheism is also a claim in which the burden of proof is shared. If you claim that there is no God you need to provide the evidence supporting your CLAIM.

Interesting conclusion....but wrong. Atheism doesn't make any claims, it simply says "there is no reason to believe in a god/gods".

If you think it does, then good luck disproving Thor, which I assume you don't believe in.

Once you have successfully disproved every single god proposed that you don't believe in, let me know how you did it and I will gladly apply your method to the god you believe in.

Sound fair?

 

[Laurens]

So I conclude that atheism is also a claim in which the burden of proof is shared. If you claim that there is no God you need to provide the evidence supporting your CLAIM.

Interesting conclusion....but wrong. Atheism doesn't make any claims, it simply says "there is no reason to believe in a god/gods".

If you think it does, then good luck disproving Thor, which I assume you don't believe in.

Once you have successfully disproved every single god proposed that you don't believe in, let me know how you did it and I will gladly apply your method to the god you believe in.

Sound fair?

:lol:

Win

 

[forgotten observer]

Dear josephhasfun01 has your argument been satisfactorily annihilated yet? :twisted:

 

[Josephhasfun01]

So I conclude that atheism is also a claim in which the burden of proof is shared. If you claim that there is no God you need to provide the evidence supporting your CLAIM.

Interesting conclusion....but wrong. Atheism doesn't make any claims, it simply says "there is no reason to believe in a god/gods".

If you think it does, then good luck disproving Thor, which I assume you don't believe in.

Once you have successfully disproved every single god proposed that you don't believe in, let me know how you did it and I will gladly apply your method to the god you believe in.

Sound fair?

Sure thing buddy!

If you think it does, then good luck disproving Thor, which I assume you don't believe in.

Once you have successfully disproved every single god proposed that you don't believe in, let me know how you did it and I will gladly apply your method to the god you believe in.

Let me start by saying that scientifically disproving all non theistic gods is rather easily. An intellectual heavyweight such as yourself should not need to be shown how all non theistic gods are not plausible.
Ruling out all mythological gods cuts the number of gods down dramatically as there are a lot of them. Particularly because they are limited in power. The goddess of fertility. Or Zeus the God of Gods and the God of the sky ect. None have been claimed to have created the universe. Now that was hard! I'm surprised I had to explain that to you!
Now to address the pantheist Gods like the one's that the Hindus and Buddhist believe in. Now this one requires a little more thought. What you need to realize is what the pantheist belief in god entails. God is in nature. This particular god is believed to have existed as the universe. Also note that if pantheist god was locked into the universe then he is limited to it and therefore finite. Also as another added note: pantheist believe the universe is eternal. But we've been shown through the laws of thermodynamics that the universe is temporary. The universe did indeed have a beginning and it will have an end. Now we are left with the only logical possibility of a THEIST god being the cause of the universe. This narrows the possibilities down to three. Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Determining which of these three is correct requires an in depth look at the difference between the three. But I shall stop here as I would like to see you try to use the way I successfully disproved all gods except three theistic beliefs to disprove OUR God. Yes, yours and mine! Because whether you believe God exists or not you will still bow one day before Him and confess that He is God.
By all means hit me with your best shot! Use the methods I used to disprove all the gods that have been posited by mythology and pantheism and disprove OURS!

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Define non-theistic god.

 

[Frenger]

Sure thing buddy!

Buddy? See, I knew we would get along.

Let me start by saying that scientifically disproving all non theistic gods is rather easily. An intellectual heavyweight such as yourself should not need to be shown how all non theistic gods are not plausible.

With all this flattery, you'll make me blush.

Ruling out all mythological gods cuts the number of gods down dramatically as there are a lot of them. Particularly because they are limited in power. The goddess of fertility. Or Zeus the God of Gods and the God of the sky ect. None have been claimed to have created the universe. Now that was hard! I'm surprised I had to explain that to you!

Sorry, how does that work? They didn't have a power that you consider to be synonymous with god therefore they don't exist?How can you show that Zeus didn't create the Universe? Perhaps he was being modest, or perhaps they were unaware of his achievements? Maybe they didn't read his CV properly and missed the bit where it said "created Universe"

Wait, I feel like I'm trying to argue that Zeus exists now, how did that happen.

Anyway, this is terrible philosophy and doesn't work at all, but because I don't care I am happy to move on.

Now to address the pantheist Gods like the one's that the Hindus and Buddhist believe in. Now this one requires a little more thought.

So this is where you fall down then?

What you need to realize is what the pantheist belief in god entails. God is in nature.

Well thank you for sharing your wisdom, without your direction I might have thought pantheists believed cacti wore hats.

This particular god is believed to have existed as the universe. Also note that if pantheist god was locked into the universe then he is limited to it and therefore finite. Also as another added note: pantheist believe the universe is eternal. But we've been shown through the laws of thermodynamics that the universe is temporary.

Oh! Tell me more of this law of thermodynamics that you speak. Because the last time I checked, the Universe looked flat and eternal.



But whatever, even if the Universe could be shown to be finite, that would only show Pantheists got a detail wrong, remember when the bible said there was a worldwide flood? How we all laughed.

The universe did indeed have a beginning and it will have an end.

You will excuse me if I don't take your opinion on cosmology seriously won't you?

Now we are left with the only logical possibility of a THEIST god being the cause of the universe.

Whoa whoa whoa sonny jim, get hold of that horse and pull it right back, shoot it in the head if necessary. The only logical conclusion is that god created the universe? Are we ignoring natural causes then?

This narrows the possibilities down to three. Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

Or 5, none of the above or one that hasn't been discovered yet. But again, they're details that make you look silly so we'll leave those out for now.

Determining which of these three is correct requires an in depth look at the difference between the three.

Or looking at which makes successful claims....oh....that would be none of them.

But I shall stop here

But you were just getting...well...I don't know...but something funny was happening.

as I would like to see you try to use the way I successfully disproved all gods except three theistic beliefs to disprove OUR God.

Ok, the Universe didn't have a beginning. Therefore there was no need for a creator. ALL HAIL ZEUS!

Yes, yours and mine!

Thanks for sharing but I'm fine ta.

Because whether you believe God exists or not you will still bow one day before Him and confess that He is God.

I once asked another member on this forum what he would do if he met a god, he said "I'd kick it in the groin and see if it has nuts".

I'd probs do the same.

By all means hit me with your best shot! Use the methods I used to disprove all the gods that have been posited by mythology and pantheism and disprove OURS!

Ok, if you god is all powerful and eternal, can he commit suicide?

Checkmate, Mr Trampoline.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Joseph,

What do you call the person who lacks a belief based upon insufficient evidence?

I mean, you don't believe in many, many deities.

 

[Gnug215]

Joseph, who came first, theists or atheists?

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Sure thing buddy!

Buddy? See, I knew we would get along.

Let me start by saying that scientifically disproving all non theistic gods is rather easily. An intellectual heavyweight such as yourself should not need to be shown how all non theistic gods are not plausible.

With all this flattery, you'll make me blush.

Ruling out all mythological gods cuts the number of gods down dramatically as there are a lot of them. Particularly because they are limited in power. The goddess of fertility. Or Zeus the God of Gods and the God of the sky ect. None have been claimed to have created the universe. Now that was hard! I'm surprised I had to explain that to you!

Sorry, how does that work? They didn't have a power that you consider to be synonymous with god therefore they don't exist?How can you show that Zeus didn't create the Universe? Perhaps he was being modest, or perhaps they were unaware of his achievements? Maybe they didn't read his CV properly and missed the bit where it said "created Universe"

Wait, I feel like I'm trying to argue that Zeus exists now, how did that happen.




Anyway, this is terrible philosophy and doesn't work at all, but because I don't care I am happy to move on.

Now to address the pantheist Gods like the one's that the Hindus and Buddhist believe in. Now this one requires a little more thought.

So this is where you fall down then?

What you need to realize is what the pantheist belief in god entails. God is in nature.

Well thank you for sharing your wisdom, without your direction I might have thought pantheists believed cacti wore hats.

This particular god is believed to have existed as the universe. Also note that if pantheist god was locked into the universe then he is limited to it and therefore finite. Also as another added note: pantheist believe the universe is eternal. But we've been shown through the laws of thermodynamics that the universe is temporary.

Oh! Tell me more of this law of thermodynamics that you speak. Because the last time I checked, the Universe looked flat and eternal.



But whatever, even if the Universe could be shown to be finite, that would only show Pantheists got a detail wrong, remember when the bible said there was a worldwide flood? How we all laughed.

The universe did indeed have a beginning and it will have an end.

You will excuse me if I don't take your opinion on cosmology seriously won't you?

Now we are left with the only logical possibility of a THEIST god being the cause of the universe.

Whoa whoa whoa sonny jim, get hold of that horse and pull it right back, shoot it in the head if necessary. The only logical conclusion is that god created the universe? Are we ignoring natural causes then?

This narrows the possibilities down to three. Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

Or 5, none of the above or one that hasn't been discovered yet. But again, they're details that make you look silly so we'll leave those out for now.

Determining which of these three is correct requires an in depth look at the difference between the three.

Or looking at which makes successful claims....oh....that would be none of them.

But I shall stop here

But you were just getting...well...I don't know...but something funny was happening.

as I would like to see you try to use the way I successfully disproved all gods except three theistic beliefs to disprove OUR God.

Ok, the Universe didn't have a beginning. Therefore there was no need for a creator. ALL HAIL ZEUS!

Yes, yours and mine!

Thanks for sharing but I'm fine ta.

Because whether you believe God exists or not you will still bow one day before Him and confess that He is God.

I once asked another member on this forum what he would do if he met a god, he said "I'd kick it in the groin and see if it has nuts".

I'd probs do the same.

By all means hit me with your best shot! Use the methods I used to disprove all the gods that have been posited by mythology and pantheism and disprove OURS!

Ok, if you god is all powerful and eternal, can he commit suicide?

Checkmate, Mr Trampoline.

"
Sorry, how does that work? They didn't have a power that you consider to be synonymous with god therefore they don't exist? "

It's not what I consider. Don't make this about me. I am explaining to you why Mythological gods could not have possibly created the universe. The foremost thing to bare in mind is that no mythical gods claim to have created the universe.

"How can you show that Zeus didn't create the Universe?"
Mythology has already showed us Zeus did not create the universe because there is no claim that Zeus did. Mythology even gives the attributes of Zeus. None of them being that Zeus created the universe.

"Perhaps he was being modest, or perhaps they were unaware of his achievements?"

Perhaps if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his but when he landed? If Zeus was unaware that He created the universe then he would lack the capacity to have created it in the first place.

"Wait, I feel like I'm trying to argue that Zeus exists now, how did that happen?"

You are demonstrating yourself to be very recklessly irrational.

"Anyway, this is terrible philosophy and doesn't work at all, but because I don't care I am happy to move on."

At least your honest about your poor philosophy and give an admittance of your apathy.

"Oh! Tell me more of this law of thermodynamics that you speak. Because the last time I checked, the Universe looked flat and eternal."

I am starting to think that you are pulling my leg.

"even if the Universe could be shown to be finite"

What do you mean if? Have you ever heard of this thing called science?

"You will excuse me if I don't take your opinion on cosmology seriously won't you?"

It's not my opinion! Take it up with Albert Einstein as well as the entire scientific community.

"The only logical conclusion is that god created the universe? Are we ignoring natural causes then?"

What natural cause could have possibly caused everything to come from nothing? From nothing, nothing comes. The cause of the universe could not have occurred naturally because there was nothing natural existed. There is nothing natural about everything coming from nothing!


"Ok, if you god is all powerful and eternal, can he commit suicide?"
Your question is not surprising given your previous statements. It's not logical that something contradicts itself. You have demonstrated yourself to be illogical and irrational.