THE BURDEN OF PROOF

[CommonEnlightenment]

Joseph....

Let me try to break this down for you with an exercise using critical thinking:

Lightening Strikes the ground and three potential explanations are offered:

1. Your God was mad at people.
2. Zeus decided that throwing fire bolts from the sky was a good way to show his power.
3. The lightening was caused by static electricity between a cloud and something on the surface of the Earth.


Which of the three explanations has the most evidence to back it up (go do the research or potential thought experiment and bring it to the table). Which of the three explanations can be tested in a laboratory setting? Seriously think about this before making a post.

If you state that number 1 is the most likely explanation, what specifically are you going to use as evidence. How does a person distinguish between number 1 and number 2? What evidence can you possibly supply that shows that number 2 is more likely than number 1?

What can we do to show that number 3 is plausible......

If I can supply evidence that suggests that number 3 is the best possible explanation (and bring the appropriate evidence to the table with REAL data) what evidence can you possibly bring to the table that suggests that number 1 or number 2 is the best possible answer? I will keep on stating that number 3 is the best possible answer until you can supply evidence to either disprove my claim or add to my claim. This is how science works my friend and to the best of my knowledge its the best tool we have for predicting phenomenon and understanding our surroundings.

Get it yet? If not, then I would suggest reviewing the concept of 'conjecture' and how people move from conjecture to presenting a coherent explanation for something. It appears to me that all of the evidence that you have presented so far is conjecture. When are you going to move from conjecture to something of substance?

Good day mate. Happy greetings Chap. And Cheers........

 

[Frenger]

Hiya babez.

Wait? what now? The universe is infinte?

Yeppers.

when or where did you show me this?

Earlier, when you said

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

I said

Much of the measurements made that strive to determine the shape of the Universe point to one picture, we are living in a flat universe. This was first declared by a group of scientists working on the Boomerang project and later on confirmed with sharp accuracy by the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe).

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/37029/flat-universe/#ixzz2IJpAWVsN

Annd finally from the same sauce.

The Big Bang theory has spewed forth theories that strive to predict the way the Universe will end. Among them are the Big Crunch, Big Bounce, Big Freeze, and Big Rip. All four of them are dependent on a handful of factors, and one of them is the Universe's shape.
That the Universe is flat gives us an idea as to how it may meet its ultimate end. The most plausible scenario is a continuous expansion, albeit with an equally continuous decreasing rate. Thus, this shape supports scenarios such as the Big Freeze, and contradicts extreme ones like the Big Rip and exactly opposite ones like the Big Crunch or the Big Bounce.

I don't see how you can go against all the evidence we have for a beginning of time and space and claim an infinite universe. I don't consider you to be reasonable for that matter.

My point about the Universe being eternal was a response to saying the Universe was going to end because of fermodinamikz.

I didn't say there wasn't a beginning to what we know as time and space, however, there is no evidence to determine anything that happened before that.

I suspect as you are the antithesis of reasonable, calling me unreasonable would mean that I am in fact ruddy reasonable.

Thx.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

That is a good question. The best answer I can give is...since God is fair and just He will undoubted pardon those who have not recieved the gospel message. However it should be noted that even without hearing the gospel one can still come to the realization that God exists and even develope a relationship with him as long as one seeks Him. Seek and ye shall find. Knock and the dorr will be opened to you. I doubt given the outreach the gospel message has that not many will go without hearing. There are tribal missionaries that have translated the bible into many tribal languages. They spend nearly a life time learning a tribal language and then writing out the language and then interpriting the gospel message into that language.

So.

If you hadn't told a moral pagan about God and Jesus for them to outright deny you in favor of what they had going, then their odds would be greater to go to heaven whilst being the same, moral individual?

I don't know what the 'odds' would be. I don't know any body's heart. especially the heart of paganists.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I don't know what the 'odds' would be. I don't know any body's heart. especially the heart of paganists.

But you could reasonably deduce their chances based on the mere observation:
1) If they don't know, they may go to heaven if they have a good heart.
2) If they have a good heart, but prefer to do what they were doing traditionally after I told them - their odds are immediately reduced to zero.

Obsv. 1 > Obsv. 2

 

[Deleted member 619]

Oooh, what's in here?

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:

Excellent. Then you will be unfettered to the extent that you'll be able to get on with providing evidential support for your multifarious claims. Won't that be fun?

Some one told me: "The burden of proof lies with the party making a proposition...

Ah, good. So we're not coming in cold, then.

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"

Well, it's pretty poorly expressed, but I've seen worse, and the meat of it is largely correct. The prosecution is making a case in the affirmative, namely that the defendant is guilty. In reality, the defence doesn't even have to show that the defendant is not guilty, only that the prosecution have failed to sufficiently demonstrate the defendant's guilt. That's the only part where this analogy falls down.

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?

Wrong, because you are supporting the positive assertion. In the case of the courtroom analogy, the positive proposition is that the defendant is guilty. The presumption is that the defendant is not, and this presumption is even enshrined in law in most countries. The simple fact is that the prosecution is attempting to show beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. If the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish this, the jury is not only not obliged to accept the defendant's guilt, they are actually obliged to reject the prosecutor's case.

In the case of your magic man and the attitude of the critical thinker to your claims regarding him, the role of presumption of innocence is skepticism.

Here is my problem with the burden of proof:

I already know what your problem is with the burden of proof, and so does everybody else here. Your problem with it is that the burden is yours. Anything else is merely hand-waving. Your motives are as transparent to the critical thinkers here as cling film.

There is a great deal of difficulty determining who has the burden of proof.

Not remotely. Establishing the burden of proof is a trivial matter to anybody with more than two functioning neurons, unless there is an ideological barrier to seeing it.

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.

Oooh, you're going to present evidence for the existence of god? Well, blow me over, this I have to see. There are some extremely serious gentlemen in Stockholm who would like to see it, and they have a nice shiny medal ready to engrave your name on next to a picture of the man who invented dynamite. Should I call them now?

Hang on. I suppose we'd best take a look at the evidence first. It's a bit late in Stockholm...

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.

Err ,no, because atheism isn't a truth claim. It's the rejection of a particular class of truth claim.

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.

I know many things, but I have no information on the existence of an entity that could reasonably be described as a deity. What I do know, since you bring it up, is that the entity described in your book of preposterous mythology does not exist, because such an entity is impossible.

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.

Except, as explained above, you are not the defence, you are the prosecution, and I even explained in great detail why that is. The jury's natural position should be skepticism regarding the claims of the prosecution, because the burden is upon the prosecution. The prosecutor says that the defendant is guilty, the jury's response is 'prove it'. That's what the burden means. You are prosecuting the case, asserting that god is guilty of existing, in essence. My response to you is 'support your case with evidence'. Here, we don't just have reasonable grounds for doubt, we have colossal grounds for doubt, not least because all the claims ever forwarded by the credulous for their multifarious imaginary friends have been incoherent, full of holes, lacking anything resembling supporting evidence, or all of the above.

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.

The defence's job is to probe at the reasoning of the prosecutor, looking for holes, or flaws in the conclusions or how they were drawn. The defence doesn't have any burden other than showing that the prosecutor hasn't sufficiently established the guilt of the defendant. This usually involves showing that other, equally plausible conclusions can be drawn.

You make accusations of my proof and I defend my proof against your accusations.

Thing is, you haven't presented anything thus far other than the contents of your bowels, and certainly not any proof or evidence (as an aside, you might want to learn the distinction between 'proof' and 'evidential support', as this might aid you in injecting a little rigour. A little work on understanding logical fallacies wouldn't go amiss, either).

You are quite right. I don't think we will ever reach an agreement on the burden of proof.

Of course not, because that would require that you actually understand it.

I believe it is not only myself that proposes a proposition.

Really?

Do you not claim the non-existence of God?

Nope. I have no position on the existence of a deity. Your god, sure, he doesn't exist, something that is trivial to demonstrate.

That sounds like a position to me. Nonetheless, I am fulfilling the burden of proof as best as I can.

You haven't provided any proof, or evidence, or even begun to.

You are doing your best to refute my proof.

No, I am successfully refuting your arguments. Arguments are not evidence.

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?

No, I'm asking you to demonstrate that your masturbation fantasy is guilty of having any basis in reality.

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.

Of course you're frustrated, but that;'s simply because of your abject ignorance of how this works, and how the analogy works. I've explained above how it works, so perhaps we can move on to that evidence you promised.

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!"

What of it? The prosecutor would have been shown to be a complete numpty with no understanding of the law.

So I conclude that atheism is also a claim in which the burden of proof is shared.

The problem is that atheism is not a claim.

If you claim that there is no God you need to provide the evidence supporting your CLAIM.

Not what is claimed here.

There you go, no profanity. Let's watch you evade anyway.

 

[Laurens]

That is a good question. The best answer I can give is...since God is fair and just He will undoubted pardon those who have not recieved the gospel message. However it should be noted that even without hearing the gospel one can still come to the realization that God exists and even develope a relationship with him as long as one seeks Him. Seek and ye shall find. Knock and the dorr will be opened to you. I doubt given the outreach the gospel message has that not many will go without hearing. There are tribal missionaries that have translated the bible into many tribal languages. They spend nearly a life time learning a tribal language and then writing out the language and then interpriting the gospel message into that language.

God is fair and just?

How does torturing someone forever for finite crimes even come close to anything resembling fairness and justice?

Its about as fair and just as strapping an eight-year-old to the electric chair for stealing an ice lolly.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

 

[Josephhasfun01]

I didn't say there wasn't a beginning to what we know as time and space, however, there is no evidence to determine anything that happened before that.

The truth comes out! An argument from ignorance! thanks for the clarification. I was wondering what you were talking about! :lol:

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Joseph....

Let me try to break this down for you with an exercise using critical thinking:

Lightening Strikes the ground and three potential explanations are offered:

1. Your God was mad at people.
2. Zeus decided that throwing fire bolts from the sky was a good way to show his power.
3. The lightening was caused by static electricity between a cloud and something on the surface of the Earth.


Which of the three explanations has the most evidence to back it up (go do the research or potential thought experiment and bring it to the table). Which of the three explanations can be tested in a laboratory setting? Seriously think about this before making a post.

If you state that number 1 is the most likely explanation, what specifically are you going to use as evidence. How does a person distinguish between number 1 and number 2? What evidence can you possibly supply that shows that number 2 is more likely than number 1?

What can we do to show that number 3 is plausible......

If I can supply evidence that suggests that number 3 is the best possible explanation (and bring the appropriate evidence to the table with REAL data) what evidence can you possibly bring to the table that suggests that number 1 or number 2 is the best possible answer? I will keep on stating that number 3 is the best possible answer until you can supply evidence to either disprove my claim or add to my claim. This is how science works my friend and to the best of my knowledge its the best tool we have for predicting phenomenon and understanding our surroundings.

Get it yet? If not, then I would suggest reviewing the concept of 'conjecture' and how people move from conjecture to presenting a coherent explanation for something. It appears to me that all of the evidence that you have presented so far is conjecture. When are you going to move from conjecture to something of substance?

Good day mate. Happy greetings Chap. And Cheers........

NICE STRAW MAN, MAN!

 

[Josephhasfun01]

That is a good question. The best answer I can give is...since God is fair and just He will undoubted pardon those who have not recieved the gospel message. However it should be noted that even without hearing the gospel one can still come to the realization that God exists and even develope a relationship with him as long as one seeks Him. Seek and ye shall find. Knock and the dorr will be opened to you. I doubt given the outreach the gospel message has that not many will go without hearing. There are tribal missionaries that have translated the bible into many tribal languages. They spend nearly a life time learning a tribal language and then writing out the language and then interpriting the gospel message into that language.

God is fair and just?

How does torturing someone forever for finite crimes even come close to anything resembling fairness and justice?

Its about as fair and just as strapping an eight-year-old to the electric chair for stealing an ice lolly.

straw men are lining up! watch them fall! ooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh..... aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh

What we do on this side of eternity effects how we will spend eternity

 

[Prolescum]

...and the burden of proof stays resolutely in the same place.

 

[australopithecus]

What we do on this side of eternity effects how we will spend eternity

That's not a straw man. Just so you know.

Also, infinite punishment for finite crimes neither fair nor just by any definition of either word.

 

[Laurens]

straw men are lining up! watch them fall! ooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh..... aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh

What we do on this side of eternity effects how we will spend eternity

Calling an argument a straw man doesn't make it so.

You have to show why it is so.

I stand by my point, infinite punishment for finite crime is not just.

 

[australopithecus]

Joe clearly doesn't know what any of the logical fallacies he's crying about are. If he did, he'd be able to spot them in his own arguments. Instead he's just parroting what other people have called out in his posts, only in completely the wrong circumstances.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Any chance of addressing my post, Joe, or was all that bluster about my use of expletives just an excuse to evade the evisceration of your 'arguments'?

 

[Frenger]

The truth comes out! An argument from ignorance! thanks for the clarification. I was wondering what you were talking about! :lol:

Argument from ignorance

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false

Good effort again Joe.

 

[Laurens]

Any chance of addressing my post, Joe, or was all that bluster about my use of expletives just an excuse to evade the evisceration of your 'arguments'?

I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

[Deleted member 619]

It's a knack. :roll:

 

[Josephhasfun01]

...and the burden of proof stays resolutely in the same place.

How is that? Because atheism is not a claim right? If that's the case, then by definition, atheism does not exist.
I do believe that atheism is a claim. It claims that there is no reason to believe that God exists. You need to explain why you don't believe God exists.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

What we do on this side of eternity effects how we will spend eternity

That's not a straw man. Just so you know.

Also, infinite punishment for finite crimes neither fair nor just by any definition of either word.

Anyone ever been spanked by doing something they were told not to do? As a child I was spanked a bunch of times. We existed in heaven with God before we were born. We came from eternity and placed into finity. We will return back to eternity from where we came. Think of hell as the consequence(spanking) for not living your life as it was intended to be lived. It's a very superficial analogy but it is true. God is not love if He forces you to choose heaven. If you want to choose to not listen to reason then that's just fine.