Burden of Proof

[Sunstone]

I'm confused. I thought "burden of proof" was a legal term and not a term in logic.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Why should I invest faith in this walk of life,

You shouldn't. Not until you can see the evidence. Just because you can't "see" it does not mean it's not there. Have you learned to see X-Rays yet?

 

[Named]

Can contexts take out patents on terminology, now?
Even if it were, does it matter? >_>

 

[Named]

You shouldn't. Not until you can see the evidence. Just because you can't "see" it does not mean it's not there. Have you learned to see X-Rays yet?

I see the [font=&quot]unequivocal effect of X-rays, in that I can see my boooones.
Could some outside force have intervened and be the -real- cause of medical X-rays?
Perhaps... But it's absurdity makes it hardly worth considering, ya?

So yes, indirectly I CAN see X-rays. Bad example

Though my imagination is quite vast. I can see lots of things... I can even through a series of twisted yet logical steps PROVE these whimsical creations of my mind. Albeit, I won't believe them, because fortunately I am sane ^^
[/font]

 

[Tawn]

When people say 'see'.. like in the contaxt named used - he didnt mean literally see with your eyes. Perhaps a better word would be 'observe'. I can observe x-rays. I can observe time. Etc...

Can you 'observe' God?

 

[Snowbear]

I see the [font=&quot]unequivocal effect of X-rays, in that I can see my boooones.
Could some outside force have intervened and be the -real- cause of medical X-rays?
Perhaps... But it's absurdity makes it hardly worth considering, ya?

So yes, indirectly I CAN see X-rays. Bad example

Though my imagination is quite vast. I can see lots of things... I can even through a series of twisted yet logical steps PROVE these whimsical creations of my mind. Albeit, I won't believe them, because fortunately I am sane ^^
[/font]

As you said - you see the effect of X-rays..... but no, you do not see your bones. What you see is the image of your bones on the film as a result of the x-rays that passed through your body. So directly or indirectly, you see the result of the x-rays and the technology that puts the images on the film, not the x-rays themselves.

Just as those of us who cannot see God Himself, but we see what God has done.....

 

[Pah]

It's become a sematical game. In comparing God in nature and bones in xrays there is an important point missed. The flesh can be cut away and the bones seen. Strip mining, drilling, earth penetrating radar and tunneling has not revealed the God shown by nature. All of this is, of course, off-topic.

 

[SpiritElf]

Back to burden of proof:
I agree with the PP who said it's on the one who's making the claim. And since, in a debate, both debaters are making a claim, then the burden is on both of them.
But of course, when speaking of spiritual matter which is, by it's nature, not physical and tangible, then the "proof" becomes "plausibility", as in, which case is more plausible: the case for theism, or the case for atheism? Atheists have not been able to come up with *concrete proof* that God doesn't exist, anymore than theists have been able to show that God does. It's all about which one do you think is more likely.

Thus, we always fall back on philosophy, logic, and probability.

Atheists cannot expect to sit back and, as Tawn so naively said "shoot down the theist arguments". Is atheism is claim to knowing something, or isn't it??? If you claim you "don't know", then you are not atheist, you are agnostic, and you have no place in the debate anyway.
If you claim that there is NO GOD, then you are making a claim, and the burden is on you just as much as someone who says there IS a God. You can't just say "There is no evidence for God's existence" but you have to present evidence AGAINST God's existence.
So, in other words, you either know, in which case "persuade us".
Or you don't know, in which case you have no case to begin with.

 

[Tawn]

But of course, when speaking of spiritual matter which is, by it's nature, not physical and tangible, then the "proof" becomes "plausibility", as in, which case is more plausible: the case for theism, or the case for atheism? Atheists have not been able to come up with *concrete proof* that God doesn't exist, anymore than theists have been able to show that God does. It's all about which one do you think is more likely.

Thus, we always fall back on philosophy, logic, and probability.

So true, so true.

Atheists cannot expect to sit back and, as Tawn so naively said "shoot down the theist arguments". Is atheism is claim to knowing something, or isn't it??? If you claim you "don't know", then you are not atheist, you are agnostic, and you have no place in the debate anyway.

Perhaps it would do you well to take back that comment about naivity and then educate yourself about Atheism and Agnosticism. You seem to be unaware of Strong Atheism and Weak Atheism.

>>Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods.
>>Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all.
>>Atheists might assert that some or all gods do not or cannot exist, but that isn’t a prerequisite for atheism and it shouldn’t be assumed that any particular atheist does so.
>>>>>Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to them, but the simple absence of belief in gods — aside from being the default position — is automatically justified and made credible so long as theists are not successful in making a credible case for their god.

Hope that clears things up for you...

If you claim that there is NO GOD, then you are making a claim, and the burden is on you just as much as someone who says there IS a God. You can't just say "There is no evidence for God's existence" but you have to present evidence AGAINST God's existence.
So, in other words, you either know, in which case "persuade us".
Or you don't know, in which case you have no case to begin with.

Well thats dissapointing.. you were on the right track with the first half of your post, stating that all we can really do is explore 'likelihoods'.. and then you seem to have forgotten what you were saying.. and ranted about proof and knowing absolutes.
You said yourself that proof for or against God cannot be shown. I dont know there isnt a God... but it seems to me that if he did exist there would be something to suggest his presence. The lack thereof suggests non-existance.. even if it doesnt prove it.

As you said - you see the effect of X-rays..... but no, you do not see your bones. What you see is the image of your bones on the film as a result of the x-rays that passed through your body. So directly or indirectly, you see the result of the x-rays and the technology that puts the images on the film, not the x-rays themselves.

Just as those of us who cannot see God Himself, but we see what God has done.....

The thing is that alternative naturalistic explanations can be given for all of these things that God has supposedly done. There are no alternative explanations for the effects of x-rays.. so we assume that to be true. We cannot assume God to be true until either:
a) Additional effects of God are shown which cannot be explained naturalistically..
b) The naturalistic explanations for current supposed God effects are shown to be false..

 

[Nick Soapdish]

We cannot assume God to be true until either:
a) Additional effects of God are shown which cannot be explained naturalistically..
b) The naturalistic explanations for current supposed God effects are shown to be false..

Sorry Tawn, but when looking at this last statement, it seems a bit misleading for you to claim you are this sort of receptive, uncommitted, "weak" atheist.

Everyone I know who believes in God believes Him to be supernatural. Your conditions make an underlying assumption that God is subject to naturalistic observation, therefore you have eliminated the possibility of believing in God. I do not see a difference between not believing in God and believing that if God existed, He would have naturalistic explanations. They are tightly coupled by logic and reason.

So, as far as your position with burden of proof, would you be willing to take the position that you have the burden of convincing us the claim above it true (the one quoted). If you can show that if God exists, he must be "explained naturally", then I believe you will have effectively shown that God does not exist. Considering this I see no difference between you and the "strong" atheist.

 

[Tawn]

Sorry Tawn, but when looking at this last statement, it seems a bit misleading for you to claim you are this sort of receptive, uncommitted, "weak" atheist.

Everyone I know who believes in God believes Him to be supernatural. Your conditions make an underlying assumption that God is subject to naturalistic observation, therefore you have eliminated the possibility of believing in God. I do not see a difference between not believing in God and believing that if God existed, He would have naturalistic explanations. They are tightly coupled by logic and reason.
So, as far as your position with burden of proof, would you be willing to take the position that you have the burden of convincing us the claim above it true (the one quoted). If you can show that if God exists, he must be "explained naturally", then I believe you will have effectively shown that God does not exist. Considering this I see no difference between you and the "strong" atheist.

I think you may have misread what I said - im not quite sure...

Snowbear specifically said that we can see the effects of God. However, my point is that anything that can be construed as an effect-of-God can be reasonably explained through naturalistic mechanisms. Thus rendering the point unresolved, with the exception that most naturalistic explanations have evidence to back them up.

On the other hand if the effects-of-God cannot be observed at all naturalistically then that effectively means you are saying that God has done nothing in this universe at all. I dont expect God to have a naturalistic presence.. but I do expect his actions to have an affect on the material and naturalistic.

I dont know what made you think im not a 'weak' Atheist.. if you want to discuss it I'd be happy to explain my position.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

On the other hand if the effects-of-God cannot be observed at all naturalistically then that effectively means you are saying that God has done nothing in this universe at all. I dont expect God to have a naturalistic presence.. but I do expect his actions to have an affect on the material and naturalistic.

I have a couple of questions so I can better understand your position.

Why do you add the condition "naturalistically"?

How should we expect to recognize an event as having been caused by God?

 

[Tawn]

I have a couple of questions so I can better understand your position.

Why do you add the condition "naturalistically"?

Good question. One should think that all forms of observation are naturalistic. However there are those observations that remain based on the ever elusive 'faith' - having a spiritual connection with God. If God can only affect this universe through the minds of people then God isnt really very different from the idea of God... and becomes impossible to prove or disprove.

How should we expect to recognize an event as having been caused by God?

Well it should be something which could have only been caused by God. In other words all naturalistic explanations should fail us. God may have very well done things which could have happened naturally, but then why believe in God when the naturalistic explanations have evidence to back them up?

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

God may have very well done things which could have happened naturally, but then why believe in God when the naturalistic explanations have evidence to back them up?

Have you noticed that in recent history, 'natural causes' was a very common reason for death. Now, all 'natural causes' have been labeled and described as something else, and is no longer considered 'natural causes'. I don't know what this has to do with the conversation. I was just wondering things like, why does two people with the same condition have different outcomes to their ordeal? Science may be able to label it, and maybe even sometimes predict it. But there is proof of miraculous healing, and science has yet to be able to measure or predict this phenomena.

 

[Tawn]

Have you noticed that in recent history, 'natural causes' was a very common reason for death. Now, all 'natural causes' have been labeled and described as something else, and is no longer considered 'natural causes'. I don't know what this has to do with the conversation. I was just wondering things like, why does two people with the same condition have different outcomes to their ordeal? Science may be able to label it, and maybe even sometimes predict it.

Science isnt perfect. There is still a lot we arent fairly certain about.. but medical knowledge is constantly growing. I suppose 'natural causes' simply refers to medical complications... not something being the result of an accident or murder.

But there is proof of miraculous healing, and science has yet to be able to measure or predict this phenomena.

The ability of the body to heal itself is considered to be strongly associated with the mind. A positive outlook can produce wonderous results. This is why new drugs are often tested via the placebo(edit) method. The placebo(edit) effect is a known phenomena.
If you are referring to something which cannot be explained via PMA (positive mental attitude) then I expect we are discussing isolated cases.. not for this thread.. but might be useful to discuss elsewhere..

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But there is proof of miraculous healing, and science has yet to be able to measure or predict this phenomena.

Really. There may be evidence of statistically unlikely healing, or healing that is not fully understood, but I've yet to see evidence of miracles. Since you certainly would not make a totally baseless or dishonest claim, I'm very excited to here that that you have such evidence. May I ask when you were planning to share it with us? No doubt others would find it instructive as well.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Tawn-- Did you mean the placebo effect?

The main problem I'm seeing here is that 'God' has yet to be defined. Which god are we talking about? Is it the indifferent intelligent Creator of the deists? Is it the triune god of the Catholics? Etc, etc...

The burden of evidence should fall on the one making the positive claim. For example, if someone claims that centaurs exist, that person must provide evidence for that claim. The person who does not believe in centaurs cannot be expected to find evidence "against" their existence. (What would such "evidence" look like--a photograph of a centaur not existing? )

Of course, those who do not believe in centaurs can make any number of positive claims, if they wish. They could claim that a certain forest is devoid of centaurs, or they could even go so far as to claim that centaurs don't exist at all. Once again, these positive claims should be backed by evidence....however, the evidence for such claims would simply consist of the absence of evidence for the claims "centaurs exist in this forest" or "centaurs exist" (e.g., the entire forest is cut down and no centaurs are seen). In order for this absence of evidence to be significant, the definition of "centaurs" must be such that, if they exist, they can't turn invisible or evade us if we cut down an entire forest....they can't have enough magical powers to evade all detection. If they do have those incredible magical powers, it's impossible to back up the claim "centuars do not exist". Non-believers can do little but place centaurs in the infinite set of supernatural beings that *could* exist.

The goal of every centaur-believer--and every theist--is to define their imaginary entity in such a way as to render its detection impossible (or simply leave it undefined, as has happened on this and innumerable other threads).

I was going to make this post into a new thread about defining god, but this really is on topic (and it's a topic that needs to be addressed in every thread about 'god'). Whether the burden of proof lies on the theist or the nontheist depends greatly on which 'god' we're talking about (why assume there is only one god?).

[edit: rephrasing my question] I noticed some discussion about the "effects" of god. For starters, how does one determine that the "effects" were produced by god, and not some other supernatural entity?

 

[Tawn]

Tawn-- Did you mean the placebo effect?

Doh! :bonk:

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Really. There may be evidence of statistically unlikely healing, or healing that is not fully understood, but I've yet to see evidence of miracles. Since you certainly would not make a totally baseless or dishonest claim, I'm very excited to here that that you have such evidence. May I ask when you were planning to share it with us? No doubt others would find it instructive as well.

My father-in-law had a golf ball sized tumor located on his heart. The night before his scheduled surgery, the church held an all night prayer vigil for him. The next day, pre-op x-rays showed that the tumor had completely disappeared.

I also had a friend who got a lethal chemical burn. She was scarred down the side of her face, all down the side of her torso, and partially down her leg. She also had internal damage to her organs. The doctors gave her less than 6 months to live. An atheist friend of ours kept giving her a hard time, asking her 'where is your God now?' But that same friend bought tickets for us to go see a hands on healer that was speaking at a local church. That night my friend was completely healed of her burns, inside and out. Not even the slightest scar remains.

These are not stories I got off the internet, they happened right in front of me. These are only two of the many miracles I have seen.

 

[Tawn]

My father-in-law had a golf ball sized tumor located on his heart. The night before his scheduled surgery, the church held an all night prayer vigil for him. The next day, pre-op x-rays showed that the tumor had completely disappeared.

I also had a friend who got a lethal chemical burn. She was scarred down the side of her face, all down the side of her torso, and partially down her leg. She also had internal damage to her organs. The doctors gave her less than 6 months to live. An atheist friend of ours kept giving her a hard time, asking her 'where is your God now?' But that same friend bought tickets for us to go see a hands on healer that was speaking at a local church. That night my friend was completely healed of her burns, inside and out. Not even the slightest scar remains.

These are not stories I got off the internet, they happened right in front of me. These are only two of the many miracles I have seen.

Post these in a new thread..