Who bears the burden of proof?

[crocusj]

Meh. I'm just taking it at face value. If 100 people came up to me and said they saw a UFO land in the field last night, I would definitely believe they saw something, and I would probably be more inclined to believe that aliens are visiting our planet.

There are literally billions of people telling me that a god of some sort exists. This is something which makes me more inclined to believe a god exists. However, there are many other things which offset that inclination.

I live but a few miles from Loch Ness. Thousands (millions?) believe in the monster, hundreds of people have seen the monster, lots have even filmed the monster. Many of these witnesses are of sound mind and good character. The monster, on the other hand, does not exist.

 

[ChristineES]

In the epic struggle to answer the ultimate question, "Does God exist?" who has the ultimate responsibility to provide the proof?

Does it fall to the theist to provide evidence for the existence of God?

Or;

Does it fall to the atheist to provide evidence that God does not exist?

Does it matter? Are these questions even helpful in answering the question?

Neither. You couldn't prove God to an atheist and you couldn't prove there was no God to a theist. There is no evidence either way. The best would be a stalemate.
Most theists don't go around trying to prove God; what they do* is "spread the word". Jehovah's Witnesses go door to door, I used to see Hindus at the airport, and certain Christian services have big banners or what is called a crusade; when an evangelist, like Billy Graham preaches to a big crowd at a sport's arena or something. They also have TV Evangelists and preachers- of various faiths. (I used to watch this Buddhist show after listening to gospel singing on a local channel).

And, to be fair, most atheists don't go around trying to disprove God either (they wouldn't have any reason to, even so).



*Not all theists advertise in this way.

 

[ChristineES]

I live but a few miles from Loch Ness. Thousands (millions?) believe in the monster, hundreds of people have seen the monster, lots have even filmed the monster. Many of these witnesses are of sound mind and good character. The monster, on the other hand, does not exist.

You have to keep in mind that even if it doesn't exist, you couldn't disprove it to those who believe it is real.

 

[ChristineES]

I live but a few miles from Loch Ness. Thousands (millions?) believe in the monster, hundreds of people have seen the monster, lots have even filmed the monster. Many of these witnesses are of sound mind and good character. The monster, on the other hand, does not exist.

I have one more point. Whether it exists or doesn't exist doesn't matter; and I am not qualified to make that judgment.

 

[crocusj]

You have to keep in mind that even if it doesn't exist, you couldn't disprove it to those who believe it is real.

Ah, but whose is the burden of proof?

 

[crocusj]

I have one more point. Whether it exists or doesn't exist doesn't matter; and I am not qualified to make that judgment.

You're right that it does not matter, unless of course if belief in the monster infringes on non believers freedoms (not allowed to take a boat on the water!).

 

[McBell]

Ah, but whose is the burden of proof?

You do.
You made the claim, now it is on you to support your claim.

I live but a few miles from Loch Ness. Thousands (millions?) believe in the monster, hundreds of people have seen the monster, lots have even filmed the monster. Many of these witnesses are of sound mind and good character. The monster, on the other hand, does not exist.

 

[Smoke]

Meh. I'm just taking it at face value. If 100 people came up to me and said they saw a UFO land in the field last night, I would definitely believe they saw something, and I would probably be more inclined to believe that aliens are visiting our planet.

There are literally billions of people telling me that a god of some sort exists. This is something which makes me more inclined to believe a god exists. However, there are many other things which offset that inclination.

I don't know 100 people who claim to have seen god; do you?

 

[crocusj]

You do.
You made the claim, now it is on you to support your claim.

Thanks for nothing!...there's not enough food to sustain the monster therefore the monster does not exist. I did toy with the option of saying I did not believe the monster existed but since this was actually a reply to how large numbers of eyewitnesses can often be meaningless and since I am also a bit drunk and since it is patently obvious that people who claim a large prehistoric monster exists in a Scottish loch do actually bear the burden of proof I'm sticking with the monster does not exist....though I have been wrong about stuff before.:run:

 

[Dunemeister]

Respondeo

Sorry, we all get to decide for ourselves what constitutes evidence on this one. I have seen zero evidence for the existence of any god in my life. I have seen what others define as evidence for them, but I tend to have different standards of evidence than those people.

You have not seen zero evidence. You have seen evidence and found it insufficient to believe in God. I can also believe that you do not interpret any of your personal experience as being evidence for God.

I don't think there's proof of god(s), but I do think there's evidence of god(s) in the way that you suggest. I agree that, for instance, stories of healings at Lourdes are evidence for the Christian God, and that accounts of Ganesh statues drinking milk are evidence for the Hindu pantheon. However, while I do acknowledge that they're evidence, I personally think that they're rather poor-quality evidence that's outweighed by evidence against the claims they support.

This is much more defensible than the view that there is no evidence.

Here we go again with the imaginary instigation of the Holy Spirit. There is no evidence that can be presented, and evidence that cannot be presented isn't really evidence.

Here we go again with misunderstanding my position. My position is NOT that the IIHS provides evidence. Rather, IIHS provides direct access to God. Evidence, at least in the western analytic tradition, is like premises in an argument. The IIHS (where the first "I" stands for "internal" rather than "imaginary" -- nice rhetorical dig, by the way!) does not provide premises for an argument. Instead, it provides knowledge directly, much like your looking at a tree gives you direct knowledge of the tree. You do not need to craft an argument to know that there's a tree right there (although perhaps it's possible; the attempts to craft such arguments are uniformly lame).

 

[McBell]

there's not enough food to sustain the monster therefore the monster does not exist.

This is not supporting your claim.

You merely presented another unsubstantiated claim.

Care to try again?

 

[McBell]

since it is patently obvious that people who claim a large prehistoric monster exists in a Scottish loch do actually bear the burden of proof I'm sticking with the monster does not exist....though I have been wrong about stuff before.:run:

You shifted the burden of proof onto yourself when you claimed it did not exist.

 

[crocusj]

Respondeo

This is much more defensible than the view that there is no evidence.

Surely discredited evidence = no evidence?

 

[crocusj]

This is not supporting your claim.

You merely presented another unsubstantiated claim.

Care to try again?

The Naturalist, winter 1993/94 reports that the loch supports about thirty tonnes of fish which would support a predator (or group of predators since a group would be necessary) weighing no more than 300kg.

 

[McBell]

The Naturalist, winter 1993/94 reports that the loch supports about thirty tonnes of fish which would support a predator (or group of predators since a group would be necessary) weighing no more than 300kg.

And if it is an herbivore?

 

[Penumbra]

Nessie feeds off of the souls of the surrounding inhabitants. She needs no food.

 

[crocusj]

And if it is an herbivore?

Remember it must a they not an it. There is almost no feed for an herbivore under the loch. The animals would have to feed on land. There are cameras all over the loch and a family of monsters would not escape detection. They would also be airbreathing and as such would be continually bobbing about on the loch.

 

[crocusj]

Nessie feeds off of the souls of the surrounding inhabitants. She needs no food.

She's certainly draining my soul tonight!

 

[McBell]

Remember it must a they not an it. There is almost no feed for an herbivore under the loch. The animals would have to feed on land. There are cameras all over the loch and a family of monsters would not escape detection. They would also be airbreathing and as such would be continually bobbing about on the loch.

and if it is an omnivore?


Really, not one single blind spot?
None at all?
You will have to prove this extraordinary claim.

 

[crocusj]

and if it is an omnivore?


Really, not one single blind spot?
None at all?
You will have to prove this extraordinary claim.

OK clearly there are blind spots!! But this is a family of dinosaurs I wish I wasn't talking about. How many dinosaurs would be required to sustain a group? I don't care enough to look it up but I'm guessing its more than a few. There are people who watch the loch (ok, the bit they can see!) 24/7. There is an extremely busy trunk road that passes along the full length of the loch. There are pleasure boats all over the loch. There is a good reason they don't see a bunch of lumbering behemoths grazing on the heather....