Burden of Proof

[jcarl]

This is a little bit I pulled off of American Atheists' site.http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html

"Although what follows may fairly be interpreted to be a proof of the non-historicity of Jesus, it must be realized that the burden of proof does not rest upon the skeptic in this matter. As always is the case, the burden of proof weighs upon those who assert that some thing or some process exists."

Does anybody agree with this onesided burden of proof? In a trial are the only people speaking the prosecution? I should say not: both sides speak.

Burden of proof exists on both sides. If I can't give a reason as to why I believe something, then I am living a hollow, fideistic life. By the same token, if one cannot give a reason for disbelieving something, then it is nothing but blind speculation that reveals true bias. If I say that Mohammed didn't exist, but can't provide evidence to back it up it is nothing but speculation that is just as hollow as fideism.

Any opinions?(Here, that's like asking Einstein,"Got any equations?" or Gates,"Got a checking account?"

 

[everneo]

I opened a thread on this topic few months back. There were mixed responses. you might like to have a look.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=26521

 

[Godless]

Lets put god on trial!!.

God do you exist, or are you just a figment of some ancient men's imagination?.

If I were to tell you that purple monkeys exist on the other side of the moon, the "burden of proof" would be squarely on my shoulders, the "burden of proof" is on the side of the persons making the claim.

This is why I hold that an atheist, can't claim that god does not exist, without certainty of what god is, god is a word with no identity, no one can claim that an etity exist or does not exist. If that entity can't be identified.

Godless.

 

[jcarl]

Re: Lets put god on trial!!.

Originally posted by Godless
God do you exist, or are you just a figment of some ancient men's imagination?.

If I were to tell you that purple monkeys exist on the other side of the moon, the "burden of proof" would be squarely on my shoulders, the "burden of proof" is on the side of the persons making the claim.

Yes, but that is unreasonable. To say that God and/or Jesus exists is a somewhat reasonable statement(that doesn't make it true necessarily, but it is reasonable.) If you had some evidence that some primates existed on the moon, then the discussion begins. I would ask,"what makes you believe that?" You would then respond with something,"We found monkey feces in a crater." Initially, yes, the burden of proof is on you, but once you give reason, the burden is then balanced between both sides.

Everneo,

I remember reading this thread a few months ago, and while I agree with your argument partially(explained later) my main point is that for someone to say," the only person that needs proof is one who believes something exists," is prepostorous.

And I disagreed with argument only in that the argument of Thallus, a pagan opponent of Christainity circa 50 A.D. who argued that the darkness during Christ's death was an eclipse, seemed to take for granted the existence of Christ.

YOu were correct in the deeds of some of the early church fathers, no doubt.

 

[Katazia]

Jcarl,

Yes, but that is unreasonable. To say that God and/or Jesus exists is a somewhat reasonable statement(that doesn't make it true necessarily, but it is reasonable.)

Why is it reasonable? Have you found feces of God or Jesus anywhere?

There is still no evidence of either – only claims. What makes your claim any more reasonable than claiming there are primates behind the moon?

Kat

 

[Godless]

Hmmmm....

install here music from (Jeopardy)....

Well Jcarl I have "faith" that purple monkeys exist on the other side of the moon, and you can't refute that! I have faith that they exist just as you have faith that god exists!.

Neither of us can prove that purple monkey don't exist on the other side of the moon, just like neither of us can prove that god exists now!! that I have installed the word "faith" on the notion of purple monkeys.

You may claim that I'm going crazy for believing that purple monkeys exist on the other side of the moon, though I can conclude the same, that you are nuts believing a supreme beign exist just purely on "faith" just like I believe and have faith in My purple monkeys!!

See where I'm geting at?.

Godless.

 

[jcarl]

Originally posted by Katazia
Jcarl,

Why is it reasonable?

It seems reasonable to say that a higher being could create the universe. Also, it seems unlikely, to me at least, that if God didn't exist that we would have even imagined the concept thereof. There are several other arguments--the argument of creation, of design, of morals, and of being. I guess I can just some it up in that if you don't see the fingerprints of God in Creation, then to you God is an "unreasonable concept."

As far as Christ goes, well as Will Durant (who is an admitted free-thinker) said in "Ceasar and Christ": [in reference to the Tacitean and young Pliny references to Jesus]"...These references prove the existence of Christians rather than of Christ; but unless we assume the latter we are driven to the improbable hypothesis that Jesus was invented in one generation; moreover, we must suppose that the Christian community in Rome had been established some years before 52, to merit the attention of an imperial decree."

Also, Kat, if you read my last post, it seems apparent that even a first-century opponent of Christianity seemed to take the existence of Christ for granted.

Have you found feces of God or Jesus anywhere?

Sadly I have not found the fecal matter of God.

There is still no evidence of either – only claims. What makes your claim any more reasonable than claiming there are primates behind the moon?

The fact that there is evidence of them.

Originally posted by Godless
Well Jcarl I have "faith" that purple monkeys exist on the other side of the moon, and you can't refute that! I have faith that they exist just as you have faith that god exists!.

Neither of us can prove that purple monkey don't exist on the other side of the moon, just like neither of us can prove that god exists now!! that I have installed the word "faith" on the notion of purple monkeys.

You may claim that I'm going crazy for believing that purple monkeys exist on the other side of the moon, though I can conclude the same, that you are nuts believing a supreme beign exist just purely on "faith" just like I believe and have faith in My purple monkeys!!

See where I'm geting at?.

What you're getting at is fideism, truth is subjective and therefore needs no proof. Fideism's only proof is "believe it" or, as Soren Kierkegaard puts it, the leap of faith.

Now if my belief has no back up, then it is hollow(not to demean faith, but in order to have a belief in something, you must have a belief that it exists.) Fideism skips the logical, and that doesn't work. If you, Godless, cannot be convinced that God exists, then it's hard to have you believe In it. make sense?a

 

[Godless]

"Fideism" Webster:
The belief that "faith" alone is the basis of knowledge rather than reason.

truth is subjective and therefore needs no proof.

Perception of our reality is objective, therefore truth must also be objective.

Illusion is subjective, therefore belief in gods, leprechans, etc.. need emperical proof.

Now if my belief has no back up, then it is hollow(not to demean faith, but in order to have a belief in something, you must have a belief that it exists.) Fideism skips the logical, and that doesn't work. If you, Godless, cannot be convinced that God exists, then it's hard to have you believe In it. make sense?a

Yea!! your "belief" has no back up! Because you believe that it exists without having knowledge in what it is that you believe in.
In other words "belief in gods is blind faith"

Your belief is based on mysticism;

Mysticism: Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either part from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as "instinct", "intuition", "revelation", or any form of "just knowing".
Reason is the perception of reality, and rests on a single axiom: The law of identity.
Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality--other than the one in which we live--whose defenition is only that it is not natural, it is "supernatural", and it is perceived by some form of unnatural or supernatural means. Ayn Rand.

Godless.

 

[jcarl]

Originally posted by Godless


Yea!! your "belief" has no back up!

Alright. I'm not going to give some long dissertation on the evidences of God. You know the arguments, so it's pointless to begin the viscious cycle again. Like I told Katazia if you don't see the fingerprints of God in Creation, then I can't convince you otherwise.

Because you believe that it exists without having knowledge in what it is that you believe in.
In other words "belief in gods is blind faith"

Your belief is based on mysticism

Correction, I believe I can have knowledge of God, just not all aspects of God.

Blind faith would need no evidence. I have given you my reasons as to why God exists. As to why Jesus exists is already stated, but why I believe in him as the savior:

-fufilled prophecy is probably the strongest.

 

[Repo Man]

Godless's argument was made by Carl Sagan, and is restated here, http://www.chestnutcafe.com/cafe/index.html?manifesto

Suppose I told you I had an invisible, fire-breathing dragon living in my garage. "Bullshit!" you would probably say. But now, suppose I responded with "Oh yeah! Well, if he doesn't exist then prove it!"

I've encountered many Christians who have given me that very same argument: "If God doesn't exist, then prove it!" Of course, I cannot. I cannot prove that God does not exist. Nor can I prove that all crop circles have been hoaxes. Nor can I prove that Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster never existed. And I cannot prove that, of all the UFO's that have been reported, none of them have ever been actual spacecraft from other worlds. I cannot even prove that, in all of the Universe, there exists nowhere a planet that is in the shape of a perfect cube and is comprised chiefly of cow dung. There are a whole lot of things I cannot prove.

Fortunately for me, the burden of proof does not rest with me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the burden of presenting that evidence is with the person making the claim.

Returning to the subject of the dragon in my garage: Can you prove that he doesn't exist? No. Of course you cannot. He is, after all, an invisible and magical creature. To prove that he does not exist is an impossibility. But, does not being able to prove that my dragon does not exist mean that you must acknowledge that he must exist? This is a great Christian fallacy - that God must exist because we cannot prove otherwise. And because it is physically impossible to prove that God does not exist, we must all believe in him.

However, suppose that, instead of trying to prove that my invisible dragon does not exist, you and I together try to prove that he does exist? Now that, we may be able to do. If we can find some means of detecting the creature, and if we can demonstrate that the detection of the creature is a reproducible process, then we will have a means of gathering evidence in support of the creature's existence.

So how do we go about proving that my invisible fire-breathing dragon exists? We ask questions, and we build scientific models (simulations) of the situation in order to probe for possible sources of information. We ask:

o Is the dragon invisible throughout the electromagnetic spectrum, or just in the visible region? In other words, can we detect the dragon in the infrared, x-ray, or radio regions of the spectrum? If nothing else, the lack of a signature in the infrared should suffice to conclude that the dragon, if he exists, does not breathe fire as previously stated!

o Is there any sound associated with the creature? Do his movements produce any ground tremors?

o Does the creature displace air ... does he have a measurable volume? If so, we may be able to measure his size by evacuating the garage and measuring the amount of air we are able to remove from it.

o Does the creature have a physical surface of any kind? If so, perhaps misting the garage with paint or flour dust will render the dragon visible as particles of the paint or dust cling to the dragon's skin.

o Does the dragon leave footprints, visible or otherwise? A little flour dust on the floor of my garage may reveal them.

Those are just a few of the experiments we might perform in an attempt to validate the existence of my invisible fire-breathing dragon. Any one of these experiments could offer some reasonable evidence that the dragon may exist. Perhaps the evidence may not be strong enough for us to state that the existence of the dragon is fact. However, any evidence we uncovered would certainly give us reason to look further into the matter.

But suppose we perform all of the experiments outlined above and still come up with no evidence that supports the existence of the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage? Does that mean he doesn't exist? No. It means only that we weren't able to detect him.

Bertrand Russell also had a version;

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
-- Bertrand Russell

 

[jcarl]

I'll say this and you may take it/leave as you wish: God exists within the spiritual realm. Scientifically speaking one could not create an instrument that would have God show up, and you can't get in a space ship and find him in the uttermost parts of the universe. If you could, then God would be finite and mortal,(b/c we live in a finite universe) Check out 2 Cor. 4:18

 

[Katazia]

Jcarl,

It seems reasonable to say that a higher being could create the universe.

Perhaps to ancients who had none of the knowledge that modern science has now provided. We are now aware of the 4 primary forces that appear to explain most of the universe although we have still to fully discern all their interactions, and that seems just a matter of time. We also understand how matter and energy are in a constant state of change, interchange, and motion that inevitably lead to the many evolutionary processes that create galaxies, planets, stars and life.

But as Hawkings said – This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

From the ancient perspective and from their ignorance only an intelligent being could create something. But we now see that intelligence evolved from simpler beings. To conclude that something of super intelligence created everything that exists begs the question of how this being could have evolved.

Given our new modern understanding and knowledge of how the universe operates it now seems more reasonable to conclude that a super being did not create the universe.

Also, it seems unlikely, to me at least, that if God didn't exist that we would have even imagined the concept thereof.

History shows that this is exactly what appears to have occurred. Mankind has an insatiable curiosity and a need to have answers, whether true or not. Critical thought requires patience and effort and most people seem to have neither. The result of course in the absence real knowledge is widespread superstitions, the belief in magic and the creation of imaginary concepts such as the supernatural and gods.

There are several other arguments--the argument of creation, of design, of morals, and of being. I guess I can just some it up in that if you don't see the fingerprints of God in Creation, then to you God is an "unreasonable concept."

I read in another thread here – there is no evidence for anything to have ever been created – everything has evolved from something simpler. In other words there is no precedent to conclude that the universe or life was designed or created by intelligence.

I see many more far more reasonable and natural explanations that explain the universe and life without the need to invent imaginary beings and stories that derive from ancient times of incredible ignorance and superstition.

So yes indeed I do find the concept that God exists as quite unreasonable.

Also, Kat, if you read my last post, it seems apparent that even a first-century opponent of Christianity seemed to take the existence of Christ for granted.

I believe those arguments had been successfully refuted.

The fact that there is evidence of them.

There is no evidence that Jesus existed though, only questionable and biased hearsay. As for God: There are plenty of more reasonable explanations to replace such a concept.

To the Burden of Proof – can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists? All the time I can offer simpler and naturalistic explanations for life and the universe then you do not have a case. You require the existence of an entire supernatural paradigm and for that there is simply no precedent or evidence. On the simple basis of reasonableness you will fail in your attempt.

Kat

 

[okinrus]

Yes, I would agree. If God was such a preposterous thing, then surely mankind would not have even thought of him. The skeptical proof of not proving anything falls apart when we consider that something has always existed. That is to say, we cannot perceive emptyness because the moment we do, it is something. Thus said, it is perfectly rational to assume that there was, is and will be a first cause of something. When the Greeks perceived that there was something holding up the earth, they were right. But they were wrong to assume that it was a human being. Similarly, it is altogether reasonable to assume that there is a first cause who is not like us.

 

[Repo Man]

Science doesn't pretend to have all of the answers Okinrus.

But science has shown that the god of the bible wasn't necessary for anything that has happened to date.

Does the universe have a cause or a purpose? Who knows, maybe. But there is no good reason to think it involves humans in any important way. Or possibly even at all.

We're just a form of matter. It is only our own incredible egocentrism that causes us to dream up myths where the universe was created for us by a being that looks like us.

 

[jcarl]

Originally posted by Katazia
Jcarl,

Perhaps to ancients who had none of the knowledge that modern science has now provided. We are now aware of the 4 primary forces that appear to explain most of the universe although we have still to fully discern all their interactions, and that seems just a matter of time. We also understand how matter and energy are in a constant state of change, interchange, and motion that inevitably lead to the many evolutionary processes that create galaxies, planets, stars and life.

Can science explain how these forces came to be? B/c to say that they existed eternally doesn't match up with entropy, the radiation echo, the motion of the galaxies, and casuality.

From the ancient perspective and from their ignorance only an intelligent being could create something.

Well, Newton sure believed in God, and to call him ignorant is one whale of a task.

But we now see that intelligence evolved from simpler beings. To conclude that something of super intelligence created everything that exists begs the question of how this being could have evolved.

Here's a prologue to my answer: God is not of this physical realm, which is demonstrated by the fact that we can't physically see him. Now as a result of that he could exist in a realm that we can't access scientifically, that being the spiritual realm.

Here is my answer: To say that God evolved or was created simply creates an Infinite Regress of Creators. Somewhere down the line, something has to be eternal for the whole thing to start. Now the statement that God is infinite fits in with the fact that we cannot detect him, since nothing infinite can be of this physical, finite realm. Therefore he exists in another realm, that being the spiritual realm.

Given our new modern understanding and knowledge of how the universe operates it now seems more reasonable to conclude that a super being did not create the universe.

So you will tell me that the orderly world that we live in came out of disarray and , dare I say, chance?

I read in another thread here – there is no evidence for anything to have ever been created – everything has evolved from something simpler. In other words there is no precedent to conclude that the universe or life was designed or created by intelligence.

Has there ever been shown in an experiment that some very simple life form has changed to another life form?

I believe those arguments had been successfully refuted.

Really? I've never heard a refutation of the Thallus evidence(at least of any relevance)

There is no evidence that Jesus existed though, only questionable and biased hearsay.

What would constitute in your mind evidence that Jesus existed?

To the Burden of Proof – can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists? All the time I can offer simpler and naturalistic explanations for life and the universe then you do not have a case. You require the existence of an entire supernatural paradigm and for that there is simply no precedent or evidence. On the simple basis of reasonableness you will fail in your attempt.

Is your theory of evolution really simpler? I've yet to hear of a case where even bacteria can be shown to change into another life form. And if you consider the Creation of DNA by way of mutations w/ no intelligence to be simple, then let's just hope that you're right.

 

[okinrus]

But science has shown that the god of the bible wasn't necessary for anything that has happened to date.

Well yes, I'd imagine that a book being just letters written does not prove anything.

Does the universe have a cause or a purpose? Who knows, maybe. But there is no good reason to think it involves humans in any important way. Or possibly even at all.

It is a very odd idea to say that something has no cause when everything that I observe does. Even principles such as Evolution that appear to be non-theistic have an essential purpose. It is true that the cause is not always known or even knowable.

We're just a form of matter. It is only our own incredible egocentrism that causes us to dream up myths where the universe was created for us by a being that looks like us

The belief in God is the lack of egocentrism. I would say, without concetration on perfection, the will naturally focus on itself and it's sorroundings. Yet neither itself nor it's sorroundings are perfect. Chesterton says in Heretics
<blockquote>
A modern morality, on the other hand, can only point with absolute conviction to the horrors that follow breaches of law; its only certainty is a certainty of ill. It can only point to imperfection. It has no perfection to point to. But the monk meditating upon Christ or Buddha has in his mind an image of perfect health, a thing of clear colours and clean air. He may contemplate this ideal wholeness and happiness far more than he ought; he may contemplate it to the neglect or exclusion of essential THINGS he may contemplate it until he has become a dreamer or a driveller; but still it is wholeness and happiness that he is contemplating. He may even go mad; but he is going mad for the love of sanity. But the modern student of ethics, even if he remains sane, remains sane from an insane dread of insanity.</blockquote>
Indeed, mankind without focus will corrupt himself. Although Atheist will say that they may focus on family, goverment or other postive things, these all go the way side to the prevalent and sublime death. If belief in God, Buddha or whoever is positive than it's up to the nay sayers to disproof it or claim that it is negative.

 

[Repo Man]

I'm sorry, but I cannot view any religion, especially Christianity, as a positive thing.

That is the idea -- that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called Ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.
-- Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not A Christian"

Actually, when I look at human history, it makes it hard for me to feel bad about the possibility of a comet or asteroid striking the Earth and exterminating us. Thinking of things such as Jesuit missionaries in South America baptizing infants, and then killing them in order to save their souls.

 

[spidergoat]

The burden of proof lies with the evangelist. Otherwise, we can just believe whatever we want. But, if you are trying to CHANGE my opinion, then some proof is required, or at least, a pretty good story.

 

[okinrus]

As a thought experiement, pretend that reality does not matter. Is it better to believe in God or not? Since it seems some people have some sort of aversion to the Christian God, just use your general God down the street.

 

[jcarl]

Originally posted by Repo Man
I'm sorry, but I cannot view any religion, especially Christianity, as a positive thing.

That's fine; just hope that you're right.

Actually, when I look at human history, it makes it hard for me to feel bad about the possibility of a comet or asteroid striking the Earth and exterminating us. Thinking of things such as Jesuit missionaries in South America baptizing infants, and then killing them in order to save their souls.

I can tell you that no where in the Bible is stuff such as this advocated, those who have committed such heinous acts will surely be punished.

Originally posted by Spidergoat

The burden of proof lies with the evangelist. Otherwise, we can just believe whatever we want. But, if you are trying to CHANGE my opinion, then some proof is required, or at least, a pretty good story.

I'm talking about in a debate scenario, in which all of us are. In a debate, the burden of proof must come from both sides. If it doesn't, then the side lacking evidence is hollow and/or delusional.