Who has the burden of proof?

[Guest]

This is going to be a fun thread. Who has the burden of proof? Why?

 

[follower of Christ]

The person making the assertion.

 

[lovely]

I was thinking along the same lines as follower...the prosecutor.

 

[animal]

Why is proof a burden?

 

[follower of Christ]

This is going to be a fun thread. Who has the burden of proof? Why?

Guess I missed the 'why' part.
Well, its just common sense, in my opinion.
If I assert that the moon is made of cheese, are you going to just blindly accept it just because I said it ?
Not if you have a brain, and Im sure you do.

If I make a claim I have to support that claim with evidence. The Burden of proving my claim is on me and without supporting that claim no one should take my word for anything but unsupported opinion and conjecture.

I think that the hearer who doesnt demand that a claim be supported is...well....gullible, and easily misled.

 

[Guest]

If I assert that the moon is made of cheese, are you going to just blindly accept it just because I said it?

Would I? This would depend on a considerable number of factors. What is our relationship? Are you an authority on the moon? What is my knowledge about the moon? And so on.

You see, we accept claims for different reasons. If I am exhibiting the symptoms of a flu and my doctor told me I have swine flu, then I am going to be more likely to trust his opinion than that of some random person on the street. I am more likely to trust my friends with master's degrees in theology on what some given theologian said because it's likely they've read the theologian. If we spent all our time demanding people support their claims, life would be a rather annoying existence.

The reality is that there exists no intrinsic burden of proof. It is a social construct. It exists in only certain social contexts under which certain conditions are met. Thus, let's return to the question.

Who has the/a burden of proof on ChristianForums.net? What are the conditions which must be met in order for one to have the burden of proof?

 

[follower of Christ]

If I assert that the moon is made of cheese, are you going to just blindly accept it just because I said it?

Would I? This would depend on a considerable number of factors. What is our relationship? Are you an authority on the moon? What is my knowledge about the moon? And so on.

I guess that makes us different in a pretty big way.
I dont care what the source of the assertion is, even my own mother, Im going to check and recheck as much data as I can to determine what I believe.

Actually my own mother made a statement about 3 months ago and was very agitated with me that I did just that.
I also have two mentors who both have bible college eductation, and I always check when they toss anything my way.
I dont believe we are to be parrots or drones. Paul commended the Bereans, calling them noble minded, because they checked the information themselves.
If you would take my word for something just because I was your best friend, or even if I had a decree in the area we were discussing, then you and I are entirely different in that regard. As far as Im concerned not even a angel out of heaven gets passed the ID check and showing me proof of insurance.
Maybe Im paranoid, but thats just how I feel about it.

You see, we accept claims for different reasons. If I am exhibiting the symptoms of a flu and my doctor told me I have swine flu, then I am going to be more likely to trust his opinion than that of some random person on the street.

That attitude, believe it or not, almost cost me my life in 2001.

I have a genetic disease which I brought on a pretty big attack of that year by messing with some chemicals I didnt know I shouldnt be touching.
A very nice female doctor let me know that she had figured out what I had and needed to run some tests. I agreed. She was VERY confident in the way she carried herself and in what she was saying, so I told her to go along with it.
Another younger doctor, very fresh out of medical school told us that he thought we should check for something called Acute Intermittent Porphyria but the female wouldnt hear of it. She was so confident and got such an attitude about this younger guy who was basically there to be her shadow, that I went with her decision instead of his.
Turns out he was right. Also turns out that everything she was doing was causing me to get sicker. By the time they were done and we figured out he was right I was nearly respiratory failure, left paralyzed from the neck down for a year.
Had she not been so unwilling to listen to someone else opinion, and had *I* not jumped on the first bandwagon that came along, I could have saved myself a lot of pain and torment for the next 2 years.

SHE was my doctor, he was just her shadow whom Id never even seen before that day.

Had I been SMART, I would have REQUIRED this woman doctor to provide a valid reason for why she wanted to run in the direction she was.
Had I done this with BOTH doctors in the room that day Id have chosen the less experienced mans decision as my symptoms I was exhibiting were DEAD ON for the AIP, not the bone marrow disease she wanted to investigate.
All it would have taken on my part was demanding evidence to support why each wanted to check, what they were looking for, and Id never have been paralyzed.

Ive told my wife that just because a doctor SAYS something doesnt make it so. I can think of a few people off hand who were misdiagnosed or treated improperly medically.
Doctors can be wrong just like anyone else can.

I am more likely to trust my friends with master's degrees in theology on what some given theologiansaid because it's likely they've read the theologian.

I disagree.
My one mentor is my best male friend on the face of this earth and has a degree in theology.
And he also believes that 'wine' in scripture is unfermented grape juice, something that any 8th grade level study would prove isnt supported by the data.
I trust no one but Gods word and what it shows as far as doctrine.

If we spent all our time demanding people support their claims, life would be a rather annoying existence.

Great...lets test that, shall we ?
Did you know that 'wine' in Gods word is 'unfermented grape juice' ?
Fermented grape juice is 'strong drink' in scripture.

Now, of course you can just say that you dont know me, so you dont have to BELIEVE that, but the fact is that MY friend WITH a degree tells me just that....and he is WRONG.

WE MUST demand evidence regardless of the source or WE are the ignorant ones.

My friends must be different than yours because my mentors absolutely love when I question their views and make them prove what theyve claimed. The one I just mentioned likes it so much because it keeps him in constant study.
I am very wary of the man who tells me to believe yet doesnt want me to question him or his views and demand that he show me evidence. False lying teachers are made of such...

The reality is that there exists no intrinsic burden of proof. It is a social construct. It exists in only certain social contexts under which certain conditions are met. Thus, let's return to the question.

Then we live in two different realities, friend.
An assertion requires evidence, at least it should to anyone who doesnt want to be duped.

Who has the/a burden of proof on ChristianForums.net?

Already answered, friend...the one making the assertion has burden of proof. If he is unwilling to present that evidence, then he needs to be ignored. This includes me and you.

What are the conditions which must be met in order for one to have the burden of proof?

Making an assertion is the condition requiring burden of proof.


You said this was going to be a 'fun' discussion. Is it yet ?

 

[lovely]

minnesota,

I don't think I understand what you are getting at specifically. It seems like if I state something, then I should be prepared to back it up. The Bible says that we should be ready to give an answer for the hope that is in us. There are some things that I say sometimes that I assume are true, but that I haven't thought through completely, and when people challenge me to 'back it up' it helps me to either learn how to back it up, or it helps me see that I was wrong. Sometimes, when people pick at petty things, or people are just deliberately missing my meaning to argue, then it can be frustrating and wearying...but I am always able to just end the discussion so that I do not get caught up in a vain dispute. It would be nice if we could sometimes just talk and use common sense in a real discussion. It would be nice if we could get passed some of the 'proof' parts to further the discussions, but that rarely happens. I guess we are always 'backing things up' and 'defining terms' which leads to tangents and the main point get's lost somewhere. I do feel like I have to be an expert in everything in order to say things sometimes.

Anyway, I think that Scripture stands alone here on a Christian website, and should not require any extra proof for the believer(though I realize we may have internal discussions about meaning and the whole counsel of the Word.), but for those who don't believe this it may not be enough 'proof'...even though they are choosing to post on a christian site and should accept our Holy Bible as a reference...and do their best not to distort it, that's so irksome. I don't mind sincere questions about aspects they don't fully understand, but I do not like accusatory statements against God for the sake of provoking Him and me at all. I guess the proof can depend on the tone of the thread somewhat, if people are willing to try to hear others, and understand their meanings sincerely, then we can really talk. Unfortunately, we have to wade through pages and pages before we can get to the heart of it at times...who has that kind of time?

I will say this, if someone is not a believer and they come to this board, a christian board, then I think that they have the burden of proof concerning the non-existence of God. I already see proof of God, and so it is up to them to show that this proof is wrong, and that there is some proof that God does not exist. I am not sure if you are talking about any of this, to be honest, and so I may be way off here. If I am, could you dumb it down a bit for me so that I fully understand?

The Lord bless you.

 

[mondar]

What is "proof?"

 

[Guest]

I dont care what the source of the assertion is, even my own mother, Im going to check and recheck as much data as I can to determine what I believe.

I am an American. How do you plan to verify this assertion?

What are the conditions which must be met in order for one to have the burden of proof?

Making an assertion is the condition requiring burden of proof.

Nope. Try again.

 

[follower of Christ]

I dont care what the source of the assertion is, even my own mother, Im going to check and recheck as much data as I can to determine what I believe.

I am an American. How do you plan to verify this assertion?

Are you kidding ?
And here I thought we were having a serious discussion .

To answer you question a valid birth certificate would be in order. Or at least a valid state ID.

Nope. Try again.

Please. :o
I take it this thread was created just so you could have something to argue about and for no serious purpose whatsoever.
I put in all that work above and THIS nonsense one liner is all I get for my money ?

Ive stated my case above and since there doesnt seem to have actually been any valid purpose for this discussion as I had originally thought, I believe I'll leave you to mull over my long post above and bow out of this nonsense before any undesireable behavior begins...

 

[follower of Christ]

What is "proof?"

Evidence supporting an assertion.

 

[Guest]

It seems like if I state something, then I should be prepared to back it up.

Mere assertion does not necessitate a burden of proof. Consider the following fictional exchange between two friends at Starbucks.

Nicole and Amy at Starbucks
Nicole: I went shopping at the shoe store today.
Amy: Really? What did you get?
Nicole: They were having a 2 for 1 sale. I bought a nice pair of red pumps and some flip flops.
Amy: Oh, did you buy the red pumps for the party on Friday?
Nicole: Yeah. Hey, are you and Brad going to the party?
Amy: No, we can't. His parents are coming in for the weekend.
Nicole: Oh, that's too bad.

Could you imagine how annoying this conversation would be for Nicole is Amy demand she prove she went shopping? Or for Amy if Nicole demanded proof that Brad's parents were coming? They would not be very fun people to be around, for sure.

Our burden to support assertions is bound to specific social contexts (e.g., courtroom, formal debates, some informal debates, etc.) which consist of specific conditions (e.g., prior agreement to support certain assertions, desire to convince others, etc.).

Lace bra. (Sorry. I brought up shoe shopping. I had to do this for the men.)

 

[merlow]

Who has the/a burden of proof on ChristianForums.net?

If you are asking about this website specifically the burden is on the person that makes a claim that is against the website's statement of faith.

 

[follower of Christ]

It seems like if I state something, then I should be prepared to back it up.

Mere assertion does not necessitate a burden of proof. Consider the following fictional exchange between two friends at Starbucks.

Nicole and Amy at Starbucks
Nicole: I went shopping at the shoe store today.
Amy: Really? What did you get?
Nicole: They were having a 2 for 1 sale. I bought a nice pair of red pumps and some flip flops.
Amy: Oh, did you buy the red pumps for the party on Friday?
Nicole: Yeah. Hey, are you and Brad going to the party?
Amy: No, we can't. His parents are coming in for the weekend.
Nicole: Oh, that's too bad.

Could you imagine how annoying this conversation would be for Nicole is Amy demand she prove she went shopping? Or for Amy if Nicole demanded proof that Brad's parents were coming? They would not be very fun people to be around, for sure.

Our burden to support assertions is bound to specific social contexts (e.g., courtroom, formal debates, some informal debates, etc.) which consist of specific conditions (e.g., prior agreement to support certain assertions, desire to convince others, etc.).

Lace bra. (Sorry. I brought up shoe shopping. I had to do this for the men.)

I see. So this entire thing is just a game then.
I thought this was going to be a serious topic about burden of proof concerning topics that require more thought than what shoes Id like to buy .
Had I known this was the direction you intended to go, Id never have wasted my time posting here to begin with.

This isnt 'fun', friend, its a mockery of honest discussion and debate about REAL topics that DO require that someone provide evidence to support their assertions.

Now, I made an assertion before and you ignored it for some reason.

*I* asserted that 'wine' in scripture is UNfermented grape juice.
Can we assume you believe that just because I said it seeing that you dont believe that I have to show any evidence whatsoever ?

How about if I tell you there is a Santa Claus...are you going to believe that too just because I said it ?
And if I tell you that Im a multibillionaire....are you gullible enough to buy that too ?
What if I tell you that Im an alien from the future...?
And if I say Im president Obama ?

Your example was ridiculous and based on your logic you should believe each of the items I just listed 'just because I said so'.

I dont even care to know how easily you believe anything anyone says to you.

.

 

[Guest]

[quote="follower of Christ":2ajqb9s4]I dont care what the source of the assertion is, even my own mother, Im going to check and recheck as much data as I can to determine what I believe.

I am an American. How do you plan to verify this assertion?

Are you kidding?[/quote:2ajqb9s4]
No, I am not. I am making a point. My point is that assertion, by itself, does not necessitate a burden of proof. There are other conditions which must be factored in. That is, burden of proof is not innate.

To answer you question a valid birth certificate would be in order. Or at least a valid state ID.

So, you're going to demand I present evidence for my assertion?

Ive stated my case above and since there doesnt seem to have actually been any valid purpose for this discussion as I had originally thought, I believe I'll leave you to mull over my long post above and bow out of this nonsense before any undesireable behavior begins...

You are attempting to argue assertion necessitates a one support their assertion. You have provide examples where you have demanded a burden of proof (i.e., social context + condition), but you have not shown that a burden of proof is innate to an assertion.

 

[follower of Christ]

No, I am not. I am making a point. My point is that assertion, by itself, does not necessitate a burden of proof. There are other conditions which must be factored in. That is, burden of proof is not innate.

What was the title of this thread, friend ?

"Who has the burden of proof?"

You didnt say "should EVERY statement need to be proven with evidence"
And if you HAD said that Id have said 'no'

But that isnt how you started this discussion, now is it ?
You asked Who has the burden of proof.
And the ANSWER to THAT question is the person making the assertion.

Good grief. At least lay out your discussion properly so we know what the topic actually is.
This bait and switch nonsense is for the birds.

So, you're going to demand I present evidence for my assertion?

see the bolded statement above....

 

[Guest]

I thought this was going to be a serious topic about burden of proof concerning topics that require more thought than what shoes Id like to buy.

You are obviously missing the point.

Now, I made an assertion before and you ignored it for some reason.

The context is the message board. There are two conditions. First, you made an assertion. Second, I don't care about the assertion. Therefore, a burden of proof is unnecessary.

*edited by staff*

 

[Guest]

Good grief. At least lay out your discussion properly so we know what the topic actually is. This bait and switch nonsense is for the birds.

You obviously do not understand my argument. I am arguing a person has a burden of proof only under special contexts and conditions. I am also countering your argument that these contexts and conditions are merely an assertion.

 

[follower of Christ]

You are obviously missing the point.

If I missed the point its because you baited with one question then switched the topic.

The context is the message board. There are two conditions. First, you made an assertion. Second, I don't care about the assertion. Therefore, a burden of proof is unnecessary.

And you OP wasnt about that but about WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
THAT is the question *I* responded to, poster. If you cant keep your train of thought, fine, but dont blame us for not being able to read your mind.

No one here is ignorant enough to think that if MEANINGLESS banter is being exchanged that any proof is required at all.
You very poorly worded your OP and so any misunderstanding here is YOUR fault.