Who has the burden of proof?

[follower of Christ]

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.

Again YOUR OP SAYS...

Who has the burden of proof?

..and THAT is the question I responded to and believed we were discussing.
You did not ask if EVERYTHING a person says requires burden of proof..you asked WHO has burden of proof and the answer to THAT question is the person making the assertion.

 

[follower of Christ]

Can we assume you've stopped beating your wife?

Shall I contact a moderator, friend ?

 

[Guest]

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.

I'm sorry. You're not saying it loud enough. Maybe if you use a larger font and brighter colors then maybe, just maybe, I'll agree with you.

 

[Guest]

Can we assume you've stopped beating your wife?

Shall I contact a moderator, friend ?

Haha, go right ahead. Please, inform them that I was pointing out your use of a loaded question by responding with an equally loaded question.

 

[follower of Christ]

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.

I'm sorry. You're not saying it loud enough. Maybe if you use a larger font and brighter colors then maybe, just maybe, I'll agree with you.

I dont like playing games like youre playing.

You ASKED a very specific question about WHO has burden of proof then you changed to whether every statement requires burden of proof.
You need to go back and reword your OP to make it so we can UNDERSTAND your intent.

 

[follower of Christ]

Can we assume you've stopped beating your wife?

Shall I contact a moderator, friend ?

Haha, go right ahead. Please, inform them that I was pointing out your use of a loaded question by responding with an equally loaded question.

My question was a result of points I made in that post. Yours was to provoke, quite plainly.

You know what....you clearly didnt wish to have a serious discussion here so you can talk to yourself.

To again answer this question
"Who has the burden of proof?"
The answer to THAT question is the one making the assertion.

When you ASKED WHO has burden of proof the question the way it is asked logically PRESUMES that we were discussing an issue where someone DOES have burden of proof and that we are trying to decide 'who' that may be.

You have a fine day, friend.

 

[Guest]

When you ASKED WHO has burden of proof the question the way it is asked logically PRESUMES that we were discussing an issue where someone DOES have burden of proof and that we are trying to decide 'who' that may be.

I am not merely seeking peoples stated opinion on the matter. I am looking for discussion on the topic. I want to explore different aspects involved in and relevant to the question. It is through such discussion that we learn.

My questions and responses are all directed towards the end of answering the question. You disagree, and apparently can't handle that I am unwilling to accept your counter-claim.

 

[follower of Christ]

You disagree, and apparently can't handle that I am unwilling to accept your counter-claim.

Pull your pathetic child psychology tripe with someone else chap.
You asked a VERY specific question and THAT question was answered in a VERY clear manner.

That you dont seem to be able to present your concept clearly enough, then not be man enough to admit that you didnt, shows us that its probably not a good idea to discuss the matter with you to begin with.

MY 'counterclaim' was based on the assumption that you were presenting the OP in a legitimate manner. Clearly you werent.
You ASKED one question and then when THAT question was answered you quickly switched the topic and in doing so you act as if *I* did not answer the EXACT question in your OP....I did AS it was asked.
Im amazed that anyone would even give your threads the time of day, quite frankly.

 

[Guest]

You asked a VERY specific question and THAT question was answered in a VERY clear manner.

Yes, because you obviously know better than me what my question was about.

You ASKED one question and then when THAT question was answered you quickly switched the topic and in doing so you act as if *I* did not answer the EXACT question in your OP....I did AS it was asked.

Please, enlighten me. What is the old topic and the new topic?

 

[follower of Christ]

Please, enlighten me. What is the old topic and the new topic?

easy enough...

Topic 1: "Who has the burden of proof?" (taken directly from the OP)
Topic 2: Does every statement REQUIRE burden of proof ?" (from your subsequent posts)


.

 

[Guest]

Topic 1: "Who has the burden of proof?" (taken directly from the OP)
Topic 2: Does every statement REQUIRE burden of proof ?" (from your subsequent posts)

Topic 2: Does every statement require a burden of proof?
(i) If so, then the person who makes the assertion is the one who has a burden of proof. And, therefore, we have an answer to "Topic 1."
(ii) If not, then the person who makes the assertion may or may not have a burden of proof. And, therefore, we need more discussion about the matter to find an answer to "Topic 1."

Bait and switch? No, it's called thinking.

 

[follower of Christ]

Its bait and switch when you ask ONE question and I respond TO that ONE question then your rebuttal is presented in such away to pretend like I didnt.
If #2 is the ACTUAL topic here then you needed to word you OP to mirror that intent.

As far as #2 goes, anyone with a brain can understand that a particularly inane or otherwise meaningless assertion need not be supported.

 

[Guest]

Its bait and switch when you ask ONE question and I respond TO that ONE question then your rebuttal is presented in such away to pretend like I didnt.

Scripture teaches us to not bear false witness against our brother. I am going to politely ask you to stop bearing false witness against me.

If #2 is the ACTUAL topic here then you needed to word you OP to mirror that intent.

The end goal is a solution to "Topic 1." To reach a solution, we must answer "Topic 2." Further, we are probably going to have to address a whole range of topics in between. No one knows all the topics we will need to cover in the process.

As far as #2 goes, anyone with a brain can understand that a particularly inane or otherwise meaningless assertion need not be supported.

Good, so we agree an assertion does not innately carry a burden of proof. So, how do we distinguish between the "meaningless assertions" and the assertions which carry a burden of proof? What are the contexts and conditions?

 

[follower of Christ]

Scripture teaches us to not bear false witness against our brother. I am going to politely ask you to stop bearing false witness against me.

No one is bearing false witness.
Your OP laid out a VERY simple concept of WHO has burden of proof. THAT question was answered. You then went on some tangent acting like that wasnt the question.
You need to learn some basic communication skills so you can convey your INTENT properly and also learn to just admit when youre wrong.

The end goal is a solution to "Topic 1." To reach a solution, we must answer "Topic 2." Further, we are probably going to have to address a whole range of topics in between. No one knows all the topics we will need to cover in the process.

They are not necessarily even connected.
I dont have to even discuss the one in order to discuss the other.

Who has the burden of proof ....the one making the assertion.
Does an inane statement require burden of proof.....absolutely not.
Two different issues.

Good, so we agree an assertion does not innately carry a burden of proof.

And had you asked THAT question, as seemingly was your INTENT, we'd not have needed to go on for three pages accusing each other.

So, how do we distinguish between the "meaningless assertions" and the assertions which carry a burden of proof? What are the contexts and conditions?

Context.
Are you trying to convince me of something ? You have burden of proof.
Are you just shooting the breeze bragging about some 20 pound fish you supposely caught that neither of us believe...no proof required.

What are the contexts and conditions?

I cannot believe that your claim was this was going to be a 'fun thread'. Its been nothing short of annoying so far.

The 'contexts and conditions' would seem to be far too numerable and various to even bother to try to list, tho Im guessing youve written it all down somewhere.

I really have to pull out of this thread at this point. You have a wonderful evening

 

[Guest]

Scripture teaches us to not bear false witness against our brother. I am going to politely ask you to stop bearing false witness against me.

No one is bearing false witness.
Your OP laid out a VERY simple concept of WHO has burden of proof. THAT question was answered. You then went on some tangent acting like that wasnt the question.

That was the question. And that is still question.

You need to learn some basic communication skills so you can convey your INTENT properly and also learn to just admit when youre wrong.

My intent was to spark discussion regarding the question. How can this be deduced from my original message? Well, my original post includes a second question, "Why?" This question is seeking to bring out the reasons why someone believes a given person or group of people have a burden of proof. How can this be deduced from the broader context? Well, ChristianForums.net is a discussion board. Thus, it would follow that those involved here are, or at least should be, interested in discussing issues.

So, if my communication has been flawed in anyway, it is because I assumed a high school reading comprehension level of my readers.

The end goal is a solution to "Topic 1." To reach a solution, we must answer "Topic 2." Further, we are probably going to have to address a whole range of topics in between. No one knows all the topics we will need to cover in the process.

They are not necessarily even connected.
I dont have to even discuss the one in order to discuss the other.

Who has the burden of proof ....the one making the assertion.
Does an inane statement require burden of proof.....absolutely not.
Two different issues.

The "two issues" have a common relationship. Do all assertions require a burden of proof? If so, then the first claim is true and the second one is false. If not, then the first claim is false and the second one is true.

Good, so we agree an assertion does not innately carry a burden of proof.

And had you asked THAT question, as seemingly was your INTENT, we'd not have needed to go on for three pages accusing each other.

That is how discussion works. You make claims. People critique your claims. You refine as necessary and then present your claims again. They do likewise. In the process, you learn about the different issues related to the main central issue.

So, how do we distinguish between the "meaningless assertions" and the assertions which carry a burden of proof? What are the contexts and conditions?

Context.
Are you trying to convince me of something ? You have burden of proof.
Are you just shooting the breeze bragging about some 20 pound fish you supposely caught that neither of us believe...no proof required.

I am attempting to have a meaningful discussion. Am I doing so in vain?

What are the contexts and conditions?

I cannot believe that your claim was this was going to be a 'fun thread'. Its been nothing short of annoying so far.

I have quite enjoyed it, so by that estimation it has been a success.

The 'contexts and conditions' would seem to be far too numerable and various to even bother to try to list, tho Im guessing youve written it all down somewhere.

There are indeed many such contexts and conditions. This is why it seems best to seek general principles and which can be refined overtime.

I really have to pull out of this thread at this point. You have a wonderful evening

You'll be back. Your pride is too wrapped up in proving me wrong.

 

[mondar]

What is "proof?"

Evidence supporting an assertion.

Thank you for noticing the comment.

Is any amount of evidence sufficient to say one has proof?

 

[Guest]

What is "proof?"

I consider proof to be supporting one's claims through providing material and/or immaterial evidences. And given the inductive nature of most arguments, it seems most appropriate to look for a reasonable inductive case rather than deductive proof. There are times when deductive arguments are helpful and/or may be required though.

 

[follower of Christ]

What is "proof?"

Evidence supporting an assertion.

Thank you for noticing the comment.

Is any amount of evidence sufficient to say one has proof?

Well, Id say that depends on the person youre trying to convince and what the assertion is.
If you were to simply assert that the sun is a source of light, Id take it as 'proof' when you took me out into the daylight and I saw it with my own two eyes.
Someone else may want to get into 1000 technicalities of some sort to argue the point with you.

If its something like evolution theory, or something a bit more complex, then Id have to say that I dont think any amount of evidence would be 'proof' since its doubtful that the theory can be proven without an eyewitness account.

 

[follower of Christ]

That was the question. And that is still question.

In response to 'who has burden of proof', it is the person making the assertion.

In response to 'does every assertion, regardless of how inane, require burden of proof' the answer is 'no'.

I think you and I are finished here.

 

[mondar]

What is "proof?"

Evidence supporting an assertion.

If its something like evolution theory, or something a bit more complex, then Id have to say that I dont think any amount of evidence would be 'proof' since its doubtful that the theory can be proven without an eyewitness account.

On the one hand, you say "evidence is proof." On the other hand, you say no amount of evidence is proof. They seem contradictory statements.

I would agree with the 2nd statement that no amount of evidence is proof. It no amount of evidence is proof, then the question "who has the burden of proof" is a moot question. The evolutionist sees a group of bones in Germany and says "ahh, here is proof of the missing link in monkey to man evolution." The creation science web page says its proof that something like a lemur roamed about in Germany at one time. The same bones, the very same bones are used as "proof" by both groups. The evidence is the same, the conclusions are different. Could it be we are asking the wrong questions?

What is the right question? I think the first question, the starting point, is "what would you accept as proof?" This will lead to the real reasons the atheistic evolutionist looks at bones and says "there is proof."

My conclusions ---Who has the burden of proof--- everyone.
--- What is proof--- Only a theistic epistemology can consistently answer
that question.