Who has the burden of proof?

[Guest]

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

The burden of proof rests on the person making the assertion. The burden of proof rests only on the person who makes the serious assertion. These two statements contradict each other. So, which one is correct?

I think you and I are finished here.

I pointed out your inconsistency. If you can live with presenting two inconsistent ideas and claiming they're both true, then you can stop responding. Me, I prefer to work towards consistency because the devil, the author of confusion, prefers inconsistency.

 

[Guest]

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?

It's not the wrong question. It's simply a wrong understand of the question. Proof is not a conclusive deductive answer, at least not for the absurdly large percentage of situations. Proof means "support." That is, providing support for your claims.

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."

I don't think this is the right question, but I agree it is a good question.

My conclusions ---Who has the burden of proof--- everyone.

This needs qualification. We wouldn't expect a baby to argue for alien invasions.

 

[mondar]

Minnesota,
I actually stink at presuppositionalism. However, your world seems 100% evidential. I am probably the first presupper you have ever met, right?

*Typos corrected

 

[Guest]

I actually stink at presuppositionalism. However, your world is 100%I try, but I am probably the first one you have ever met, right?

You will need to clarify your statements. I am not sure who you're attempting to claim is a presupp'er.

 

[follower of Christ]

mondar: "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.

Hardly.
'evidence' is the only 'proof' we have.
Its not that complicated a concept.

minnesota:
"The burden of proof rests on the person making the assertion. The burden of proof rests only on the person who makes the serious assertion. These two statements contradict each other. So, which one is correct?

I'd say its more about you learning to read and comprehend without trying to manipulate and distort everyone elses intent.

The burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion ? Too complicated ?

The asinine and imbecilic assertion requires no proof as no one would probably care enough to have it supported to begin with. But it STILL would be the one MAKING the assertion that has the burden of proof if ANYONE would have burden of proof.

I pointed out your inconsistency.

No, youve proven that you cant read something without doing your best to confuse and distort what is written.

If you can live with presenting two inconsistent ideas and claiming they're both true, then you can stop responding. Me, I prefer to work towards consistency because the devil, the author of confusion, prefers inconsistency.

That you seem incapable of grasping the simplest of concepts is quite inconsequential.

Fact #1: The person MAKING THE ASSERTION has burden of proof.
Fact #2: *IF* the topic is 'Do ALL asinine assertions REQUIRE burden of proof', the answer is no. But only because no one cares or expects it to be offered.

Again, *IF* I assert that the moon is made of cheese, then *I* am the one with burden of proof.
If I assert it jokingly, then no one is moronic enough to expect that proof as my intent wasnt meant to seriously assert anything.

Im sorry if this is too complicated for you, poster.

 

[follower of Christ]

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

So again youve rearranged the question.
now its 'what is proof' instead of 'who has the burden of proof.

 

[Guest]

The burden of proof rests on the person making the assertion. The burden of proof rests only on the person who makes the serious assertion. These two statements contradict each other. So, which one is correct?

I'd say its more about you learning to read and comprehend without trying to manipulate and distort everyone elses intent.

You'll be happy to know I brought my crayons with me. (Yes, I saw the post prior to the subsequent edits.)

That you seem incapable of grasping the simplest of concepts is quite inconsequential.

Categorical means "being without exception or qualification" (Source: Answers.com). Therefore, a categorical claim is something claimed to be true without exception or qualification. Why am I talking about categorical claims?

Fact #1: The person MAKING THE ASSERTION has burden of proof.

There is no exception or qualification made within this statement. Therefore, I can only conclude this statement is a categorical claim. However...

Fact #2: *IF* the topic is 'Do ALL asinine assertions REQUIRE burden of proof', the answer is no. But only because no one cares or expects it to be offered.

An exception has been made. So, I am confused. Is fact two intended to qualify fact one? Is fact two made in contradiction to fact one?

If the person claiming fact one and two intends to qualify fact one with fact two, then it would be reasonable to expect that person to restate fact one as a qualified statement when questioned. For example, "The person making the assertion when people care has the burden of proof." Yet, the person never makes such a restatement. And, in fact, persists in claiming I am misunderstanding. Therefore, I must conclude the person is holding onto two contradictory ideas.

So, if you are not holding contradictory ideas, then it would be reasonable to suggest you restate your fact one as a qualified statement. This would leave no room for me to misunderstand your statements.

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

And I was the one accused of being in need of basic communication skills. How ironic.

 

[Guest]

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

So again youve rearranged the question.
now its 'what is proof' instead of 'who has the burden of proof.

Yes. I built a time machine. I went back to 2007. I created another user account. Then, I posted this message under that account using a completely different writing style. And I did all this to further confuse you, 'again.'

 

[Silver Bullet]

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?

I don't think that authority (mentioned above), tradition, and revelation are good reasons to believe anything.

Science, in its most broad sense, is about having good reasons for what one believes. It is all about constantly demanding that people support their claims with good reasons. In fact, it entails tens or hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of other scientist trying to prove those people's claims wrong. While this is not simple, it is not "annoying" either. It is perfectly reasonable, and it produces spectacular and meaningful results.

It is precisely because science is all about supporting and defending claims with checks and balances, that people can begin to feel confident in claims that result from the scientific process, and that confidence should be proportional with the level of evidence (or the strength of the reasons) for a claim and inversely proportional with how outlandish the claim is. That is to say that the authority of the individual making a claim is not what ought to be convincing; we should not be swayed just because Stephen Hawking says something about physics, but we can begin to take stock of it when and if his peers reproduce his results, or come to the same conclusions by different valid means, or confirm the accuracy of predictions based on his claims. If one remains skeptical, one can learn what one must learn to assess the evidence oneself.

In the case of having the flu and seeing your doctor, you would likely accept her authoritative opinion because medicine is based on the scientific process and because you believe that she is acting in your best interest. The former is why you would likely trust your doctor's opinion more than you would trust the opinion of a witch doctor regarding swine flu.

In the case of theism, the claims in question are very specific unfalsifiable claims about our world and our lives. It seems to me that theistic claims virtually always originate from revelation, a source of information that should obviously be highly suspect. Any one set of theistic claims exists among at least hundreds of other competing unfalsifiable theistic claims. The major claims are mutually incompatible, so it is clear that they cannot all be true, meaning that as a matter of probability alone, any one of them is unlikely to be true, while it remains entirely possible that they are all false. These complex and detailed claims fly in the face of what we have learned about our world and our lives through science.

I suppose a philosopher might argue that claims can be falsified by logic. I have no training in philosophy or logic, but from what little I do know about the subject, there seem to be no logical proofs of the truth or falsehood of any theistic set of beliefs, and even those proposing support for deism seem to be rather easily refuted.

Given the above, it seems to me that the only reasonable position to hold with respect to theistic claims is intense skepticism that should not be appeased by appeals to authority, tradition, or revelation. I consider atheism to include skepticism directed at religious claims, so I consider atheism to be the reasonable "default position". Furthermore, because the claims made by theists are not falsifiable, the burden of proof faced by the atheist is infinite, and unreasonable. The burden of proof in the 21st century lies with the theist, even, I think, on this website. That burden includes one to support claims that scripture is the infallible and inspired word of God, rather than just the imagination of iron age (or older) man at work, even on this website.

minnesota: you have impressed me as a thoughtful and intelligent individual. I suspect that you have formulated some interesting thoughts on this topic. I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on my comments. Where have I gone wrong? What do you think are the conditions that need to be met for one to have the burden of proof? By the way, I think that 'burden of proof' and 'default position' are inseparable, so perhaps we can deal with both issues here, unless you think otherwise.

SB

 

[Guest]

Silver Bullet:

Thank you for the thoughtful and honest response. To respond, I need to treat the post as a whole and then as parts. This first post will deal with it as a whole. Please note, my comments regarding your perspective are based on the best conclusions which I can deduce from your comments and my past interactions with atheists and non-atheists on this particular topic.

The central difference between our perspectives, with regard to burden of proof, centers on our different conceptions of discussion. I consider discussion to be an exchange of alternative ideas regarding a chosen topic. You consider, as best I can deduce, discussion to be a situation where the advocate(s) makes a case regarding a topic and others attempt to refute the case. This is a bit too simplified, but points to the major differences. And, as one can guess, this has consequences for questions regarding burden of proof.

My perspective of discussion considers a burden of proof to be necessary only when one presents a perspective and desires to convince others or there is agreement that perspectives must be supported (i.e., X and (Y or Z)). The first element of the or-clause seems pretty straightforward. The second element is dependent upon context. Formal debate and courtrooms often have clearly defined rules regarding the burden of proof. Academic journals are less formalized, but place general expectations on the author(s). Message boards are less formalized and less clearly defined. This was my reason for raising the questions above.

In contrast, your perspective requires a burden of proof from the advocate of an 'extraordinary claim' -- to draw upon Carl Sagan. Now, how does one know what an extraordinary claim is? To answer this question, it is necessary for those involved to reach an agreement. This often proves difficult because people have different philosophical and theological perspectives, and no one wants to be the person making the extraordinary claim.

Thus, it is my contention that my take on discussion and burden of proof is better because (i) it promotes the free exchange of and a diversity of ideas; (ii) it lowers the affective filter, thereby encouraging more civil discourse; (iii) it allows people to choose their level of engagement; and (iv) it does not ostracize anyone. Plus, I much prefer the carrot to the stick.

 

[Guest]

I don't think that authority (mentioned above), tradition, and revelation are good reasons to believe anything.

Assumption Q: What determines a good reason?

I would argue good reasons are only those mutually agreed upon, and for pragmatic reasons authority and tradition can often be good (enough) reasons. Revelation may or may not, though.

Science, in its most broad sense, is about having good reasons for what one believes. It is all about constantly demanding that people support their claims with good reasons. In fact, it entails tens or hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of other scientist trying to prove those people's claims wrong. While this is not simple, it is not "annoying" either. It is perfectly reasonable, and it produces spectacular and meaningful results.

Academic discourse, of which scientific discourse is a part, comes with these social expectations. Why should such expectations be thrust upon those engaging in informal discourse?

It is precisely because science is all about supporting and defending claims with checks and balances, that people can begin to feel confident in claims that result from the scientific process, and that confidence should be proportional with the level of evidence (or the strength of the reasons) for a claim and inversely proportional with how outlandish the claim is. That is to say that the authority of the individual making a claim is not what ought to be convincing; we should not be swayed just because Stephen Hawking says something about physics, but we can begin to take stock of it when and if his peers reproduce his results, or come to the same conclusions by different valid means, or confirm the accuracy of predictions based on his claims. If one remains skeptical, one can learn what one must learn to assess the evidence oneself.

Assumption Qs: What makes reasons strong or weak? What makes a claim outlandish or not?

Skepticism can be helpful and desirable, but pushed too far it can become impractical and even self-defeating.

In the case of theism, the claims in question are very specific unfalsifiable claims about our world and our lives. It seems to me that theistic claims virtually always originate from revelation, a source of information that should obviously be highly suspect. Any one set of theistic claims exists among at least hundreds of other competing unfalsifiable theistic claims. The major claims are mutually incompatible, so it is clear that they cannot all be true, meaning that as a matter of probability alone, any one of them is unlikely to be true. These complex and detailed claims fly in the face of what we have learned about our world and our lives through science.

Assumption Qs: Why must revelation be suspect? What are the "very specific unfalsifiable claims about our world and our lives?"

We agree many of the different god-concepts are incompatible. However, the existence of competing ideas does not diminish the potential for other ideas to be true unless there is a necessary common element shared which has been refuted.

I suppose a philosopher might argue that claims can be falsified by logic. I have no training in philosophy or logic, but from what little I do know about the subject, there seem to be no logical proofs of the truth or falsehood of any theistic set of beliefs, and even those proposing support for deism seem to be rather easily refuted.

At best, I could refer you to some philosophers whom I respect.

Given the above, it seems to me that the only reasonable position to hold with respect to theistic claims is intense skepticism that should not be appeased by appeals to authority, tradition, or revelation. I consider atheism to include skepticism directed at religious claims, so I consider atheism to be the reasonable "default position". Furthermore, because the claims made by theists are not falsifiable, the burden of proof faced by the atheist is infinite, and unreasonable. The burden of proof in the 21st century lies with the theist, even, I think, on this website. That burden includes one to support claims that scripture is the infallible and inspired word of God, rather than just the imagination of iron age (or older) man at work, even on this website.

I remained unconvinced of the need for intense skepticism. As mentioned before, we begin from different perspectives. You are making assumptions of which I am skeptical (see questions above). This will need to be worked out before progress towards the conclusion can be made.

Also, I do agree a burden of proof rests upon the individual who (a) makes a theistic claim and (b) is engaged in a conversation where the theist desires to convince another of his claim or there is an agreement that he should support his claim. Void of (a) and (b) no burden of proof exists. (See my response to the whole.)

Lastly, I have issues with the last demand for theists, in general, and Christians, in particular. It shows an ignorance of Christian theology and the diversity of opinions on the Bible by theists. (Preemptive Strike: No appeals to the Courtier's Reply. It is inapplicable.) Though, I am willing to grant most of the Christians here do accept some form of that doctrine.

minnesota: you have impressed me as a thoughtful and intelligent individual. I suspect that you have formulated some interesting thoughts on this topic. I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on my comments. Where have I gone wrong? What do you think are the conditions that need to be met for one to have the burden of proof?

I believe all of these have been addressed above.

By the way, I think that 'burden of proof' and 'default position' are inseparable, so perhaps we can deal with both issues here, unless you think otherwise.

What do you mean by default position?