The burden of proof.

Relating this to the exhausted debate between theism and atheism, atheists always bluntly state that the burden of proof lies on the theist. I think differently; in fact, I think the opposite.

When people say that there has to be a deity because virtually everybody for millennia has zealously followed such beliefs, atheists respond with examples such as the eventual proving that the earth was in fact round, not flat. But here's the truth - did the people (church) have to prove that the earth was flat? No! That was the accepted view! The people who believed that it was round had to prove that it was so. Is this not analogous to the case of the theist and atheist? If not, how does it differ?

Edit: Also, I'm not saying I would use the "If everyone believed it it's true" argument.

 

This is invalid to the case at hand, since one example is within a provable claim, and the other isn't.

 

The Earth being flat is empirically falsifiable, and therefore a viable scientific hypothesis. God, on the other hand, is not. The shape of the Earth and the existence of God are entirely different claims.

 

Really? But atheists always demand proof in tangible terms? Can some conclusion be made here?

Therefore all attempts at "the burden of proof lies on the theist" are invalid in terms of god. That was the hidden point of the thread.

 

Atheist demand proof in tangible terms because any other standard of proof would be irrational on either side. In this, one could say that Atheist demand rational proof.

Theist cannot give rational proof. In such, the atheist wins that segment of the argument.

 

Intangible does not mean irrational...

 

What I meant was that intangible 'proof' has been long sense deemed irrational 'proof'.

 

So we agree that claiming God's existence is an irrational claim? Good.

 

The burden of proof is on the affirmative, end of discussion. If you claim something exists, the burden of proof is on you. This is non-negotiable.

 

What if:

Person 1 claims that X does not exist, first?

Is the burden of proof now upon Person 1?

 

You can not prove something does not exist. Hence, the burden of proof is on the affirmative, as being on the negative is impossible.

 

You can, however, show the validity/rationality in X not existing, as opposed to it existing. Which, in theory, would serve the same purpose.

 

Interesting... exact thread title I made a while back.
http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=562261&highlight=burden

As for this thread, I'd also add... "Widely-accepted" does not equal rational.

 

You can not prove X does not exist, unless X is self-evidently non-existent, at which point it needs no disproof.

Also, just because you can say the chance that X exists is low, you can not say it doesn't exist it all. That is impossible. Therefore, you can not claim X does not exist, and so the burden of proof is on the affirmative.

Sure you can say "it's not RATIONAL for X to exist," which in some cases COULD serve a purpose, but you can not definitively prove a negative. The Burden of Proof is not "the burden of it-kinda-makes-sense."

Note: Yes, I repeated myself, but it is because I want to be crystal clear on this.

P.S. When I am speaking about burden of proof now, I am speaking about it in a debate situation, such as will commonly be found on this forum. The burden of proof has many different places in different fields.

 

This is the ultimate in a debate on one thing, with each side of the argument not being able to 100% prove the other 'wrong'. This is my point.

 

This is not much of a debate if you ask me. There is a lot of accepted rational proof that the universe was created naturally and not by a magical being.
There is nothing that is accepted as 'truth' on the other side of the argument.

 

What intangible proof could an atheist have? By showing intangible proof it would contradict atheist views that there is proof for everything and they everything in tangable (No greater being).

I think i said that right.