The burden of proof.

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

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.

 

[Arya]

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.

 

[Schnell]

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.

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

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

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

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.

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.

 

[Arya]

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

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.

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

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...

 

[Arya]

Intangible does not mean irrational...

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

 

[Schnell]

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.

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

 

[Denode]

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.

 

[Arya]

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?

 

[Denode]

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.

 

[Arya]

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.

 

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?

So what's your point? The burden of proof was correctly placed on those who claimed the world was round (a view differing from the naïve skeptical position), and as such evidence was produced to support the claim, and reason prevailed.

You haven't made an argument to refute...

 

[FreedomFight]

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.

 

[Denode]

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

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.

 

[Arya]

Sure you can say "it's not RATIONAL for X to exist," which in some cases COULD serve a purpose

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.

 

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.

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.

You guys are all missing the fact that the OP didn't make a case in the first place ... (See my previous post in this thread.)

Debating someone when they don't have a case is the same as assuming that they do. You in effect give them this for free, and the whole debate that follows can be completely unnecessary.

The example that comes to mind is a court proceeding:

Consider that you are the defendant, and the plaintiff claims you committed some crime X at time Y.

The correct response to this challenge is not to rush in with a refutation such as:
"I'm innocent, I was doing Z at time Y."

The correct response is to first question and establish the validity of the claim, and the standing (in the case of law) of the claimant. Only once one has established the validity of the claim, should one proceed to refutation.

 

[raigeki]

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.

 

[Pkpkpk]

Intangible does not mean irrational...

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.