ARCHIVE: Burden of Proof

[Apologist]

The bar is simply set far, far higher for a monotheist.

Monotheism is a logical conclusion providing one accepts First Cause. Which Monotheism is the question...:think:

 

[Caledvwlch]

Monotheism is a logical conclusion providing one accepts First Cause. Which Monotheism is the question...:think:

And suppose one does not except First Cause. Then the question of which Monotheism becomes moot.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

well Knight, wouldn't you admit that this question is more important to a theist than it is to an atheist?

Absolutely not!

I am not going to hell, you are. So the answer to the question is far more important to you than me.

Allsmiles, matter and energy ACTUALLY do exist. And it is a scientific fact that matter and energy cannot create themselves. Like it or not you do have a dilemma.

 

[Spenser 2]

Gee... it's funny how this question is all the sudden so unimportant to everyone unless of course its being asked of the theist.

:rotfl:

That is because the theist is making a specific positive claim to what created the universe as if it were a fact.

 

[allsmiles]

To me it seems the theist is the only one that is at least willing to give a solution (at least on this thread). From that fact alone the theist is sorta in the "drivers seat" in the compelling evidence department.

eh, it's up to the atheist to determine whether the evidence is compelling. like SUTG said, he doesn't think anyone knows the answer, and like Cal said it doesn't really matter to him.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Possibly, in one form or another. That, however, is a different debate...

So you believe in perpetual motion machines????

The burden of proof is clearly on you to produce such a machine.

 

[Spenser 2]

No. My God is Eternal. My God is whole. My God is self sufficient.

How is eternal not infinite? Hasn't your God always existed?

 

[SUTG]

Maybe you don't know. But do you have a guess?

I have no idea.

Can you speculate?

Sure. I can speculate up a storm. :chuckle:

To me it seems the theist is the only one that is at least willing to give a solution (at least on this thread).

On this thread, perhaps. But, over the years, many people have speculated on this. Think of Deists, all of the different creation myths, scientific and pseduoscientific theories....

I am always suspicious when anyone tells me they have all the answers.

From that fact alone the theist is sorta in the "drivers seat" in the compelling evidence department.

No. They're in the drivers seat as far as the Burden of Proof.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That is because the theist is making a specific positive claim to what created the universe as if it were a fact.

If it isn't a fact there must exist a plausible alternative.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Absolutely not!

I am not going to hell, you are. So the answer to the question is far more important to you than me.

Allsmiles, matter and energy ACTUALLY do exist. And it is a scientific fact that matter and energy cannot create themselves. Like it or not you do have a dilemma.

It is not, however, a scientific fact that we need to have a coherent origins belief.

 

[kmoney]

Well, remember I said that proof only exists in mathematics and alcohol.

Mmmmm...alcohol.... :cheers:

:cheers:

but I understand that it is just "compelling evidence" and not actual proof. That's fine, I didn't mean to argue semantics.

So, he could give compelling reasons for his belief. If he had to convince you, it probably wouldn't be that hard, but it wouldn't count as proof. Calling Spenser and asking him would be a small bit of evidence, hooking up a webcam and seeing him over Yahoo Instant messgenger might make a better case, showing you eveidence that Spenser always wears white might be another reason, etc.

OK, maybe it was a dumb example. But the point I was trying to make is that claims that something is NOT the case are also claims to knowledge. For example:

-It is not raining in NYC right now.
-It is not over 70 degrees in Los Angleses right now.
-Knight does not have an anti-gravity machine.
-The Christian God does not exist.
-BillyBob is not sober right now.
-Bob Enyart is not in the United States right now.

All of these statements are knowledge claims, so they all entail the burden of proof. If you remove the word "not" from any of them, they are still knowledge claims, and they still take on the burden of proof.

I guess my understanding of positive/negative claims is just off. :noid:

What exactly is a negative claim then?

 

[Apologist]

How is eternal not infinite? Hasn't your God always existed?

Eternal implies wholeness. Infinate implies neverending.

 

[Caledvwlch]

If it isn't a fact there must exist a plausible alternative.

Not knowing the nature of the universe in its absolute totality, we can't know what the plausible alternative is, or that there even is one.

 

[allsmiles]

Absolutely not!

I am not going to hell, you are. So the answer to the question is far more important to you than me.

i appreciate your concern, i really do.

Allsmiles, matter and energy ACTUALLY do exist. And it is a scientific fact that matter and energy cannot create themselves. Like it or not you do have a dilemma.

i know they exist, i have to deal with both of them on a daily basis i never said they created themselves Knight, if i did then i'd have to deal with that dilemma, but i didn't so i don't.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No. They're in the drivers seat as far as the Burden of Proof.

How could you possibly say that?

One says... I have a plausible answer.

The other says... I have no plausible answer.

Regardless of the actual answer the one with a plausible answer is far more credible than the one with no plausible answer or alternative.

 

[Skeptic]

New example:

If a majority of people claimed UFOs were real and of extraterrestrial origin, who would have the burden of proof, those who made the claim or those who doubted this claim?

Why would doubters ever have the burden of proving the believers wrong?

Does the number of people making the claim matter? I don't think so.

With regard to belief in God, those who claim God exists have the burden of proof to support their claim. Those who claim God does not exist have the burden of proof to support their claim. Being an agnostic, I do not have such burdens. I do not believe God exists, but also do not claim God does not exist. There is a difference between (1) absence of belief in something and (2) the belief in absence. I have no reason to believe in God, but I acknowledge that I could have overlooked something. It makes no sense for me to seriously consider the existence of God, if I have no rational empirical reason to do so. I suppose this makes me a weak atheist rather than a strong atheist. I guess I am also a weak agnostic rather than a strong agnostic. The label "skeptic" works for me.

 

[Spenser 2]

So you believe in perpetual motion machines????

Never really gave them any thought.

The burden of proof is clearly on you to produce such a machine.

How so? Even if I believed in them it is not contingent upon me to produce one, only if I make a factual existence claim of which I do not...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Not knowing the nature of the universe in its absolute totality, we can't know what the plausible alternative is, or that there even is one.

But we do know..... matter and energy cannot create themselves from nothing.

We know that.

It's a fact.

Yet matter and energy exist.

 

[Spenser 2]

If it isn't a fact there must exist a plausible alternative.

Sure, that no God exists...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Never really gave them any thought.

Apparently you have.

You claim that it's possible for the matter and energy that exists now existing eternally into the past. Energy does not last forever. Therefore you are suggesting that the matter and energy that exists now must in some way be perpetual.

How could that be? It's a scientific impossibility.

How so? Even if I believed in them it is not contingent upon me to produce one, only if I make a factual existence claim of which I do not...

:think: Hmmmmm....... makes me wonder about the premise of this thread.