Burden of Proof for ***'s Existence

Question

Who holds the burden of proof for ***'s existence or non-existence? Does the burden rest with the theist or with the atheist? I'm often told (via witty memes, videos or quote-mining) that the theist must provide the proof.

This seems odd to me though, considering over 80% of the world's population identifies with a religious group. A Pew Research Center study showed that 8 out of 10 people (worldwide) are religious.

Pew Research Center - The Global Religious Landscape

In law, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Since atheists are clearly in the minority worldwide, I see them as the prosecution and the theists as the defense. The burden of proof then, rests with the atheists.

Go ahead, prove *** doesn't exist.

Answer 1

Burden lies with the person making the *********, obviously.

Answer 2

The claimant of fact always holds the burden of evidence for their claims. That is how rational inquiry works. If you don't like that being applied to you but are willing to apply it to others, perhaps you need to re evaluate the reasons you believe what you believe. That's true of any belief, no matter what it is or who hold it. This is not a court of US Law, where burden of proof is on the prosecution. In this case, there is no prosecution. Additionally, that sort of burden of evidence is only in the US, and is not used in law courts elsewhere. Further, that is used in CRIMINAL CASES, so unless you're accusing your favorite deity of a crime, I'd avoid that ******* if I were you. We do not have to prove the non existence of something in rational inquiry. It is up to the claimant to provide evidence for his case, as all the skeptic is saying is "I see no compelling reason to believe what you say is true". That means that any HONEST person will want to verify what they say is the truth, and thus will do whatever they can to provide evidence. Things that are weak or easily fismissed: "Because I Said So" arguments, using the Bible to prove the Bible, circular reasoning, arguments from incredulity, and of course, eyewitness testimony. Things that would instantly convince a skeptic: showing us your deity and having him or her demonstrate their powers under contolled, repeatable conditions.

Answer 3

It's not sudden when I've said it right along.

The correct principle is someone claiming that water falls from the sky in a hypothetical world where it never has?

A claim has been made so the first question is, then where is it?

The answer, it's invisible.

So where's your evidence then?

And he pulls out a book, but anyone can write books so it's non-evidence.

We can't see gravity, black ***** and certain planets but we know they exist through their effect which can be measured. Evidence.

When you have to change a principle to maintain an argument it's a good sign your logic has faults.

Answer 4

Yes a claim has been made. It's been made by a minority group of people who subscribe to an extraordinary viewpoint, i.e. atheism. The majority, i.e. theism, establishes what is ordinary (customary, usual, commonplace). Anything that attempts to refute what is commonplace and customary bears the burden of proof.

True, we can't see gravity but we can see its effects. All true. No, I don't use the Bible as my evidence for ***, that would be circular. I use science, logic and reasoning as my evidence. The existence of absolute truths are evidence for a Creator, because they couldn't possibly have come about through random chance.

Answer 5

Again the logic is faulty, how do you get because everybody believes something to be true that no claim is being made?

The cast majority of people once believed the earth was flat and a very small intelligent community knew other wise.Again you have to test the same principle in other areas and there it falls, so that principle of popularity is not a principle at all.

If you do defeat the logic of random chance that still doesn't prove a creator, you have to prove your science of a creator and it has to measurable and repeatable to be true. What evidence have you got to prove that because as far as I'm aware there is none.

Answer 6

Your flat earth ******* supports my argument, not yours. True, the majority did at one time believe the earth was flat, but it was the minority that held the burden of proof and ultimately proved their argument to the world. The burden didn't rest with the majority - it never does. That's my only point.

The best evidence I've seen for *** is in such plain view, that it's actually difficult to see. Similar to missing the forest for the trees. The evidence is so pervasive, that no field of science would even be possible at all, if it weren't for the existence of ***. If there is no ***, then there would only be random chaos. There would be no absolute truth anywhere.

Answer 7

Philosophic burden of proof, since we are not talking the legal term....

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person ********* a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is ******* to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is ******* to be false because it has not yet been proved true.

This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...


"The best evidence I've seen...."

So no scientific evidence then? I'll let this scientist explain in his own words in the same way.

Answer 8

I don't debate youtube videos nor will I debate your computer's clipboard. If you don't use your own thoughts, then we're just wasting each other's time.

Answer 9

The Wiki source were universities, that's evidence. You're trying to redefine philosophy now but with nothing but beliefs to back it up or words. Some guy saying no on the internet can't be debated.

I just gave you an irrefutable case of believers in a flat earth which turns your argument and logic completely on it's head and justification of proof, in your words was backed up because it was widely held and popular. Your principle yet again didn't stand up to this test either so you now resort to 'no' as some sort of argument.

On the other part the video is only 6mins long and extremely funny too but made my point in an interesting way, as he says if science knew everything it would stop, science knows it doesn't know everything but you can't just fill in the gaps with beliefs instead.

Besides where do you get this stuff? "If *** didn't exist there would only be random chaos."

Laws of physics are not random.

Answer 10

Claimant of fact? What is that? For something to be fact, it must already be true and at that point already proven. Are you elevating your position to one of fact, before the debate even begins?

Answer 11

You don't seem to get that an atheist doesn't believe your *** exist. They are not making a claim that something exist that has no proof. If I believed in a ridiculous theory that aliens run DC; according to you, the burden of proof does not fall on me who has the ridiculous belief, it is your burden to prove me wrong. Oh and by the way, no matter what proof you try to come up with, I will counter it with something more ridiculous that is proof to me but not to you. So how are you ever going to prove that aliens are not running DC when there is no way to prove this to be false to the believer with that kind of defense?

Answer 12

No. Claimant of fact means you are CLAIMING that X is True. Anybody can CLAIM something is true, but for it to BE true, fir it to be "fact" requires evidence. It has to be shown to be factual beyond a shadow if doubt to be fact. All clear now on the term and it's usage? If not, please let me know and I'll go over it further. I don't want miscommunication between us.

Answer 13

Sorry but that's not a real phrase. I even googled it, wrapping the phrase in double quotes. All I found were: a defunct playstation forum, a hiphop site with very poor English skillz, elitetrader and of course another one of your posts:

**: Which church has truth on its side

Answer 14

That's nice, but the phrase doesn't originate with me. I've done my best to explain it's meaning. If you cannot accept that, then we're going to be unable to move forward with any meaningful discussion.

Answer 15

That's fine, I get the meaning, so we're good on that.

Answer 16

Awesome. Shall we?

Answer 17

Sure. I actually had to re-read what we were originally talking about though. : )

You say I (and other theists) are making a "claimant of fact" and that we now need to back that claim up with evidence, correct? I say that's not true and here's why: Since the beginning of recorded time, an overwhelming super majority of people have believed in and accepted the existence of a *** or ****. The claim has been made and accepted long, long ago. Even to this day, over 80% of the world still agrees with the original thesis.

We are no longer the claimants. You may see us as that, but that's just due to your minority vantage point and presuppositions. It is actually your side that is making the claim and now need to back it up with evidence.

Answer 18

Argumentum ad populum. It's an easy falicy to make, and here's why it's a bad idea: the vast majority of world history had people believing that the world was flat as well as the center of everything. The concept of zero was utterly unknown to the ancient world. Alchemy was once considered a noble profession before it was replaced by the science of chemistry. Simply put, just because it's old knowledge doesn't mean it's correct by default. All major discoveries prior to the modern age where made by testing and verifying ideas to see if they had merit. This includes such basic concepts as air resistance, mass, gravity and basic biology and reproduction. Even germ theory was a result of testing the Creationist idea of Spontaneous Generation. As I've stated before, what we athiests are saying is this : "I don't see enough of a compelling reason to believe your idea without evidence". If evidence was presented and verified, most athiests, myself included, would become instant converts.

Answer 19

In all of your examples, did the majority have to prove their established viewpoints, again and again, to every new idea that came around? Or were the minority viewpoints seen as the challenger, and as such, took on the role of the prosecution?

Wrong - spontaneous generation was not a Creationist idea (unless you think Aristotle was a Christian). It was, however, nixed by a Christian (Pasteur).

No I don't think so. I don't think any amount of evidence would sway you. You've essentially stacked the deck for yourself. You would probably never consider supernatural evidence - which by the way - would be the only evidence capable of proving a supernatural Being. It's not logical to ****** natural evidence could provide proof for the supernatural.

Answer 20

I never mention religion within this debate because they are different standards.

Religion can be proven to be false for many reasons.

Is something does not exist because there is no evidence of it means that there can be no evidence against it. While the lack of evidence is good evidence but it can be annulled by scientific reasoning, we have a lack of aliens but reason there must be, until we know everything it's a belief to suppose anything which we know nothing about.

There that's cleared that up. lol

Answer 21

Not **** at all. Once you put an atheist to the same standards though, suddenly you think lack of evidence becomes evidence. Do you apply that logic elsewhere too? Does lack of rain equate to flooding in your neck of the woods?

Answer 22

If you believe something that has no proof then the burden of proof is on your shoulders. Otherwise, it would be like someone accused of a crime to prove that they are guilty.

Answer 23

I've never seen that movie... looks good though!

Answer 24

Atheism has no proof either, so by your rationale the burden of proof would be on them as well?

Answer 25

No because the moral virtue of Christian faith depends entirely on the Christian *** existing. If no **** exist, there is nothing virtuous about trusting in any **** and there is nothing immoral about not trusting in any ****. In a ******* universe, atheism isn't a vice or sin because there are no **** to whom we owe any allegiance or trust. Since faith as belief without evidence is neither legitimate nor a moral issue, we come back to the obligation of believers to provide sound reasons to think their *** exists. In the absence of such reasons, atheists' disbelief in **** is neither intellectually nor morally problematic.

Answer 26

What did any of that have to do with what I asked you? You've basically affirmed what I say all the time btw, that our morality hinges upon ***. I don't see how that allows an atheist to escape the burden of proof.

Answer 27

you apparently have a reading comprehension problem. Please tell me where you got that morality hinges upon ***? I think you misunderstand what it means to say the moral virtue of christian faith depends entirely on the christian *** existing. Morality is not exclusive christianity as you would like to believe.
“A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” – Albert Einstein
“I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern without any superhuman authority behind it.” – Albert Einstein
According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report in 2005, the most atheistic societies -countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands and Denmark and Finland- are actually the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, ***** literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest by the UN in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious.
You sho...

you apparently have a reading comprehension problem. Please tell me where you got that morality hinges upon ***? I think you misunderstand what it means to say the moral virtue of christian faith depends entirely on the christian *** existing. Morality is not exclusive christianity as you would like to believe.
“A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” – Albert Einstein
“I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern without any superhuman authority behind it.” – Albert Einstein
According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report in 2005, the most atheistic societies -countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands and Denmark and Finland- are actually the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, ***** literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest by the UN in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious.
You should read these papers to understand a little more how your view of morality is incorrect
Paper by University of Michigan philosopher Elizabeth Anderson:
http://www.skeptic.ca/Biblica...

Paper by University of California at San Diego philosopher David Brink:
http://www.skeptic.ca/Autonom...

(more)

Answer 28

If no **** exist, there is nothing virtuous about trusting in any **** and there is nothing immoral about not trusting in any ****
Yes of course I realize you're attempting to limit your point to 'believing or not believing' as being conditionally virtuous, but the problem is much bigger than that. If *** doesn't exist, then nothing and everything would be virtuous at the exact same time. There would be no moral authority. All morality would be subjective and relative.

You wouldn't be able to cite papers that allegedly prove my view of morality was incorrect, because no one's view of morality would be incorrect. That's how relative morality works.

Answer 29

Guess what? *** doesn't exist. so is nothing and everything virtuous at the the same time? No... Look I get it, you want to be a philosopher and think deep thoughts but you are limited by your belief in a ***.
The thing that you have to understand is that *** exist in your head. what goes on in your head does not have an effect on the universe. This kind of arrogant thinking is absurd.
There is proof that civilizations that are ******* actually have better morals and are healthier in every way, and that the most crime ridden and corrupt countries are very religious. You have nothing but your words and concepts that what you say is true... when you can show me some proof that belief in a *** actually has some connection to morality in a positive way, then this conversation is over. Anyway you have taken this way off topic.

Answer 30

Why doesn't everyone just relax...have a little faith in whatever you believe & let it go...

"Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?"



Coffee anyone? I'm buying...

Answer 31

Just a "cops & robbers" type movie...set in WWII...give it a shot...

Answer 32

I already did. the burden of proof will always be the person who makes the claim, why is that so **** to understand?

Answer 33

simple,ask the *** to put in an appearance. nothing will happen.

Answer 34

I haven't asked anyone to believe or not believe anything so I feel no burden to provide proof. If *** wants you to know something He will prove it.

Answer 35

If you make a claim, back it up. It's an old standard.

Answer 36

Sounds good. I like that. So if an atheist proclaims there is no *** - should he/she also back it up with proof?

Answer 37

Yes but then again a lack of evidence can be evidence.

But the Biblical version should have left plenty but yet zilch.

The separation of *** and a *** in a book.

Answer 38

Lack of evidence can only be evidence if you allow argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Answer 39

There are two types of ignorance those that are rude and those that are ignorant of the facts.

Since an atheist asked for the facts but the theist cannot produce them who is the more ignorant?

The only reason I said yes to your question in the first place is because if there is no *** then there never be any evidence, therefore without evidence you can't form anything but a belief.

Lack of evidence isn't proof that something doesn't exist but it is evidence.

Occams razor is your guide on this.

Answer 40

This thread isn't about producing proof for or against ***. It's simply asking the very simple question "who bears the responsibility of providing proof". I don't know how simpler I can make it.

Answer 41

...supernatural evidence? That's not nonsensical or anything... sorry, knee-**** reaction. Often times what is considered supernatural has a natural explanation. Rainbows were once considered supernatural, then we developed the prism and discovered that colors were properties of light. We once thought thunderstorms were supernatural, then Ben Franklin came along and tested it, and came up with the theory of electricity. Later on we found out that electricity and magnetism are the same exact thing, and light is part of that force. There are several problems with the basic premise of deities at this time. They are ill defined, often with logically contradictory abilities, such as mental perfection and still having human falibilities such as jealousy or rage. Or being all good (onnibenevolent) and all powerful at the same time. (If you are unable to perform an evil act, you are not all powerful. If you are able to perform an evil act, you are not all good.). Until we all have an agreed upon definition of what a deity is, the question of if they exist or not is moot as tests would be rendered useless in the face of constantly shifting goal posts. Yes, there is a level of evidence that would sway me. The issue is that it has never been presented. I have no issue with ...

...supernatural evidence? That's not nonsensical or anything... sorry, knee-**** reaction. Often times what is considered supernatural has a natural explanation. Rainbows were once considered supernatural, then we developed the prism and discovered that colors were properties of light. We once thought thunderstorms were supernatural, then Ben Franklin came along and tested it, and came up with the theory of electricity. Later on we found out that electricity and magnetism are the same exact thing, and light is part of that force. There are several problems with the basic premise of deities at this time. They are ill defined, often with logically contradictory abilities, such as mental perfection and still having human falibilities such as jealousy or rage. Or being all good (onnibenevolent) and all powerful at the same time. (If you are unable to perform an evil act, you are not all powerful. If you are able to perform an evil act, you are not all good.). Until we all have an agreed upon definition of what a deity is, the question of if they exist or not is moot as tests would be rendered useless in the face of constantly shifting goal posts. Yes, there is a level of evidence that would sway me. The issue is that it has never been presented. I have no issue with others having faith. But until and unless we can get past "*** did it" being the stopping point for inquiry, then we won't progress on these questions. Every major breakthrough of the pre industrial world was someone asking "HOW did *** do it?" That includes old Charles Darwin too. I suppose the real question at this point isn't "Does *** exist" but is actually "What is a *** and how do we distinguish a *** from anything else?"

(more)