Total Posts:98|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Burden of Proof

gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 9:11:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I read a post that says the burden of proof lies with religion to prove God's existence. . . just wondering whether this is true. A god's existence was taken to be a fact far before the scientific method was designed. Since God's existence was taken to be a fact shouldn't the burden of proof be on the side of atheists. Its probably just an error in my understanding of the BOP.
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 9:19:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 9:11:10 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
I read a post that says the burden of proof lies with religion to prove God's existence. . . just wondering whether this is true. A god's existence was taken to be a fact far before the scientific method was designed. Since God's existence was taken to be a fact shouldn't the burden of proof be on the side of atheists. Its probably just an error in my understanding of the BOP.

It depends on the context. In general, the BOP goes to the position making the positive statement. So 'God exists' would earn the burden of proof. However if someone says God definitely doesn't exist, then they are making a claim that demands justification.

If someone is trying to convince *me* that God exists, then they should provide an argument to sway me.

If I'm trying to convince someone that God doesn't exist, then it's up to me to provide arguments to sway them.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 9:21:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The big problem is when something like this happens.

Person A - "I believe in God."
Person B - "Proof? BoP is on you."

If you try to set out to say God exists as a fact, then you have BoP. If you set out to say God doesn't exist as a fact, then you have BoP. If you state belief, there is no BoP.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 1:24:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here is the California State University outline for the Burden of Proof.
http://www.csustan.edu...

It cannot be missed that minority view and majority view affect where the burden of proof lay.

I agree with POP that presumption does not exist on the atheist worldview, and I want to point out that is also compounded that the atheistic worldview is clearly the minority view and has an even greater burden of proof.

The minority view will always impact where the Burden of Proof lay.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 1:29:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 1:24:23 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Here is the California State University outline for the Burden of Proof.
http://www.csustan.edu...

It cannot be missed that minority view and majority view affect where the burden of proof lay.

I agree with POP that presumption does not exist on the atheist worldview, and I want to point out that is also compounded that the atheistic worldview is clearly the minority view and has an even greater burden of proof. BoP is on anybody who makes a positive claim.

The minority view will always impact where the Burden of Proof lay.

Just because it is the minority view does not meant that the burden of proof lies on us. In the past, most people believed in multiple gods, but that did not mean that the burden of proof was on the monotheists.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 1:32:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 9:21:55 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
The big problem is when something like this happens.

Person A - "I believe in God."
Person B - "Proof? BoP is on you."

If you try to set out to say God exists as a fact, then you have BoP. If you set out to say God doesn't exist as a fact, then you have BoP. If you state belief, there is no BoP.

No, you are misinterpreting the problem.

This is a more realistic situation.

Person A- "You are going to hell like Gandhi because you are a bad person for not believing in God. I am a murderer and a rapist, but I believe, so I am going to heaven."

Person B- "Do you have proof that God exists?"

I do not care if anybody believes in the gods, but if somebody makes nonsensical claims like the ones noted above, they need to prove that their claims are true. If I argued that the U.S. government has evidence of U.F.O. existence, you would expect me to provide proof for that claim. Why is proof for the existence of the gods any different?
inferno
Posts: 10,689
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 2:01:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 1:32:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 9:21:55 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
The big problem is when something like this happens.

Person A - "I believe in God."
Person B - "Proof? BoP is on you."

If you try to set out to say God exists as a fact, then you have BoP. If you set out to say God doesn't exist as a fact, then you have BoP. If you state belief, there is no BoP.

No, you are misinterpreting the problem.

This is a more realistic situation.

Person A- "You are going to hell like Gandhi because you are a bad person for not believing in God. I am a murderer and a rapist, but I believe, so I am going to heaven."

Person B- "Do you have proof that God exists?"

I do not care if anybody believes in the gods, but if somebody makes nonsensical claims like the ones noted above, they need to prove that their claims are true. If I argued that the U.S. government has evidence of U.F.O. existence, you would expect me to provide proof for that claim. Why is proof for the existence of the gods any different?

Because we can see UFO's and many people do. So they do not rely on Government to try and dictate who or what they believe in.
We understand Gods requirements of us and His Word, too.
We sometimes see angels, demons, etc. You know that there is a much bigger reason for one being here for sure. You just know.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 2:05:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 1:32:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 9:21:55 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
The big problem is when something like this happens.

Person A - "I believe in God."
Person B - "Proof? BoP is on you."

If you try to set out to say God exists as a fact, then you have BoP. If you set out to say God doesn't exist as a fact, then you have BoP. If you state belief, there is no BoP.

No, you are misinterpreting the problem.

This is a more realistic situation.

Person A- "You are going to hell like Gandhi because you are a bad person for not believing in God. I am a murderer and a rapist, but I believe, so I am going to heaven."

Person B- "Do you have proof that God exists?"

I do not care if anybody believes in the gods, but if somebody makes nonsensical claims like the ones noted above, they need to prove that their claims are true. If I argued that the U.S. government has evidence of U.F.O. existence, you would expect me to provide proof for that claim. Why is proof for the existence of the gods any different?

Did you read what I wrote?

If I say 'God exists, it's just fact', then I have BoP. If I just state my beliefs, there is no burden of proof, as I am not trying to prove it.

I often have people require that I provide proof for my beliefs, and that is what I was talking about. I acknowledged that statements of fact must be supported.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 2:28:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 2:05:46 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/23/2012 1:32:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 9:21:55 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
The big problem is when something like this happens.

Person A - "I believe in God."
Person B - "Proof? BoP is on you."

If you try to set out to say God exists as a fact, then you have BoP. If you set out to say God doesn't exist as a fact, then you have BoP. If you state belief, there is no BoP.

No, you are misinterpreting the problem.

This is a more realistic situation.

Person A- "You are going to hell like Gandhi because you are a bad person for not believing in God. I am a murderer and a rapist, but I believe, so I am going to heaven."

Person B- "Do you have proof that God exists?"

I do not care if anybody believes in the gods, but if somebody makes nonsensical claims like the ones noted above, they need to prove that their claims are true. If I argued that the U.S. government has evidence of U.F.O. existence, you would expect me to provide proof for that claim. Why is proof for the existence of the gods any different?

Did you read what I wrote?

If I say 'God exists, it's just fact', then I have BoP. If I just state my beliefs, there is no burden of proof, as I am not trying to prove it.

I often have people require that I provide proof for my beliefs, and that is what I was talking about. I acknowledged that statements of fact must be supported.

Did you read what I wrote? I said that if you only claim that you believe and do not attempt to impose your beliefs on others as fact, then you require no proof. But if you attempt to convert others and claim that your beliefs are true, then you do require a burden of proof.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 3:12:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Belief: The kind dealt with is when "to believe something" simply means any cognitive content held as true in spite of the absence of proof or even evidence. For example, to believe that the sky is blue is to think that the proposition "The sky is blue" is true even if the sky is visibly red. We can define belief (and faith) as thinking that an idea is true in spite of the lack of verifiable evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Instead of possibly misquoting the article do a quicj read on this one: http://en.wikipedia.org...

On the topic of the BoP being on those who claim their is (or is not) a God:

British philosopher Antony Flew holds that some claims cannot be falsified because they are ultimately unverifiable. Flew asserts that one should test whether a certain truth claim can be falsified under a hypothetical situation. He suggests we ask "What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?" Flew also describes how deep questioning, backed up by empirical testing, can reveal a claim to at least have much less content than was originally thought (e.g. it becomes a much less detailed claim)- what he calls "death by a thousand qualifications".[4]
God's existence can mean many things to many different people. Still, some claims (which are actually contentful) about gods or their actions can be falsified, to the extent that the claims attempt to describe any facts about physical reality. For instance, the creationist claim that God created humankind in their current form has been falsified by evolution. Many (but certainly not all) other claims related to God can be similarly tested (e.g. the practice of praying to cause someone to heal has also been recognized, among scientists, as having been disproved[5]).
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 3:31:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 9:11:10 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
I read a post that says the burden of proof lies with religion to prove God's existence. . . just wondering whether this is true. A god's existence was taken to be a fact far before the scientific method was designed. Since God's existence was taken to be a fact shouldn't the burden of proof be on the side of atheists. Its probably just an error in my understanding of the BOP.

The BoP is on anyone making a positive claim that something exists.

How do we go about working out whether claims are likely to be true or likely to be false?

Do you believe in the following?
1. The orbit of Pluto is 248 years - even though it was discovered in 1930 and we haven't seen an entire orbit yet.
2. People have walked on the Moon.
3. The theory of evolution is true
4. Socrates existed
5. Robin Hood existed
6. Big Foot is real
7. Alien abduction is real
8. There are fairies at the bottom of my garden
9. Every Xmas a jolly fat man in a red costume delivers presents to millions of children in a matter of hours.
10. Magicians we see on TV are not using tricks - it's real magic!
11. 2,000 years ago a man died for a weekend, then resurrected himself and flew up into the sky.

Each of us has to make a judgement about various claims particularly if that claim insists we should take it seriously.

For me, for something to exist it has to be a measurable, demonstrable, verifiable manifestation.

Points 1-4 above I would accept as true (although Socrates could have been made up by Plato).

Points 5-11 are all highly unlikely in my opinion. Point number 11 is believed by lots of people on the planet but for me what counteracts the plausibility is the fact that the claim is so old, and made at a time when people were inclined to believe in such things. There's also no good evidence outside of one book where the claims are made.

The point about Socrates possibly not being real does not bother me because no outlandish claims are made about his abilities.

I can accept that 2,000 years ago, a religious teacher went around Ancient Palestine giving speeches and developed a cult following and was then executed by the authorities. I can buy into that. But when people tell me he performed miracles and wil judge my life after I'm dead I get suspicious.

If one of my friends tells me that when they went to America they saw Jennifer Lopez shopping, I could believe them. If however they tell me that they are having an affair with her, I'm going to need better evidence than just their say-so.

Where would the generic claim "God exists" feature on the above list? Difficult to say really. For me, it would probably be between 5 and 7 somewhere. Highly unlikely but not as far-fetched as the Jesus claims.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 3:34:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 1:24:23 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Here is the California State University outline for the Burden of Proof.
http://www.csustan.edu...

It cannot be missed that minority view and majority view affect where the burden of proof lay.

I agree with POP that presumption does not exist on the atheist worldview, and I want to point out that is also compounded that the atheistic worldview is clearly the minority view and has an even greater burden of proof.

The minority view will always impact where the Burden of Proof lay.

...The majority/minority is what the majority/minority of lawyers/law scholars think on the issue. "It never shifts to the defendant to prove his/her innocence." The defendant backs up the claim that one does not X something. Whether it is murder, believe, or rape, it is the same. BoP is always on he who tries to bring in new positive information. God exists, or he doesn't. God existing is new positive information. God not existing is old negative information.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 3:39:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 3:12:23 PM, joneszj wrote:
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Belief: The kind dealt with is when "to believe something" simply means any cognitive content held as true in spite of the absence of proof or even evidence. For example, to believe that the sky is blue is to think that the proposition "The sky is blue" is true even if the sky is visibly red. We can define belief (and faith) as thinking that an idea is true in spite of the lack of verifiable evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Instead of possibly misquoting the article do a quicj read on this one: http://en.wikipedia.org...

On the topic of the BoP being on those who claim their is (or is not) a God:

British philosopher Antony Flew holds that some claims cannot be falsified because they are ultimately unverifiable. Flew asserts that one should test whether a certain truth claim can be falsified under a hypothetical situation. He suggests we ask "What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?" Flew also describes how deep questioning, backed up by empirical testing, can reveal a claim to at least have much less content than was originally thought (e.g. it becomes a much less detailed claim)- what he calls "death by a thousand qualifications".[4]
God's existence can mean many things to many different people. Still, some claims (which are actually contentful) about gods or their actions can be falsified, to the extent that the claims attempt to describe any facts about physical reality. For instance, the creationist claim that God created humankind in their current form has been falsified by evolution. Many (but certainly not all) other claims related to God can be similarly tested (e.g. the practice of praying to cause someone to heal has also been recognized, among scientists, as having been disproved[5]).

The burden of proof lies on the individual who is challenging a presumption. The proper presumption is that the gods do not exist because we have no evidence that they do. If you claim otherwise, you need to have proof.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 3:42:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I say the burden of proof is on anybody making a positive claim. If a person says I *know* there's no God or I *know* there's a God then the BOP would be on them. However, if a person was just to say I don't *believe* in God or I *believe* in God then that's simply just a statement of belief thus no BOP.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 3:45:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 3:42:30 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I say the burden of proof is on anybody making a positive claim. If a person says I *know* there's no God or I *know* there's a God then the BOP would be on them. However, if a person was just to say I don't *believe* in God or I *believe* in God then that's simply just a statement of belief thus no BOP.

Claiming that there are no gods is not a positive claim. It is a statement of presumption.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 8:33:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 3:45:05 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 3:42:30 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I say the burden of proof is on anybody making a positive claim. If a person says I *know* there's no God or I *know* there's a God then the BOP would be on them. However, if a person was just to say I don't *believe* in God or I *believe* in God then that's simply just a statement of belief thus no BOP.

Claiming that there are no gods is not a positive claim. It is a statement of presumption.

Sill, if a person claims to *know* there's no God the burden of proof is on them.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 8:34:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is why I hate theory arguments in debate.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 8:35:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 8:33:04 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/23/2012 3:45:05 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/23/2012 3:42:30 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I say the burden of proof is on anybody making a positive claim. If a person says I *know* there's no God or I *know* there's a God then the BOP would be on them. However, if a person was just to say I don't *believe* in God or I *believe* in God then that's simply just a statement of belief thus no BOP.

Claiming that there are no gods is not a positive claim. It is a statement of presumption.

Sill, if a person claims to *know* there's no God the burden of proof is on them.

No, because it is a statement of presumption.

Think about it this way. The default position on the existence of vampires is that vampires do not exist. Why? Because we do not have any evidence that they do. If someone claims that vampires exist, they have to provide evidence. If I claim that they do not exist, however, I need not provide evidence because I am simply stating the statement of presumption.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 8:59:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 9:11:10 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
I read a post that says the burden of proof lies with religion to prove God's existence. . . just wondering whether this is true. A god's existence was taken to be a fact far before the scientific method was designed. Since God's existence was taken to be a fact shouldn't the burden of proof be on the side of atheists. Its probably just an error in my understanding of the BOP.

The earth being flat was also accepted as a fact for a long time. Theists need to prove that there is good reason for belief in God.
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 10:30:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
thank you all, and just to be sure antiquity has nothing to do with BoP . . . e.g. the accepted belief for thousands of years was that God existed, this does not have a bearing on whether atheists must "prove" their claim . .. I suppose it really comes down to both sides supporting their arguments.
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 11:01:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 9:11:10 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
I read a post that says the burden of proof lies with religion to prove God's existence. . . just wondering whether this is true. A god's existence was taken to be a fact far before the scientific method was designed. Since God's existence was taken to be a fact shouldn't the burden of proof be on the side of atheists. Its probably just an error in my understanding of the BOP.

The BOP is on the person making the assertions in my opinion, although some types of formal debate might be different.
If you're saying "God exists" then the BOP is you.
The you're saying "God doesn't exist" then the BOP is on you.

Generally, I don't bother trying to argue about the existence of God but rather the truth of religion. That's something I think is EXTREMELY possible to disprove.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 6:07:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 3:34:20 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 1/23/2012 1:24:23 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Here is the California State University outline for the Burden of Proof.
http://www.csustan.edu...

It cannot be missed that minority view and majority view affect where the burden of proof lay.

I agree with POP that presumption does not exist on the atheist worldview, and I want to point out that is also compounded that the atheistic worldview is clearly the minority view and has an even greater burden of proof.

The minority view will always impact where the Burden of Proof lay.

...The majority/minority is what the majority/minority of lawyers/law scholars think on the issue. "It never shifts to the defendant to prove his/her innocence." The defendant backs up the claim that one does not X something. Whether it is murder, believe, or rape, it is the same. BoP is always on he who tries to bring in new positive information. God exists, or he doesn't. God existing is new positive information. God not existing is old negative information.

Again as Popculture pointed out the reason our system of Law is written this way is we work off the bases of "presumption of innocence".
No such presumption exists for the atheist view.
Considering that the minority view is the atheist view with zero presumptive quality the there is no case for the theist possessing burden of proof holistically.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 9:05:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 1:24:23 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Here is the California State University outline for the Burden of Proof.
http://www.csustan.edu...

It cannot be missed that minority view and majority view affect where the burden of proof lay.

I agree with POP that presumption does not exist on the atheist worldview, and I want to point out that is also compounded that the atheistic worldview is clearly the minority view and has an even greater burden of proof.

The minority view will always impact where the Burden of Proof lay.

hahaha.. he appeals to the law.. lol.... it is a logical issue.. you are the one making the claim..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 9:15:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
its as easy as this!

For what is not, is not there to talk about. Thus there is no "thing" to Proof..

So if you make a claim of A thing, you have to proof it.

That is why you must prove that something exist.

To a ask a proof of what does exist is a contradiction because you are really just asking us to not proof something....
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 9:16:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 9:11:10 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
I read a post that says the burden of proof lies with religion to prove God's existence. . . just wondering whether this is true. A god's existence was taken to be a fact far before the scientific method was designed. Since God's existence was taken to be a fact shouldn't the burden of proof be on the side of atheists. Its probably just an error in my understanding of the BOP.

You also need to proof the truth of the book first.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 10:17:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/24/2012 6:07:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/23/2012 3:34:20 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 1/23/2012 1:24:23 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Here is the California State University outline for the Burden of Proof.
http://www.csustan.edu...

It cannot be missed that minority view and majority view affect where the burden of proof lay.

I agree with POP that presumption does not exist on the atheist worldview, and I want to point out that is also compounded that the atheistic worldview is clearly the minority view and has an even greater burden of proof.

The minority view will always impact where the Burden of Proof lay.

...The majority/minority is what the majority/minority of lawyers/law scholars think on the issue. "It never shifts to the defendant to prove his/her innocence." The defendant backs up the claim that one does not X something. Whether it is murder, believe, or rape, it is the same. BoP is always on he who tries to bring in new positive information. God exists, or he doesn't. God existing is new positive information. God not existing is old negative information.

Again as Popculture pointed out the reason our system of Law is written this way is we work off the bases of "presumption of innocence".
No such presumption exists for the atheist view.
Considering that the minority view is the atheist view with zero presumptive quality the there is no case for the theist possessing burden of proof holistically.

The atheist view isn't that 'god definitely does not exist', it is that 'given the evidence (or lack of thereof), there is no reason to believe that god exists, and as such, he probably does not exist (and we should act accordingly)'.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Also, how can the default position have 'zero presumptive quality'?
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 7:26:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The burden of proof is always on the one making the positive claim. If you want to claim something exists then you have to provide evidence...

For example, if someone said "pink unicorns exist", would it be logical to believe the person just because I couldn't disprove it? Of course not. The burden of proof is on the one claiming pink unicorns exist, just like how the burden of proof is on the one claiming God exists.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 7:33:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For alleged Story book bible believers, they are commanded by their god (apparently?) that the burden of proof lies with them -

Prove all things . . . . (1 Thess. 5:21) KJV Story book
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 7:34:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Now if I were to say something does not exist, I would only have a BOP if there was evidence that the thing existed in the first place. Basically I can say "pink unicorns don't exist" and have no burden of proof at all because there is no evidence in the first place that pink unicorns exists. However, if I was to say that grass doesn't exist then I would have a burden of proof because there is already pre-existing evidence proving that grass exists.

Conclusion:

When it comes to God, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim he exists. The burden of proof can only be put on the atheist once it has already been proven or at least indicated by evidence that he exists, this has not happened yet.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 7:40:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Another example:

If I said "Henry Ford never existed" then the burden of proof would be on me because it has already been proven that he exists. However, since it hasn't been proven that God exists, I can say he doesn't exist without a burden of proof. The burden as it stands, is with the theists.