Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Burden of Proof

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 3:13:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
People do not seem to understand burden of proof. Burden of proof lies on the positive claim, not the negative claim.

"God exists" is a positive claim.
"God does not exist" is a negative claim.

When evidence is brought forth by those making the positive claim then there is a shift. Those making the negative claim must then refute the evidence presented by those making the positive claim.

There is also something important to note, absence of evidence is conclusive evidence in cases where evidence would be expected.

This means that absence of evidence might not always be evidence of absence, but it can be in certain situations.

Absence of evidence for X is evidence of absence when proposition X requires or is expected to have evidence in order to exist.

Another point, proof of impossibility can be used to prove a negative.

Proof of impossibility is met when a problem cannot be solved.

One thing that proof of impossibility can do is help narrow down what type of God would exist if one does exists.

Example:
Proof of impossibility of omnipotence:
Can god make a boulder so heavy that he can't lift it?

Conclusion:
1. Burden of proof does lie on the theists, not the atheists.
2. Atheists will refute evidence brought up by theists.
3. Evidence of absence can sometimes be evidence of absence.
4. Proof of impossibility can limit what a God can do.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 3:27:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim. It matters not whether the claim is positive or negative.

If you claim "God does not exist", you are just as burdened to prove that claim as any other.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 3:38:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 3:27:16 PM, Double_R wrote:
The burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim. It matters not whether the claim is positive or negative.

If you claim "God does not exist", you are just as burdened to prove that claim as any other.

No, BoP does not fall onto every claim. BoP falls onto the POSITIVE claim.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu...

Whoever says X exists has the burden of proof.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 3:51:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 3:38:56 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 3:27:16 PM, Double_R wrote:
The burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim. It matters not whether the claim is positive or negative.

If you claim "God does not exist", you are just as burdened to prove that claim as any other.

No, BoP does not fall onto every claim. BoP falls onto the POSITIVE claim.

To make a claim is to invoke belief in a proposition. Invoking a belief onto anyone else requires that belief to be rationally justified. That's why we have a BoP.

A negative claim is still a positive belief regarding that claim. "X does not exist" is a statement of knowledge regarding X's existence. I think you are confusing statements of truth with statements of belief.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 4:46:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 3:51:04 PM, Double_R wrote:
To make a claim is to invoke belief in a proposition. Invoking a belief onto anyone else requires that belief to be rationally justified. That's why we have a BoP.

A negative claim is still a positive belief regarding that claim. "X does not exist" is a statement of knowledge regarding X's existence. I think you are confusing statements of truth with statements of belief.

Did you even look at the link I provided?

"X does not exist" does not have the BoP UNLESS there exists evidence that has not been refuted for the claim "X exists". When evidence is brought forth for "X exists" the evidence must then be refuted.

Read the link I provided.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 7:04:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 4:46:27 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 3:51:04 PM, Double_R wrote:
To make a claim is to invoke belief in a proposition. Invoking a belief onto anyone else requires that belief to be rationally justified. That's why we have a BoP.

A negative claim is still a positive belief regarding that claim. "X does not exist" is a statement of knowledge regarding X's existence. I think you are confusing statements of truth with statements of belief.

Did you even look at the link I provided?

Your link is irrelevant. This is a philosophical question. Your point needs to be argued, not referenced.

"X does not exist" does not have the BoP UNLESS there exists evidence that has not been refuted for the claim "X exists".

"X does not exist" is a proposition regarding the truth about the reality we inhabit. It is specifically a claim that we live in a reality in which X is not a part of. That is a claim just like any other. And just like any other claim, it requires rational support (aka proof).

If you still disagree then please tell me, what is the distinction between a negative claim and a positive claim? How does this distinction justify removing the burden of proof from a negative claim?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 7:14:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 7:04:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
Your link is irrelevant. This is a philosophical question. Your point needs to be argued, not referenced.

How is it irrelevant? It is an education website that addresses BoP

"X does not exist" is a proposition regarding the truth about the reality we inhabit. It is specifically a claim that we live in a reality in which X is not a part of. That is a claim just like any other. And just like any other claim, it requires rational support (aka proof).

If you still disagree then please tell me, what is the distinction between a negative claim and a positive claim? How does this distinction justify removing the burden of proof from a negative claim?

Burden of proof lies on the positive claim because negative claims are the default position. If you never heard about China you would not believe China exists. When someone says China exists they need to prove it.

Positive claims deviate from the default position, negative claims do not. If there is no evidence for the positive claim then the negative claim does not have the BoP.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 7:57:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 7:14:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 7:04:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
Your link is irrelevant. This is a philosophical question. Your point needs to be argued, not referenced.

How is it irrelevant? It is an education website that addresses BoP

"X does not exist" is a proposition regarding the truth about the reality we inhabit. It is specifically a claim that we live in a reality in which X is not a part of. That is a claim just like any other. And just like any other claim, it requires rational support (aka proof).

If you still disagree then please tell me, what is the distinction between a negative claim and a positive claim? How does this distinction justify removing the burden of proof from a negative claim?

Burden of proof lies on the positive claim because negative claims are the default position. If you never heard about China you would not believe China exists. When someone says China exists they need to prove it.

Positive claims deviate from the default position, negative claims do not. If there is no evidence for the positive claim then the negative claim does not have the BoP.

I agree with Double_R on this one. Negative claims have a BoP as well.
The default position is not to believe that god does not exist. It is to lack the belief that god exists, as well as the belief that it does not exist.
There is a difference between not believing and believing in the negative.

Further, and you may or may not dismiss this as pure semantics, but claiming god doesn't exist is claiming the existence of gods non-existence and hence a positive claim.

You never heard of god and have no concept or idea of god and thus don't claim anything in any way about god: default position.
You say god exists, prove it.
You say god doesn't exist, prove it.
You say it is illogical to believe that god exists, because there is no evidence to support it, without claiming its nonexistence and you're good to go.
Given that people accept the general principles of logic, of course.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 8:06:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 7:14:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 7:04:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
Your link is irrelevant. This is a philosophical question. Your point needs to be argued, not referenced.

How is it irrelevant? It is an education website that addresses BoP

Read the next two sentences I wrote and you will have your answer.

"X does not exist" is a proposition regarding the truth about the reality we inhabit. It is specifically a claim that we live in a reality in which X is not a part of. That is a claim just like any other. And just like any other claim, it requires rational support (aka proof).

If you still disagree then please tell me, what is the distinction between a negative claim and a positive claim? How does this distinction justify removing the burden of proof from a negative claim?

Burden of proof lies on the positive claim because negative claims are the default position. If you never heard about China you would not believe China exists. When someone says China exists they need to prove it.

A negative claim is not the default position. No belief is the default. Not believing China exists is not the same thing as believing that China does not exist.

Again, I think you are confusing statements of belief with statements of truth. Suppose I have a coin in my hand and I flip it...

Do you believe it landed on heads?

Do you believe it landed on tails?

I am guessing the answer is no to both. Yet shenanigans aside, one of them has to be true. The default position is to not believe either side of the proposition until it is supported by evidence. In this case "I don't know what side it landed on" is the only rational statement you can make.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 1:20:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 8:06:15 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/17/2014 7:14:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 7:04:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
Your link is irrelevant. This is a philosophical question. Your point needs to be argued, not referenced.

How is it irrelevant? It is an education website that addresses BoP

Read the next two sentences I wrote and you will have your answer.

"X does not exist" is a proposition regarding the truth about the reality we inhabit. It is specifically a claim that we live in a reality in which X is not a part of. That is a claim just like any other. And just like any other claim, it requires rational support (aka proof).

If you still disagree then please tell me, what is the distinction between a negative claim and a positive claim? How does this distinction justify removing the burden of proof from a negative claim?

Burden of proof lies on the positive claim because negative claims are the default position. If you never heard about China you would not believe China exists. When someone says China exists they need to prove it.

A negative claim is not the default position. No belief is the default. Not believing China exists is not the same thing as believing that China does not exist.

Again, I think you are confusing statements of belief with statements of truth. Suppose I have a coin in my hand and I flip it...

Do you believe it landed on heads?

Do you believe it landed on tails?

I am guessing the answer is no to both. Yet shenanigans aside, one of them has to be true. The default position is to not believe either side of the proposition until it is supported by evidence. In this case "I don't know what side it landed on" is the only rational statement you can make.

Double_R, I am impressed. Very nice logic. Very nice.
Fox-McCloud
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 1:41:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 7:14:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 7:04:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
Your link is irrelevant. This is a philosophical question. Your point needs to be argued, not referenced.

How is it irrelevant? It is an education website that addresses BoP

"X does not exist" is a proposition regarding the truth about the reality we inhabit. It is specifically a claim that we live in a reality in which X is not a part of. That is a claim just like any other. And just like any other claim, it requires rational support (aka proof).

If you still disagree then please tell me, what is the distinction between a negative claim and a positive claim? How does this distinction justify removing the burden of proof from a negative claim?

Burden of proof lies on the positive claim because negative claims are the default position. If you never heard about China you would not believe China exists. When someone says China exists they need to prove it.

Positive claims deviate from the default position, negative claims do not. If there is no evidence for the positive claim then the negative claim does not have the BoP.

What about the claim: "God does not not exist"?
Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible: http://www.debate.org...

The instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves - Archibald Alison

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven! - William Wordsworth
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 1:59:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 1:41:26 PM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
At 3/17/2014 7:14:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 7:04:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
Your link is irrelevant. This is a philosophical question. Your point needs to be argued, not referenced.

How is it irrelevant? It is an education website that addresses BoP

"X does not exist" is a proposition regarding the truth about the reality we inhabit. It is specifically a claim that we live in a reality in which X is not a part of. That is a claim just like any other. And just like any other claim, it requires rational support (aka proof).

If you still disagree then please tell me, what is the distinction between a negative claim and a positive claim? How does this distinction justify removing the burden of proof from a negative claim?

Burden of proof lies on the positive claim because negative claims are the default position. If you never heard about China you would not believe China exists. When someone says China exists they need to prove it.

Positive claims deviate from the default position, negative claims do not. If there is no evidence for the positive claim then the negative claim does not have the BoP.

What about the claim: "God does not not exist"?

That is a negative claim. Negative claims do not have the burden of proof until the positive claim has evidence.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 1:11:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 1:59:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 1:41:26 PM, Fox-McCloud wrote:
At 3/17/2014 7:14:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 7:04:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
Your link is irrelevant. This is a philosophical question. Your point needs to be argued, not referenced.

How is it irrelevant? It is an education website that addresses BoP

"X does not exist" is a proposition regarding the truth about the reality we inhabit. It is specifically a claim that we live in a reality in which X is not a part of. That is a claim just like any other. And just like any other claim, it requires rational support (aka proof).

If you still disagree then please tell me, what is the distinction between a negative claim and a positive claim? How does this distinction justify removing the burden of proof from a negative claim?

Burden of proof lies on the positive claim because negative claims are the default position. If you never heard about China you would not believe China exists. When someone says China exists they need to prove it.

Positive claims deviate from the default position, negative claims do not. If there is no evidence for the positive claim then the negative claim does not have the BoP.

What about the claim: "God does not not exist"?

That is a negative claim. Negative claims do not have the burden of proof until the positive claim has evidence.

You're still sticking to this? Would you care to respond to my last post?
mrsatan
Posts: 418
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 3:01:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
BoP is on anyone who makes a claim to knowledge, or on anyone attempting to convince someone else that 'X' is reality.

The simplest way I can put it is this:

If "Prove it." is a reasonable response to a statement, then the maker of that statement has BoP.

A theist may or may not have BoP. An atheist may or may not have BoP.

If a theist says, "God exists, no doubt about it.", they are making a claim to knowledge and so one could reasonably respond to this with "Prove it", therefore this theist has a BoP.

However, if a theist says, "I believe, wholeheartedly, that God exists. There is no doubt in my mind.", they are NOT making a claim to knowledge and so one could NOT reasonably respond with "Prove it.". Therefore, this theist has no BoP.

Similar examples could be made in view of an atheist, but I'll assume you get my point.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Juris
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 9:08:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is no God. The burden of proof lies with the believers. They do not have credible evidence to prove that there is God. They based their argument from faith and the Bible. Faith is not based on reason but simply an excuse or denial. While the Bible is not credible as it contains full of errors and not scientific nor historical. (My post)
Yoshi
Posts: 71
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 10:38:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Burden of Proof: Claim to be addressed

"There's a deity and this deity also is the deity of X religion."

Layout goes like this:

1. Gnostic/Agnsotic

Is there evidence in order to Know whether this claim is true?

2. Theism/Atheism

Agnostic Perspective: Do you take this claim on faith or not?

Gnostic Perspective: Do you accept this evidence?

3. Reality

Deities cannot be proved so you either take this claim on faith (Agnsotic Theism) or you do not take this claim on faith (Agnostic Atheism)

4. Burden of Proof

Burden of proof is for the Gnostic Theist and the Gnostic Atheist

If an Gnostic Atheist states "because they know a god does not exist, there's no evidence a god does exist" then the burden of proof is on the Atheist side.

If an Gnostic Theist states "because they know a god does exist, there's no evidence a god does not exist" then the burden of proof is on the Theist side.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 10:49:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yet no one seems to be responding to the link I provided. Everyone else on this forum is basing it off of, what appears to be, their own opinion. I am the only one to provide a source to back up my side. If no one else can provide a source, why should anyone believe them?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 11:02:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 3:13:27 PM, SNP1 wrote:
People do not seem to understand burden of proof. Burden of proof lies on the positive claim, not the negative claim.

"God exists" is a positive claim.
"God does not exist" is a negative claim.

When evidence is brought forth by those making the positive claim then there is a shift. Those making the negative claim must then refute the evidence presented by those making the positive claim.

There is also something important to note, absence of evidence is conclusive evidence in cases where evidence would be expected.

This means that absence of evidence might not always be evidence of absence, but it can be in certain situations.

Absence of evidence for X is evidence of absence when proposition X requires or is expected to have evidence in order to exist.

Another point, proof of impossibility can be used to prove a negative.

Proof of impossibility is met when a problem cannot be solved.

One thing that proof of impossibility can do is help narrow down what type of God would exist if one does exists.

Example:
Proof of impossibility of omnipotence:
Can god make a boulder so heavy that he can't lift it?


Conclusion:
1. Burden of proof does lie on the theists, not the atheists.
2. Atheists will refute evidence brought up by theists.
3. Evidence of absence can sometimes be evidence of absence.
4. Proof of impossibility can limit what a God can do.

Thanks for the thread SNP1! I think it is definitely one of the most helpful threads I've seen.

If I may add to it a bit, I believe some standard evaluations are exceptions that do not need a BoP. Examples of these include that reality exists, that we are in a debate, that we are speaking in a language, that something more moral should be preferred to something immoral, that racism or sexism is a negative, molecules exist, the preservation of the universe should be preferred over its destruction, etc.

Of course, all of items may be challenged; however, unlike most BoPs, in the case of these very standard items it is the negative claim that has the BoP and not the positive claim (because a neutral position contains these frameworks). Anyway, thanks for the thread!
ExsurgeDomine
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 11:29:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 10:49:21 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Yet no one seems to be responding to the link I provided. Everyone else on this forum is basing it off of, what appears to be, their own opinion. I am the only one to provide a source to back up my side. If no one else can provide a source, why should anyone believe them?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 11:32:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 11:29:52 AM, ExsurgeDomine wrote:
At 3/21/2014 10:49:21 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Yet no one seems to be responding to the link I provided. Everyone else on this forum is basing it off of, what appears to be, their own opinion. I am the only one to provide a source to back up my side. If no one else can provide a source, why should anyone believe them?

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

Really? Wikipedia? How many people seriously use Wikipedia as a reliable source? I think my source has a lot more weight than Wikipedia does.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 11:41:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
As a non-believer I'm firmly of the opinion that the burden of proof is on the denial side. We must prove that there is no god.

However, Christians have no way of proving the positive and mainstream science has no real need to prove the negative.

The outcome will remain largely stalemated but will move to one side or the other based on logic and probability.
ExsurgeDomine
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 11:42:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 11:32:44 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/21/2014 11:29:52 AM, ExsurgeDomine wrote:
At 3/21/2014 10:49:21 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Yet no one seems to be responding to the link I provided. Everyone else on this forum is basing it off of, what appears to be, their own opinion. I am the only one to provide a source to back up my side. If no one else can provide a source, why should anyone believe them?

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

Really? Wikipedia? How many people seriously use Wikipedia as a reliable source? I think my source has a lot more weight than Wikipedia does.

Yeah, because Queensboro Community College is so weighty.

I've only skimmed the source because I'm lazy, but it clearly says 'The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition.'.

If I make the assertion or proposition 'God does not exist', then clearly I ought to have a burden of proof. You erroneously conclude that the burden of proof does not lie upon atheists, but in certain circumstances your own source would agree that they do.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 11:49:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 10:49:21 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Yet no one seems to be responding to the link I provided. Everyone else on this forum is basing it off of, what appears to be, their own opinion. I am the only one to provide a source to back up my side. If no one else can provide a source, why should anyone believe them?

Because you have a mind of your own and should use it.

This is a philosophical question, not a question about factual reality. If all you are going to do is provide a source and claim that your source says so, then all discussion about this with you is pointless. In that case we should be seeking out the people who wrote your source and debate it with them.

I presented a rebuttal to your argument. Do you have a response to it or not?
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 12:24:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 3:13:27 PM, SNP1 wrote:
People do not seem to understand burden of proof. Burden of proof lies on the positive claim, not the negative claim.

"God exists" is a positive claim.
"God does not exist" is a negative claim.

When evidence is brought forth by those making the positive claim then there is a shift. Those making the negative claim must then refute the evidence presented by those making the positive claim.

There is also something important to note, absence of evidence is conclusive evidence in cases where evidence would be expected.

This means that absence of evidence might not always be evidence of absence, but it can be in certain situations.

Absence of evidence for X is evidence of absence when proposition X requires or is expected to have evidence in order to exist.

Another point, proof of impossibility can be used to prove a negative.

Proof of impossibility is met when a problem cannot be solved.

One thing that proof of impossibility can do is help narrow down what type of God would exist if one does exists.

Example:
Proof of impossibility of omnipotence:
Can god make a boulder so heavy that he can't lift it?


Conclusion:
1. Burden of proof does lie on the theists, not the atheists.
2. Atheists will refute evidence brought up by theists.
3. Evidence of absence can sometimes be evidence of absence.
4. Proof of impossibility can limit what a God can do.

If that's what you believe, then the BOP is on you. What BOP do you have for where your thoughts are coming from that you wrote down in this thread?

Did your thoughts come from the mind or from your body?

Do you have proof that they came from the body?

Or do you have proof that your thoughts came from the mind?