Burden of Proof

[ADTClone]

This is a video that explains the importance of a burden of proof in regards to super natural claims and claims in general in a way that is easy to understand.

The burden of proof - YouTube

It specifically addresses several claims such as the person claiming they do not believe in a super natural being needs to meet their own burden of proof; an argument that is used frequency in debates about the existence of a God.

 

[AlexBP]

Tis a remarkably dumb video. Leaving aside the featherweight intellectual arguments, what's up with all these people who make YouTube videos where they boss the viewer around? "You are obligated to" do this. "You must" do that. Actually I'm not forced or obligated to do anything just because someone posted an online video telling me to do it. Perhaps YouTube should post a disclamer on its front page.

Warning: Just because you're smart enough to create a video in Powerpoint and sync it up with a soundtrack doesn't mean that you run the world.

 

[Dieselman]

The only requirement for salvation is faith. If I were to prove to you that God existed, logically you would then be damned because, having knowledge, you cannot have faith. Searching for physical evidence of a supernatural being would be a prime example of abject stupidity. If God exists, then He must be supernatural. If God is supernatural, then His existence cannot be proven scientifically. The fact that His existence cannot be proven scientifically does not mean that He does not exist. It simply confirms that any such existence is supernatural. If God could be proven, then He would not be God and therefore would not exist. Logically, then, God’s existence can never be proven; whether He exists or whether He doesn’t.

 

[Davian]

The only requirement for salvation is faith. If I were to prove to you that God existed, logically you would then be damned because, having knowledge, you cannot have faith. Searching for physical evidence of a supernatural being would be a prime example of abject stupidity. If God exists, then He must be supernatural. If God is supernatural, then His existence cannot be proven scientifically. The fact that His existence cannot be proven scientifically does not mean that He does not exist. It simply confirms that any such existence is supernatural. If God could be proven, then He would not be God and therefore would not exist. Logically, then, God’s existence can never be proven; whether He exists or whether He doesn’t.

Is this "God" of any significance?

 

[ADTClone]

The only requirement for salvation is faith. If I were to prove to you that God existed, logically you would then be damned because, having knowledge, you cannot have faith. Searching for physical evidence of a supernatural being would be a prime example of abject stupidity. If God exists, then He must be supernatural. If God is supernatural, then His existence cannot be proven scientifically. The fact that His existence cannot be proven scientifically does not mean that He does not exist. It simply confirms that any such existence is supernatural. If God could be proven, then He would not be God and therefore would not exist. Logically, then, God’s existence can never be proven; whether He exists or whether He doesn’t.

I don't mind if you're content with faith. But in that case, don't go around trying to make everyone believe in what you believe based on "faith", and try to change public and government policies/laws because of something you believe on "faith". As long as the claim as one in the realm of "faith", there is no reason to believe it is true.

You have defined your God as an impossibility to prove to exist. If God exists in the super natural, and he can not be proven scientifically, then that means God has NO influence on reality. Therefore, he is a redundant concept which has no bearing on our lives in any way.

I find it astonishing that you claim that if God could be proven he would not be God and wouldn't exist. That just doesn't make any sense unless it is impossible to prove God exists because he doesn't exist.

Faith in general is the most dishonest belief that you can have, it is a belief with no reasonable justification.

So if you ever want to use your God as an argument in some issue such as abortion, homosexuality, marriage, government law, morality, reality, truth ext, then you have the burden of proof to prove that God exists. Otherwise, I think it is ridiculous to argue these issues with a belief that is unreasonable and unjustified.

And for a bit of fun, by your same logic, the "Giant Spaghetti Monster" exists, but you can never prove it exists because it exists in the super natural by definition. Therefore, the "Giant Spaghetti Monster" is the super lord of everything, and I define him to be a more omnipotent being than your God. You should now bow down to the Giant Spaghetti Monster, and if you don't, why? It is exactly the same argument you used for your God.

 

[ADTClone]

Tis a remarkably dumb video. Leaving aside the featherweight intellectual arguments, what's up with all these people who make YouTube videos where they boss the viewer around? "You are obligated to" do this. "You must" do that. Actually I'm not forced or obligated to do anything just because someone posted an online video telling me to do it. Perhaps YouTube should post a disclamer on its front page.

Warning: Just because you're smart enough to create a video in Powerpoint and sync it up with a soundtrack doesn't mean that you run the world.

This video is specifically concentrated on when people use a God or make another unsubstantiated claim in an argument. Specifically a proper philosophical argument which seeks to determine the truth.

So when the person in the video says "You are obligated to do this", he means within an argument, for it to be a proper argument which determines the truth. However, the concept of "burden of proof" is the way we have been able to weed out the untruthful and crazy claims from the claims that have evidence and reason to back them up.

Otherwise we'd still be in a world where the Earth is the centre of the universe, the world is flat and God causes the rain and floods.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The only requirement for salvation is faith. If I were to prove to you that God existed, logically you would then be damned because, having knowledge, you cannot have faith. Searching for physical evidence of a supernatural being would be a prime example of abject stupidity. If God exists, then He must be supernatural. If God is supernatural, then His existence cannot be proven scientifically. The fact that His existence cannot be proven scientifically does not mean that He does not exist. It simply confirms that any such existence is supernatural. If God could be proven, then He would not be God and therefore would not exist. Logically, then, God’s existence can never be proven; whether He exists or whether He doesn’t.

This sounds really incredible. Especially if you consider that there are religious people who claim to know that God exists, what with their relationships with Jesus, their epiphanies and revelations etc. And let's not forget about all those apologists who claim to be able to prove the existence of God, like for instance the Kalaam, or the FTA, or you-name-it.

On the other hand, ... WL Craig as someone who is not only not saved, but also busily forfeits other people's salvation ... Tempting, tempting, tempting.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The only requirement for salvation is faith. If I were to prove to you that God existed, logically you would then be damned because, having knowledge, you cannot have faith. Searching for physical evidence of a supernatural being would be a prime example of abject stupidity. If God exists, then He must be supernatural. If God is supernatural, then His existence cannot be proven scientifically. The fact that His existence cannot be proven scientifically does not mean that He does not exist. It simply confirms that any such existence is supernatural. If God could be proven, then He would not be God and therefore would not exist. Logically, then, God’s existence can never be proven; whether He exists or whether He doesn’t.

So Moses, Noah, Abraham, All of Jesus Disciples, Paul, Adam, Eve and everyone else in the bible who spoke directly to God is damned?

Nice attempt at dodging, however you still have no reason to accept the claim that God exists.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Lifetimes coming up with fantastic claims theres no way of investigating.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I'm not forced or obligated to do anything just because someone posted an online video telling me to do it.

Correct. However, the video says absolutely nothing like that.

What it does say is that you are obligated to meet your burden of proof IF you wish to be taken seriously in a philosophical discourse. The video lays out very good reasons for why this is so.

Which of these 'featherweight intellectual arguments' do you specifically object to, and why? Do you, for example, believe that saying 'you can't prove me wrong' bereaves you of the burden of proof?

 

[Dieselman]

So Moses, Noah, Abraham, All of Jesus Disciples, Paul, Adam, Eve and everyone else in the bible who spoke directly to God is damned?

Nice attempt at dodging, however you still have no reason to accept the claim that God exists.

Faith is the New Covenant, offered to the Gentiles through Jesus. Actually, the disciples had faith before they had proof.

 

[Dieselman]

Is this "God" of any significance?

Obviously not to you yet, but to millions of others, yes.

 

[AlexBP]

This video is specifically concentrated on when people use a God or make another unsubstantiated claim in an argument. Specifically a proper philosophical argument which seeks to determine the truth.

So when the person in the video says "You are obligated to do this", he means within an argument, for it to be a proper argument which determines the truth. However, the concept of "burden of proof" is the way we have been able to weed out the untruthful and crazy claims from the claims that have evidence and reason to back them up.

Otherwise we'd still be in a world where the Earth is the centre of the universe, the world is flat and God causes the rain and floods.

You're using several of my least favorite rhetorical moves here. First of all, there's your use of "we". I constantly hear people saying "we do this" or "we think that" when they actually mean "I think this" or "I think that." By misusing 'we', the speaker pretends that there's a consensus in the debate when there actually isn't one. If you and I are not in agreement about philosophical premises, you shouldn't imply that we are. On the other hand, if you wish to use "we" to refer to some group that doesn't include me, I'd suggest you be clear about what group that is.

If the maker of the video is discussing the requirements for "a proper argument that determines the truth", that's only rephrases the question of where his authority comes from. Who is he to lay down the law about which arguments are proper and which ones determine the truth?

Lastly, since you claim that people needed to think a certain way "or else we'd still be in a world where the world is flat &c...", then by your own argument shouldn't you provide some backup for that claim? Personally I don't recall Pythagoras or any of the others who shaped ancient or medieval cosmology ever using the phrases 'burden of proof' or any synonym for it.

(Likewise it's a common tactic for atheists to claim that all academics take their side in a certain debate, or that all scientists do, or that all peer reviewed papers are written in a certain way, or so forth. But when challenged to offer backup for such claims, they never do.)

 

[Dave Ellis]

Faith is the New Covenant, offered to the Gentiles through Jesus. Actually, the disciples had faith before they had proof.

Assuming that's true, which I don't believe there's any justification to back your claim....

Thomas didn't have faith... Does that mean he's damned?

 

[Dieselman]

I don't mind if you're content with faith. But in that case, don't go around trying to make everyone believe in what you believe based on "faith", and try to change public and government policies/laws because of something you believe on "faith".

Please go back and re-read your history. This nation was founded on faith in God. Washington was very religious. Jefferson held church services in the capitol. Faith was so imprtant to the founders that they enshrined it in law; that the government should not preference one religion over another, and could not infringe on anyone's right to believe as they chose. As for convincing others, I believe Jesus commanded us to spread the gospel. It's up to you whether you accept it.

You have defined your God as an impossibility to prove to exist. If God exists in the super natural, and he can not be proven scientifically, then that means God has NO influence on reality.

False assumption. You re-define reality as the only the natural world without any evidence of that. The history of man is repleat with stories of the supernatural including a 6,000 year relationship with God. It is you now making the claim without evidence because it is you who is challenging what man has experienced throughout his existence.

Therefore, he is a redundant concept which has no bearing on our lives in any way.

He is part of the lives of 85% of Americans. You are a small minority. Why should we listen to you?

I find it astonishing that you claim that if God could be proven he would not be God and wouldn't exist. That just doesn't make any sense unless it is impossible to prove God exists because he doesn't exist.

If you lost a quarter in the living room, would you look for it in the bathroom? Trying to prove the existence of a supernatural God by natural means is stupidity. However, God can and will be proven, and every knee will bow. For most it will be too late. Thousands of people can give you evidence of how their faith in God has changed their lives, but of course you will reject it all. You are entitled to your disbelief as we are entitled to our faith

Faith in general is the most dishonest belief that you can have, it is a belief with no reasonable justification.

Again, you re-define reason to suit your own terms. Refusal to believe in the Creator despite a world full of evidence all around you that you refuse to see is not reason, it's blindness.

So if you ever want to use your God as an argument in some issue such as abortion, homosexuality, marriage, government law, morality, reality, truth ext, then you have the burden of proof to prove that God exists.

I don't. Abortion is the contracting of a third party to end the life of a living being. If I can't hire the mob to kill my neighbor, why should a woman be able to hire an abortionist to kill her child? The definition of marriage has been established centuries ago. Liberals are the ones seeking to re-deine it. Marriage has always been a religious institution anyway. Better to shun it. As for law, I refer you to the Constitution and our founding documents.

Otherwise, I think it is ridiculous to argue these issues with a belief that is unreasonable and unjustified.

Agreed, which is why I find atheisim laughable.

And for a bit of fun, by your same logic, the "Giant Spaghetti Monster" exists, but you can never prove it exists because it exists in the super natural by definition.

Are most atheists incapable of coming up with their own analogies?

Therefore, the "Giant Spaghetti Monster" is the super lord of everything, and I define him to be a more omnipotent being than your God.

Fine. Show me a 6,000 year history and a written record of witnesses to his miracles and then we'll talk. Until then, you're merely babbling. After all, you're the one who said there is no supernatural and to validate your agument you envoke it.

 

[Dieselman]

Assuming that's true, which I don't believe there's any justification to back your claim....

Thomas didn't have faith... Does that mean he's damned?

Thomas did have faith, but he didn't have the Holy Spirit yet and his faith wasn't strong enough to overcome what he saw with his own eyes. Do you remember what Jesus said about the matter?
John 20: 29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

[Davian]

Is this "God" of any significance?

Obviously not to you yet, but to millions of others, yes.

I am not referring to "religion".

Is "God" of any significance? How would you demonstrate this?

 

[Dieselman]

I am not referring to "religion".

Is "God" of any significance? How would you demonstrate this?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

The belief in a Creator from whom all human rights emminate is what led men to stand up and rise against the most powerful nation in the world to declare their independance. It is not from king or government that our rights originate, but from God. That was the founding of this nation. Kinda significant, I think.

 

[Davian]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

The belief in a Creator from whom all human rights emminate is what led men to stand up and rise against the most powerful nation in the world to declare their independance. It is not from king or government that our rights originate, but from God. That was the founding of this nation. Kinda significant, I think.

I think not, unless you can provide evidence for your "from God" claim. Do you have anything of significance? Something testable?

 

[Dieselman]

I think not, unless you can provide evidence for your "from God" claim. Do you have anything of significance? Something testable?

I could go into the laws of science, but you'd deny them.
I could cite that abiogenesis is impossible but you'd pretend it wasn't.
I could cite irreducible complexity but you'd spew molecules to man nonsense.
I could show a 6,000 year history between God and man, but you'll say you don't believe it.
I could put a .45 to your head and shoot you. Then you'd know God was real, but I don't do such things.
I explained why God would never be proven. If you can't grasp the concept, it's not my fault.
You asked to me show how God was significant. I did and you changed the argument.
Frankly, God doesn't believe in you either.

You are on a Christain website touting your ignorance by pretending that all of the magnificence and complexity of the universe is no indication whatever of a Creator. Whatever. Believe as you will. God is not lessened by your disbelief.

Those who seek God will find Him. Those who close their eyes will never see him. Saying a God you've never sought does not exist makes as much sense as saying a painting you've never seen was never painted. Others can testify, but it's just words until you see it.