Christianity and the Burden of Proof

[KCfromNC]

Haven't bothered to read all nine pages, what are these "simple questions" Zippy is going on about?

He's somehow trying to twist "I don't believe you" into a claim that needs to be justified with the same level of evidence which would be used to back up "My man-God visited earth 2000 years ago, died and came back to life to save us from himself".

 

[zippy2006]

Haven't bothered to read all nine pages, what are these "simple questions" Zippy is going on about?

They can be found here.

I don't think they are particularly interesting. Their import is limited to the context of my conversation with Tagliatelli. KC is afraid of answering them. He thinks I am leading him to the pit of doom with these questions. Tagliatelli answered them and the world didn't seem to end. I suppose atheists can never be too careful though!

A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere — “Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,” as Herbert says, “fine nets and stratagems.” God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous. -C. S. Lewis​

 

[KCfromNC]

KC is afraid of answering them.

To put it more accurately, I did answer them when they were posed, just not in the way that someone was wishing I would. Apparently not playing along with apologetics playbook makes me afraid of something. All it tells me it that there's not much there if the argument can't stand up to someone saying something unexpected in response to leading questions.

 

[zippy2006]

To put it more accurately, I did answer them when they were posed, just not in the way that someone was wishing I would. Apparently not playing along with apologetics playbook makes me afraid of something. All it tells me it that there's not much there if the argument can't stand up to someone saying something unexpected in response to leading questions.

Stay safe, KC!

 

[KCfromNC]

Stay safe, KC!

Did I mention non-responses like this don't do much to make me think there's much substance here?

 

[zippy2006]

Did I mention non-responses like this don't do much to make me think there's much substance here?

You can't seem to make up your mind:

To put it more accurately, I did answer them when they were posed...

...I haven't answered either of your questions.

Were you fearful for Tagliatelli when he answered them? Perhaps you should have warned him of the imminent danger. I have to admit, he is a bit naive, honestly answering questions and all... I don't think he will make a very good atheist in the long run due to these lapses of judgment.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Great, so you believe there are claims which atheists make, that atheists have the burden of proof for these claims, and that they are capable of meeting that burden of proof.

Thank you for the clear answer.

If an atheist makes a positive claim, then yes, they would have the burden of proof.

Not believing your claim is not a positive claim though. So in that instance, atheists have no burden of proof.

 

[zippy2006]

If an atheist makes a positive claim, then yes, they would have the burden of proof.

Not believing your claim is not a positive claim though. So in that instance, atheists have no burden of proof.

In this post you implicitly made two positive claims:

• We cannot rationally justify believing in God.
• God is not worthy of belief.

If these are not positive claims, then define what you mean by a positive claim.

 

[Dave Ellis]

In this post you implicitly made two positive claims:

• We cannot rationally justify believing in God.
• God is not worthy of belief.

If these are not positive claims, then define what you mean by a positive claim.

Point 1)

You have not provided sufficient evidence to warrant belief, therefore we can not rationally justify believing in god

Point 2)

Since we have no rational justification to believe a god exists, then it would make no sense to believe in it.


Any more questions?

 

[zippy2006]

Point 1)

You have not provided sufficient evidence to warrant belief, therefore we can not rationally justify believing in god

Point 2)

Since we have no rational justification to believe a god exists, then it would make no sense to believe in it.


Any more questions?

So you are accepting the burden of proof for the positive claims you've made?

 

[Dave Ellis]

So you are accepting the burden of proof for the positive claims you've made?

I haven't made a positive claim, those are both rebuttals to the claims you made. I was explaining why my rebuttals are valid points which you have not addressed.

 

[zippy2006]

I haven't made a positive claim...

Then I would suggest reading the post, particularly the part that runs, "If these are not positive claims, then define what you mean by a positive claim."

I was explaining why my rebuttals are valid points which you have not addressed.

Providing an additional reason for a positive claim does not make it a non-positive claim. Indeed, as already noted, providing a reason for a positive claim seems to accept the idea that you have the burden of proof. It seems that the claims elicited additional arguments from you because you instinctively knew that you had the burden of proof, and thus sought to satisfy that burden.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Then I would suggest reading the post, particularly the part that runs, "If these are not positive claims, then define what you mean by a positive claim."

A positive claim is an assertion of fact. A non acceptance of that claim is not a positive claim in and of itself.

Providing an additional reason for a positive claim does not make it a non-positive claim. Indeed, as already noted, providing a reason for a positive claim seems to accept the idea that you have the burden of proof. The claims apparently elicited additional arguments from you because you instinctively knew that you had the burden of proof, and thus sought to satisfy that burden.

No, I said I don't accept your claim, and I explained why hoping you'd attempt to provide some evidence to address my concerns.

 

[HitchSlap]

1. Is "God is not worthy of belief" a claim? Yes or no?
2. Do you believe that God is not worthy of belief? Yes or no?

1. Yes.
2. Yes.

 

[zippy2006]

A positive claim is an assertion of fact.

Both of the claims in question are assertions of fact. According to your own definition, you hold to two positive assertions.

 

[zippy2006]

1. Yes.
2. Yes.

To give you the backstory: I agreed with a Wikipedia definition of the burden of proof; various atheists disagreed on the basis that the burden of proof is on a claim and atheists don't make claims; I pointed out that atheists do make claims. Obviously there is a bit more squeezed into the thread, but that's how the two questions came about.

 

[HitchSlap]

To give you the backstory: I agreed with a Wikipedia definition of the burden of proof; various atheists disagreed on the basis that the burden of proof is on a claim and atheists don't make claims; I pointed out that atheists do make claims. Obviously there is a bit more squeezed into the thread, but that's how the two questions came about.

Absence of a belief in god/s, is not a claim.

 

[zippy2006]

Absence of a belief in god/s, is not a claim.

True, but to hold to the statement that "God is not worthy of belief" is to make a claim. There is a difference between absence of a belief and justified non-belief.

 

[lesliedellow]

Very few things can be proven outside of the realms of mathematics and logic. So it comes down to evidence, and what counts as evidence is likely to be a subjective thing, depending upon, amongst other things, on how badly you want to believe or disbelieve something. If you want to believe something, the barrier might be low; if you want to disbelieve it, the barrier might be high.

 

[HitchSlap]

True, but to hold to the statement that "God is not worthy of belief" is to make a claim. There is a difference between absence of a belief and justified non-belief.

Yes, I claim that "God is not worthy of belief."