Christianity and the Burden of Proof

[zippy2006]

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

Okay. Further, given two propositions:

1. God is worthy of belief.
2. God is not worthy of belief.

In America it is the atheist who has the burden of proof, since he is the one challenging the status quo from the perspective of the Western and American societal narrative of the ubiquity of religion. The burden of proof in Europe may be legitimately different.

 

[HitchSlap]

Okay. Further, given two propositions:

1. God is worthy of belief.
2. God is not worthy of belief.

In America it is the atheist who has the burden of proof, since he is the one challenging the status quo from the perspective of the Western and American societal narrative of the ubiquity of religion. The burden of proof in Europe may be legitimately different.

You want justification for my opinion?

 

[zippy2006]

You want justification for my opinion?

I am wondering if you agree or disagree with regard to the burden of proof.

 

[HitchSlap]

I am wondering if you agree or disagree with regard to the burden of proof.

Of course, it's incumbent on the one making a positive claim.

Seriously, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?

 

[zippy2006]

Of course, it's incumbent on the one making a positive claim.

Seriously, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?

I am claiming that the burden of proof is not simply on a positive claim. It is rather on the divergent claim.

Often, two disputants are both making positive and contradictory claims. Would you say that they both have the burden of proof? For example, given claims (1) and (2) above, how do we discern who has the burden of proof?

What about positive claims such as, "The Earth is round," "Objects fall due to gravity," "Australia is an island." Do we really think that the person making these has the burden of proof?

 

[Dave Ellis]

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

You conveniently didn't quote the part where I said: "non acceptance of that claim is not a positive claim in and of itself"

Regardless, even if I grant you that they were positive claims, do you disagree with my conclusions?

 

[Dave Ellis]

I am claiming that the burden of proof is not simply on a positive claim. It is rather on the divergent claim.

Then you're wrong.

Often, two disputants are both making positive and contradictory claims. Would you say that they both have the burden of proof? For example, given claims (1) and (2) above, how do we discern who has the burden of proof?

Whoever made the claim has the burden of proof. If they can't convince someone, that doesn't mean the other person has a burden of proof.

What about positive claims such as, "The Earth is round," "Objects fall due to gravity," "Australia is an island." Do we really think that the person making these has the burden of proof?

Yes, luckily we have evidence that can prove all of those points (well, technically Australia is a continent, but there's no point arguing that one!).

 

[Dave Ellis]

Okay. Further, given two propositions:

1. God is worthy of belief.
2. God is not worthy of belief.

In America it is the atheist who has the burden of proof, since he is the one challenging the status quo from the perspective of the Western and American societal narrative of the ubiquity of religion. The burden of proof in Europe may be legitimately different.

That's nonsense. The status quo has no bearing on the burden of proof, you're committing both the appeal to popularity fallacy and a shifting of the burden of proof fallacy. I don't think you understand how the burden of proof works.

If a majority of people claim that god exists, they still have a burden of proof to justify their claim. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make their beliefs true, or justified.

 

[zippy2006]

You conveniently didn't quote the part where I said: "non acceptance of that claim is not a positive claim in and of itself"

That's because that part of your definition is arbitrary and therefore illegitimate. "A positive claim is an assertion of fact. Except when you're responding to a positive claim; in that case it doesn't count!" That makes no sense. You can't just arbitrarily exclude responses from the species of positive claims.

Regardless, even if I grant you that they were positive claims, do you disagree with my conclusions?

The way I see it, the positive claims were your conclusions and the additional arguments were supports to those conclusions. Naturally I disagree with the claim that God is not worthy of belief.

Posts 207 and 208 have been addressed at various points in the thread. I don't feel like re-hashing the same arguments.

 

[HitchSlap]

I am claiming that the burden of proof is not simply on a positive claim. It is rather on the divergent claim.

I really don't see a need for such an arbitrary distinction.

Often, two disputants are both making positive and contradictory claims.

Sure, one might say Allah is god, some might say Jesus is god.

Would you say that they both have the burden of proof?

Absolutely.

For example, given claims (1) and (2) above, how do we discern who has the burden of proof?

You asked two questions, I answered. What claims are you referring to?

What about positive claims such as, "The Earth is round," "Objects fall due to gravity," "Australia is an island." Do we really think that the person making these has the burden of proof?

Of course.

 

[Dave Ellis]

That's because that part of your definition is arbitrary and therefore illegitimate. "A positive claim is an assertion of fact. Except when you're responding to a positive claim; in that case it doesn't count!" That makes no sense. You can't just arbitrarily exclude responses from the species of positive claims.

If you say "Claim X" and I say I don't believe you, the fact I don't believe you is not a positive claim. That's basic logic.

The way I see it, the positive claims were your conclusions and the additional arguments were supports to those conclusions. Naturally I disagree with the claim that God is not worthy of belief.

And why is god worthy of belief when you can't prove he exists?

Posts 207 and 208 have been addressed at various points in the thread. I don't feel like re-hashing the same arguments.

Then I'll assume you concede the point raised in those posts?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Sure, one might say Allah is god, some might say Jesus is god.

The problem is, the person saying Jesus is god in reply is not addressing the claim Allah is god directly. He's raising a separate point. I would agree both are positive claims, but that's not what we're really talking about in this thread.

If the Muslim says Allah is god and the Christian replies "I don't believe you", that is not a positive claim. Likewise, if the Christian says Jesus is god and the Muslim replies "I don't believe you", that is also not a positive claim. On that note, if an Atheist said "I know for certain that no god exists", that's also a positive claim. If either the Muslim or Christian challenges the Atheist, then the Atheist would have the burden of proof in that case.

He's trying to turn rejecting a claim into something that requires a burden of proof, when it simply isn't.

 

[HitchSlap]

The problem is, the person saying Jesus is god in reply is not addressing the claim Allah is god directly. He's raising a separate point. I would agree both are positive claims, but that's not what we're really talking about in this thread.

If the Muslim says Allah is god and the Christian replies "I don't believe you", that is not a positive claim. Likewise, if the Christian says Jesus is god and the Muslim replies "I don't believe you", that is also not a positive claim. On that note, if an Atheist said "I know for certain that no god exists", that's also a positive claim. If either the Muslim or Christian challenges the Atheist, then the Atheist would have the burden of proof in that case.

He's trying to turn rejecting a claim into something that requires a burden of proof, when it simply isn't.

I completely agree with you, which is why I'm trying to parse this out with him so he understands.

 

[zippy2006]

Of course.

Then we differ, but keep in mind this challenge. You think that the claim, "The Earth is round," has the burden of proof. Next time you hear this claim mentioned in conversation, wait and see whether justification is given for the Earth's roundness. If the person who mentions the Earth's roundness provides justification for their claim then it would seem they are in agreement with you in saying that such a claim has the burden of proof. If they do not provide justification then they clearly disagree that such a claim has the burden of proof.

Suppose I gave you $10 every time someone justifies that claim. Would you become a rich man?

Or I could give you $100 every time someone justifies the claim, "The Pope is Catholic!" which is commonly used as a joke insofar as it inverts the burden of proof (it is too obvious to even need stating).

 

[Dave Ellis]

Then we differ, but keep in mind this challenge. You think that the claim, "The Earth is round," has the burden of proof. Next time you hear this claim mentioned in conversation, wait and see whether justification is given for the Earth's roundness. If the person who mentions the Earth's roundness provides justification for their claim then it would seem they are in agreement with you in saying that such a claim has the burden of proof. If they do not provide justification then they clearly disagree that such a claim has the burden of proof.

Suppose I gave you $10 every time someone justifies that claim. Would you become a rich man?

Or I could give you $100 every time someone justifies the claim, "The Pope is Catholic!" which is commonly used as a joke insofar as it inverts the burden of proof (it is too obvious to even need stating).

Yes, it does have the burden of proof.

If it goes unchallenged, all that means is that the person that the claim is being made to accepts the claim. That doesn't eliminate the burden of proof, it just means that people will overwhelmingly agree with you, and having you justify the claim would be a waste of time.

If I said the earth is round to a flat earther, and they challenged me on it, then I would have to show evidence. Luckily, the evidence is overwhelming and easy to present.

 

[HitchSlap]

Then we differ, but keep in mind this challenge. You think that the claim, "The Earth is round," has the burden of proof. Next time you hear this claim mentioned in conversation, wait and see whether justification is given for the Earth's roundness. If the person who mentions the Earth's roundness provides justification for their claim then it would seem they are in agreement with you in saying that such a claim has the burden of proof. If they do not provide justification then they clearly disagree that such a claim has the burden of proof.

Suppose I gave you $10 every time someone justifies that claim. Would you become a rich man?

Or I could give you $100 every time someone justifies the claim, "The Pope is Catholic!" which is commonly used as a joke insofar as it inverts the burden of proof (it is too obvious to even need stating).

Why would I require justification for a claim we both would accept as true?

 

[zippy2006]

Why would I require justification for a claim we both would accept as true?

Presumably for the same reason you believe a claim everyone accepts as true has the burden of proof. I have no idea what that reason might be.

 

[zippy2006]

If you say "Claim X" and I say I don't believe you, the fact I don't believe you is not a positive claim. That's basic logic.

"Claim ~X" is a response and a claim; therefore not all responses are non-claims.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Presumably for the same reason you believe a claim everyone accepts as true has the burden of proof. I have no idea what that reason might be.

The fact everyone accepts it as true, or nobody accepts it as true is irrelevant to the burden of proof.

If someone doesn't challenge you on it, that likely means they are willing to accept your point.

You still have a burden of proof, however in that case there's no point in presenting evidence for something everyone agrees on.

 

[Dave Ellis]

"Claim ~X" is a response and a claim; therefore not all responses are non-claims.

No, it's not a response. I purposefully said "claim X" to disconnect it from any other topic we've brought up on here so far. I specifically called it a claim, and nowhere it was ever said to be a response to anything.

If you make a claim, you have the burden of proof. If I don't believe you because you have not met your burden of proof, my non acceptance of your claim is not a positive claim on my behalf.