Burden of Proof VS Presumption of Innocence

[Gene2memE]

But you can not say in public forums: "No God" without the disproof of the actual One. Otherwise it is just the trolling.

The corollary is also true. You cannot say in public forums: "God exists" without proof. Otherwise it is just the trolling.

 

[joinfree]

That's a misunderstanding of the burden of proof. It's not that a claim is wrong unless proved right, it's that a claim need not be accepted until the claimant can substantiate it.

The burden of proof is the more cruel "son" of the Presumption of Guilt: "a human can be treated as he is already wrong, until he would be proven right." Can you prove, what the Burden of Proof is needed? Can we live in alternative society without imposed the Burden? The Burden is burden, because is the heavy laid.

 

[joinfree]

How do you evaluate whether to trust them or not?

Do you not know the opinion of God, really? And what does the conscience suggest? Conscience is the voice of God in human. Thank you, friends. I understand, what the God is so scary, that you invent lies to turn Him off. What is false atheism in God opinion? (Ходящий По Лжи) / Проза.ру

 

[joinfree]

The corollary is also true. You cannot say in public forums: "God exists" without proof. Otherwise it is just the trolling.

God is proven here below and you can not say "no proofs" without the disproofs. Otherwise it is trolling.
Some Thoughts on Faith and Knowledge (Ходящий По Лжи) / Проза.ру

 

[joinfree]

The Burden of Proof makes the Religion be attacked by trolls. The burden of proof is the more cruel "son" of the Presumption of Guilt: "a human can be treated as he is already wrong, until he would be proven right." Some Thoughts on Faith and Knowledge (Ходящий По Лжи) / Проза.ру

 

[Gene2memE]

Lets look at your "proof".

"The famous design-proof" - Paley's Watch. Fails to convince me, as alternative explanations (evolutionary biology, Big Bang cosmology) offer better evidence for the state of nature.

"The cosmological proof" - This isn't "proof" of anything. It's just the fallacy of special pleading. It argues that the universe cannot be infinite and/or eternal, but that God it.

"The time machine proof" - Close to gibberish. I think you're arguing that God provides a solution to Hawking's time travel conjecture ("It seems that there is a Chronology Protection Agency which prevents the appearance of closed timelike curves and so makes the universe safe for historians"), but its so muddled as to be almost impenetrable. Could you re-write this so its logically comprehensible?

"The infinite pain proof" - This isn't even a proof, it's just an immoral threat of punishment.

"The absolute truth proof" - this isn't proof, its just attempting to define God into existence by classifying such a belief as properly basic/axiomatic, as 'Absolute Truth' exists.

Also your "evidence for God" isn't:

The universe exists. We don't know the cause (although some people claim they do)
Life exists. We don't know how it started (although some people claim they do)
DNA, RNA, protein synthesis. Are examples of complex natural processes;
Intelligence: Is a property of brains, not fully understood;
Specified complexity: Is a fiction invented by ID proponents, that that can't even rigorously define;
The Big Bang: Describes the rapid expansion of space time in the early life of the universe;
The Bible: Is a big book of sometimes accurate, sometimes inaccurate cultural history. It's the claim, not the evidence;
Fulfilled prophecy: Isn't either fulfilled, or prophecy in most parts.
The resurrection of Jesus: I see nothing that convinces me this happened;
The law of cause and effect: Is a description of reality in our local space time;
Objective morality: Can be argued to exist, but doesn't require a god for this existence;
Laws of physics (not chaos): Describe reality - there deductive and descriptive;
The Cambrian Explosion: Is just one of many rapid morphological diversifications in the fossil record;
Design in nature: Already addressed above;
Irreducible complexity: See specified complexity;
Second Law of Thermodynamics: Hahahahahahahaha!!
Human consciousness: Already addressed above;
Impossibility of an eternal universe: Is it?
Probability of mathematics/biology: Show me your working;
Impossibility of abiogenesis: Is it?
Archaeology and history of Israel: Both discount any reading of the Bible as literal history. Frequently.
Logic: Is a property of the universe.

 

[Michael]

The corollary is also true. You cannot say in public forums: "God exists" without proof. Otherwise it is just the trolling.

Keep in mind that there is no such thing as "proof" in science, there is just "evidence" that can typically be subjectively and individually interpreted in multiple ways. At some level the "consensus" simply kicks in. There's also no completely experimental cause/effect standard of evidence in "science", so it's unreasonable to apply such a standard of "evidence' to the topic of God.

 

[joinfree]

The burden of proof "a human can be treated as he is already wrong, until he would be proven right" is the more cruel "son" of the Presumption of Guilt.

 

[Michael]

The burden of proof "a human can be treated as he is already wrong, until he would be proven right" is the more cruel "son" of the Presumption of Guilt.

I think you're framing the burden of proof issue incorrectly. As variant (and others) have already noted, since it's impossible to prove a negative, the burden of proof requirement in science simply assumes that *no explanation is automatically "right" by default*, and "evidence' must be used to support all ideas.

The problem is that all evidence, or at least a lot of evidence as it applies to science is subject to individual interpretation. The consensus typically plays a role in that process, but atheists tend hold a minority viewpoint, so they typically reject the concept of consensus being applied to the topic of God, whereas they're typically fine with the concept of consensus as it applies to every other theory under the sun.

 

[joinfree]

Lets look at your "proof".

"The famous design-proof" - Paley's Watch. Fails to convince me, as alternative explanations (evolutionary biology, Big Bang cosmology) offer better evidence for the state of nature.

"The cosmological proof" - This isn't "proof" of anything. It's just the fallacy of special pleading. It argues that the universe cannot be infinite and/or eternal, but that God it.

"The time machine proof" - Close to gibberish. I think you're arguing that God provides a solution to Hawking's time travel conjecture ("It seems that there is a Chronology Protection Agency which prevents the appearance of closed timelike curves and so makes the universe safe for historians"), but its so muddled as to be almost impenetrable. Could you re-write this so its logically comprehensible?

"The infinite pain proof" - This isn't even a proof, it's just an immoral threat of punishment.

"The absolute truth proof" - this isn't proof, its just attempting to define God into existence by classifying such a belief as properly basic/axiomatic, as 'Absolute Truth' exists.

Also your "evidence for God" isn't:

The universe exists. We don't know the cause (although some people claim they do)
Life exists. We don't know how it started (although some people claim they do)
DNA, RNA, protein synthesis. Are examples of complex natural processes;
Intelligence: Is a property of brains, not fully understood;
Specified complexity: Is a fiction invented by ID proponents, that that can't even rigorously define;
The Big Bang: Describes the rapid expansion of space time in the early life of the universe;
The Bible: Is a big book of sometimes accurate, sometimes inaccurate cultural history. It's the claim, not the evidence;
Fulfilled prophecy: Isn't either fulfilled, or prophecy in most parts.
The resurrection of Jesus: I see nothing that convinces me this happened;
The law of cause and effect: Is a description of reality in our local space time;
Objective morality: Can be argued to exist, but doesn't require a god for this existence;
Laws of physics (not chaos): Describe reality - there deductive and descriptive;
The Cambrian Explosion: Is just one of many rapid morphological diversifications in the fossil record;
Design in nature: Already addressed above;
Irreducible complexity: See specified complexity;
Second Law of Thermodynamics: Hahahahahahahaha!!
Human consciousness: Already addressed above;
Impossibility of an eternal universe: Is it?
Probability of mathematics/biology: Show me your working;
Impossibility of abiogenesis: Is it?
Archaeology and history of Israel: Both discount any reading of the Bible as literal history. Frequently.
Logic: Is a property of the universe.

The Christian has presented the God proofs, then the false atheist has presented the opposer text. Tell, me honestly, dear opposer, if my God is the Judge of our texts, which one of the two texts will be declared by my God the "right before the God"?

 

[joinfree]

I think you're framing the burden of proof issue incorrectly. As variant (and others) have already noted, since it's impossible to prove a negative, the burden of proof requirement in science simply assumes that *no explanation is automatically "right" by default*, and "evidence' must be used to support all ideas. ...

I can prove, what there is no huge lion in the box of milk. So, I can prove the negative too. One can point to the author of the paper, what his formula nr. 3 does not follow from the formula nr. 2, that does not violate the Presumption of Innocence: because the author was proven wrong.

 

[Gene2memE]

Keep in mind that there is no such thing as "proof" in science, there is just "evidence" that can typically be subjectively and individually interpreted in multiple ways. At some level the "consensus" simply kicks in. There's also no completely experimental cause/effect standard of evidence in "science", so it's unreasonable to apply such a standard of "evidence' to the topic of God.

I never mentioned science once, and I never attempted to apply scientific standards of evidence to the claims of the existence of a God.

I was just highlighting joinfree's hypocrisy in claiming he has no burden of proof when making a claim, but that other posters do have a burden of proof if they don't accept that claim.

He also implicitly made the assertion that a statement of non-belief in a claim is a contradiction of that claim. Saying "I don't believe your claim" is not "your claim is false" or "I believe the opposite of your claim".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Can you prove, what the Burden of Proof is needed?

Sure. Consider this:

Last night, I was abducted by aliens. They came from a planet orbitting alpha centauri. They told me that they are the race that people on earth know as "angels" and "gods". They said that all religions are incorrect. They came here a few millenia ago, saw the human potential and decided to instruct them on ethics and how to build functional cooperative societies, to help us speed up our development so that we could join their galactic coalition of planets. But quickly they learned that humans weren't ready yet for such things. They saw them as gods and and quickly all kinds of false stories started to spread. And instead of coming together to build a global society, it only ended up in division and brutal religious warfare. After realising their mistake, they quickly packed up and left for their home planet again.

So.... Do you believe my bare claim? Why not?

Perhaps now you can understand why the one making the claim has a burden of proof to substantiate his claim.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think you're framing the burden of proof issue incorrectly. As variant (and others) have already noted, since it's impossible to prove a negative, the burden of proof requirement in science simply assumes that *no explanation is automatically "right" by default*, and "evidence' must be used to support all ideas.

The problem is that all evidence, or at least a lot of evidence as it applies to science is subject to individual interpretation. The consensus typically plays a role in that process, but atheists tend hold a minority viewpoint, so they typically reject the concept of consensus being applied to the topic of God, whereas they're typically fine with the concept of consensus as it applies to every other theory under the sun.

Embedded in this post are the nonsense ideas that:
- "scientific consensus" is some species of a fallacious argument from popularity
- that scientific evaluation of evidence is somehow subjective and that any "subjective interpretation" is as good as the next one.

This is a new low. Even for you, Michael.

 

[joinfree]

Sure. Consider this:

Last night, I was abducted by aliens. They came from a planet orbitting alpha centauri. They told me that they are the race that people on earth know as "angels" and "gods". They said that all religions are incorrect. ....

These "aliens" are disproven by mine Church. And mine Church is proven here:
The True Religion is Proven - YouTube

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... The problem is that all evidence, or at least a lot of evidence as it applies to science is subject to individual interpretation. The consensus typically plays a role in that process, but atheists tend hold a minority viewpoint, so they typically reject the concept of consensus being applied to the topic of God, whereas they're typically fine with the concept of consensus as it applies to every other theory under the sun.

Even if we suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is some kind of consensus on the topic of God among the myriad religious belief systems, sects, and cults - that smacks of hypocrisy coming from someone who asserts his own rejection of the scientific consensus, and professes a God belief that can hardly be considered mainstream.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The burden of proof is the more cruel "son" of the Presumption of Guilt: "a human can be treated as he is already wrong, until he would be proven right." Can you prove, what the Burden of Proof is needed? Can we live in alternative society without imposed the Burden? The Burden is burden, because is the heavy laid.

Those are all English words, but I can't make sense of how you've put them together; could you rephrase the question so it makes sense?

 

[Ken Rank]

Au contraire, every person of faith does this.

To say that every person of faith does ___ is not a statement I would have expected from you. Your statement is akin to somebody saying that all blacks hate whites or that all whites hate blacks when we know that isn't even close to true. But if somebody was raised in a certain area, and that type of mentality was all they were exposed to, they might draw that conclusion. Every person of faith doesn't have the security to take two opposing pieces of information and reconcile them.... but at the same time, many people of faith do and can. Don't generalize too much HS, it doesn't add to any discussion.

Peace.
Ken

 

[Ken Rank]

It is not innocent until proven guilty. It is unsupported until supported.

I agree with much of what you said, but I think the above statement misses the point. From Wiki -

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.

In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must collect and present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. The trier of fact (a judge or a jury) is thus restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony presented in court. The prosecution must, in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted.

 

[joinfree]

Those are all English words, but I can't make sense of how you've put them together; could you rephrase the question so it makes sense?

"a human can be treated as he is already wrong, until he would be proven right." (The burden of proof). Did you get it?