Burden of Proof

[ex-xian]

If I assert that in invisible, intangible, silent, elf lived in my closet would the burden of proof be upon me to prove that it exists or on the potential doubter to prove that it does exist?

If I claim that I can fly would the burden be upon me to prove that I can, or upon the skeptic to prove that I cannot?

If I claimed that every morning a fairy flies into my room and whispers plans for my day that will make my day better and tells me that if my friends will wear a magic necklace she'll help them too, is the burden on me to prove that it's true or upon the doubter to prove that it isn't.

If I say I have a cure for AIDS that involves the patient cutting their hands to collect the blood to mix it with my "blood bleach" and then have it injected back into their bodies, is the burden on my to show that it works before I teach the technique in med school or on the doubter to prove that it doesn't work.

If I believe in god, is the burden on me to prove that he exists or on the atheist to prove that he doesn't exist?

 

[anastasiotrey]

You are giving ridiculous examples and comparing them to God. There is really no comparison. People who believe in God do so because its obvious, not because God is some secret that nobody knows about. And if its not obvious to you I cannot convince you with mere words.

 

[DrunkenWrestler]

If I believe in Zeus, is the burden on me to prove that he exist, or on the non-believer to prove that he does not exist?

 

[nadroj1985]

The "burden of proof" is on the person who wants to convince someone else of something. It's that simple, IMHO.

 

[anastasiotrey]

The "burden of proof" is on the person who wants to convince someone else of something. It's that simple, IMHO.

Thats true. Theists and atheists will argue on this one till the cows come home, and probably leave each other unconvinced. To each one it is obvious, or else they'd believe otherwise.

 

[Light Without Heat]

The burden is on the person trying to prove you wrong.

But that doesn't mean they have to believe you, either.

I may doubt your ability to cure AIDS, but I can't disprove it; it's not up to you to prove it, but when you start exerting it on other people, it becomes your responsiblity.

Besides, God is not a tangible force, commonly, that is going to change or alter someone else's life.

If I believe in God, it is my choice; to me, I know my God is there. As much as you know Zeus is there, DrunkenWrestler.

It's not our responsibility to prove it to someone or "back it up" unless we want them to believe as well. And even then, it all comes down to personal choice.

Even if you prove me wrong, I may still believe; is it up to me to disprove your proof, or will you prove that my disproving your proof wasn't proven correctly...? I think I may have fudged that a little...

It's up to you to prove it if you exert it forcibly on someone else. If I DEMAND you accept Shiva, then I'd better prove Shiva is there. If I say I believe in Shiva, that's my choice, and you can try and disprove it if you really want to devote your time trying to disprove my religion or doctrine... but why would you care?

Problem is, the church has been forcing itself on people for thousands of years...

 

[trunks2k]

If I believe in god, is the burden on me to prove that he exists or on the atheist to prove that he doesn't exist?

If you're talking to a weak atheist, then the burden of proof is on the theist. If you're talking to a strong atheist, then the burden of proof is on both parties.

An analogy:

A muder is committed, and a person is on trial. The jury holds an initial position of the defendent as being innocent (in a perfect world at least). The prosecuter has to convince the jury that the defendent is guilty. Depending on the strength of the evidence the jury will find the man innocent or guilty. A defense attorney has to show what is wrong with the prosecution's argument, and if the attorney is good enough will be able to show that it is impossible for the defendent to have committed the crime.

In this analogy, the jury are the weak atheists. They take the default position (no belief in god/the defendent is innocent).

The prosecution are the theists. They take a positive position (the defendent is guilty/god exists).

The defense are the strong theists. They are also making a positive claim (the defendent is definately innocent/god definately does not exist).

 

[The-Doctor]

The proof of God's existence is one that will has gone on for years and will go on. Just because you cant see it doesnt mean it is not there.

 

[Light Without Heat]

The proof of God's existence is one that will has gone on for years and will go on. Just because you cant see it doesnt mean it is not there.

Well, sure, but you can say that for a lot of things. It doesn't mean anything to someone who hasn't felt God's being, or known the Divine Presence. It's impossible for us to prove it to them. Just like you can't convince your average 7 year old boy that he'll ever like girls.

Same goes for the opposite argument. You can only know what you know; both the religious and the secular seek truth. If I could share the light of Him with those who haven't felt it, I would.

But in my opinion... Moslems, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus... have all felt some part of God. I think God is present in all forms of spirituality, all of the aesthetic acts performed by human beings, and mostly in our concept of love. Because of this I think an atheist has felt God plenty of times, perhaps moreso or more often than a priest or a Rabbi... you never know.

Peace, love, and good happiness stuff!

 

[TrueQ]

I guess the burden of proof would be on whoever feels compelled to prove it. I believe that god(s) exist, but I don't feel any compulsion to go around convincing atheists of that, so it's up to the atheists to convince me otherwise.

And there are plenty of vice versas to that.

 

[TwinCrier]

Knowledge of God isn't something that can be proved to another person. I KNOW God exists because His existance has been proved to me beyond all reasonable doubt. However, no one else can experience exactly what I have, and even if they could, that may not meet their criteria of proof. Rather or not a defendant is proven guilty depends on the jury, not the evidence.