Christianity and the Burden of Proof

[Left]

Wikipedia had some great text on Burden of Proof in an argument:

"Internet personality Matt Dillahunty gives the example of a large jar full of gumballs to illustrate the burden of proof.[12][13] The number of whole gumballs in the jar is either even or odd, but the degree of personal acceptance or rejection of claims about that characteristic may vary. We can choose to consider two claims about the situation, given as:

1. The number of gumballs is even.
2. The number of gumballs is odd.

Either claim could be explored separately; however, both claims tautologically take bearing on the same question. Odd in this case means "not even" and could be described as a negative claim. Before we have any information about the number of gumballs, we have no means of checking either of the two claims. When we have no evidence to resolve the proposition, we may suspend judgment. From a cognitive sense, when no personal preference toward opposing claims exists, one may be either skeptical of both claims or ambivalent of both claims.[14][15][16] If there is a dispute, the burden of proof falls onto the challenger of the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative.[17] If there is no agreeable and adequate proof of evidence to support a claim, the claim is considered an argument from ignorance.[18]"

Philosophical burden of proof - Wikipedia

So what it is saying, in my opinion, is not only should we generally suspend judgement when a side fails to prove itself, but if there isn't proper proof or evidence to support Christianity when the Burden of Proof is on it, it becomes a Logical Fallacy crudely named Appeal From Ignorance.

How would you refute that Christianity can't be properly proven or the specifics of what Wikipedia said?

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Well if someone asks me for evidence they can see with their eyes, like literal evidence right now. Its hard because I can't show them God in the flesh since He isn't in our plan of existence. I tend to think of Him in another "dimension" so to speak.

My usual argument talks about everything we see around us. Or miracles. Things of that nature. But to non-believers its just words with no actual evidence. If I point out for example that the big bang is not current real time evidence and just words, they are good at countering it by saying "science says". Granted I tell them sciences has no evidence other then assumptions.

So on either side you could say theres a stalemate. Neither side likes the other sides evidence. But someone taught me christians often go about things the wrong way. If a atheist asks for me for evidence, I don't have to prove it but instead should counter with "Show me evidence that He doesn't exist!". Which often leaves the person stumped because they have no real way to disprove He exists since even they know Hes beyond what we can see (in terms of visual evidence).

Which is why I tend to avoid answering their questions and turn the tables since most people already know the christians responses, but few bother to ask for the non-believers evidence to the contrary.

 

[Ken Rank]

Wikipedia had some great text on Burden of Proof in an argument:

"Internet personality Matt Dillahunty gives the example of a large jar full of gumballs to illustrate the burden of proof.[12][13] The number of whole gumballs in the jar is either even or odd, but the degree of personal acceptance or rejection of claims about that characteristic may vary. We can choose to consider two claims about the situation, given as:

1. The number of gumballs is even.
2. The number of gumballs is odd.

Either claim could be explored separately; however, both claims tautologically take bearing on the same question. Odd in this case means "not even" and could be described as a negative claim. Before we have any information about the number of gumballs, we have no means of checking either of the two claims. When we have no evidence to resolve the proposition, we may suspend judgment. From a cognitive sense, when no personal preference toward opposing claims exists, one may be either skeptical of both claims or ambivalent of both claims.[14][15][16] If there is a dispute, the burden of proof falls onto the challenger of the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative.[17] If there is no agreeable and adequate proof of evidence to support a claim, the claim is considered an argument from ignorance.[18]"

Philosophical burden of proof - Wikipedia

So what it is saying, in my opinion, is not only should we generally suspend judgement when a side fails to prove itself, but if there isn't proper proof or evidence to support Christianity when the Burden of Proof is on it, it becomes a Logical Fallacy crudely named Appeal From Ignorance.

How would you refute that Christianity can't be properly proven or the specifics of what Wikipedia said?

You want proof God exists, tangible evidence, something to touch and test? I think that ends up in the realm of idols as we don't make our God in bits and pieces of man made or carved things. Proof is in each other... how many have you met that have had their lives turned upside down because of an encounter with God? Mine was... I am by no means the person I was before I met God. But you don't know me... surely you know others though? You will find God in them, as long as they properly reflect Him as He asks. If you looking, however, to use science to make your case, I doubt you'll ever find it. It sure would be easier if we could, but God didn't set it up that way.

 

[Left]

Well if someone asks me for evidence they can see with their eyes, like literal evidence right now. Its hard because I can't show them God in the flesh since He isn't in our plan of existence. I tend to think of Him in another "dimension" so to speak.

My usual argument talks about everything we see around us. Or miracles. Things of that nature. But to non-believers its just words with no actual evidence. If I point out for example that the big bang is not current real time evidence and just words, they are good at countering it by saying "science says". Granted I tell them sciences has no evidence other then assumptions.

So on either side you could say theres a stalemate. Neither side likes the other sides evidence. But someone taught me christians often go about things the wrong way. If a atheist asks for me for evidence, I don't have to prove it but instead should counter with "Show me evidence that He doesn't exist!". Which often leaves the person stumped because they have no real way to disprove He exists since even they know Hes beyond what we can see (in terms of visual evidence).

Which is why I tend to avoid answering their questions and turn the tables since most people already know the christians responses, but few bother to ask for the non-believers evidence to the contrary.

Actually, if they study "negative-evidence", they will have a response. Few do though.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Well if someone asks me for evidence they can see with their eyes, like literal evidence right now. Its hard because I can't show them God in the flesh since He isn't in our plan of existence. I tend to think of Him in another "dimension" so to speak.

My usual argument talks about everything we see around us. Or miracles. Things of that nature. But to non-believers its just words with no actual evidence. If I point out for example that the big bang is not current real time evidence and just words, they are good at countering it by saying "science says". Granted I tell them sciences has no evidence other then assumptions.

So on either side you could say theres a stalemate. Neither side likes the other sides evidence. But someone taught me christians often go about things the wrong way. If a atheist asks for me for evidence, I don't have to prove it but instead should counter with "Show me evidence that He doesn't exist!". Which often leaves the person stumped because they have no real way to disprove He exists since even they know Hes beyond what we can see (in terms of visual evidence).

Which is why I tend to avoid answering their questions and turn the tables since most people already know the christians responses, but few bother to ask for the non-believers evidence to the contrary.

Thing is with your "science says"
thing, keep in mind science makes assumptions, but doesn't say "such and such is absolute truth". While you're right in that science makes assumptions, conclusions they reach are based on the evidence they gather, and if it turns out to be incorrect, they correct themselves to fit the new data. It's a lot different from saying "My way is absolute truth because I say so even though I don't have explicit evidence to lead to that conclusion" that I've seen other Christians say. The burden of proof is on someone who makes a claim (God exists, chocolate is bad). Sometimes atheists don't even make the direct claim there's no God, they respond to the claim that theists make.

 

[rockytopva]

If E = mc2 then we can divide and conclude that...

Mass (m) = Energy (E/c2)

And there are three varieties...

Natural E/c2 - All mass is basically cooled plasma
Mental E/c2 - Mentally, A mathematical formula, but this has chemical and spiritual properties as well.
Spiritual E/c2 - E (motivation, warmth, love) / c2 (faith, hope, charity, joy)

I do not believe it is the will of God to prove Christianity mentally or by manipulating the mass with miracles. Our job is to simply let the spirituality, which is neither material or mental, shine out of us.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Wikipedia had some great text on Burden of Proof in an argument:

"Internet personality Matt Dillahunty gives the example of a large jar full of gumballs to illustrate the burden of proof.[12][13] The number of whole gumballs in the jar is either even or odd, but the degree of personal acceptance or rejection of claims about that characteristic may vary. We can choose to consider two claims about the situation, given as:

1. The number of gumballs is even.
2. The number of gumballs is odd.

Either claim could be explored separately; however, both claims tautologically take bearing on the same question. Odd in this case means "not even" and could be described as a negative claim. Before we have any information about the number of gumballs, we have no means of checking either of the two claims. When we have no evidence to resolve the proposition, we may suspend judgment. From a cognitive sense, when no personal preference toward opposing claims exists, one may be either skeptical of both claims or ambivalent of both claims.[14][15][16] If there is a dispute, the burden of proof falls onto the challenger of the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative.[17] If there is no agreeable and adequate proof of evidence to support a claim, the claim is considered an argument from ignorance.[18]"

Philosophical burden of proof - Wikipedia

So what it is saying, in my opinion, is not only should we generally suspend judgement when a side fails to prove itself, but if there isn't proper proof or evidence to support Christianity when the Burden of Proof is on it, it becomes a Logical Fallacy crudely named Appeal From Ignorance.

How would you refute that Christianity can't be properly proven or the specifics of what Wikipedia said?

Hi there. Welcome to the apologetics forum. I recognize you from the Minecraft thread.

Let me highlight this part of what you said:

How would you refute that Christianity can't be properly proven or the specifics of what Wikipedia said?

No one is saying that Christianity cannot be proven true. What's being disputed is this age-old idea:

Failure of the theist to prove his case is a victory for atheism based upon the burden of proof. You claim there is a God and therefore you accept the burden of proof. The burden crushes you and that means you lose the argument.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well if someone asks me for evidence they can see with their eyes, like literal evidence right now. Its hard because I can't show them God in the flesh since He isn't in our plan of existence. I tend to think of Him in another "dimension" so to speak.

My usual argument talks about everything we see around us. Or miracles. Things of that nature. But to non-believers its just words with no actual evidence. If I point out for example that the big bang is not current real time evidence and just words, they are good at countering it by saying "science says". Granted I tell them sciences has no evidence other then assumptions.

So on either side you could say theres a stalemate. Neither side likes the other sides evidence. But someone taught me christians often go about things the wrong way. If a atheist asks for me for evidence, I don't have to prove it but instead should counter with "Show me evidence that He doesn't exist!". Which often leaves the person stumped because they have no real way to disprove He exists since even they know Hes beyond what we can see (in terms of visual evidence).

Which is why I tend to avoid answering their questions and turn the tables since most people already know the christians responses, but few bother to ask for the non-believers evidence to the contrary.

Disproving the Big Bang would be irrelevant to atheism.

Also, turning the tables and asking for an argument to show that God does not exist is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. But the atheist has no burden because we don't say there is no God; we merely remain unconvinced that he exists.

Incidentally, I drafted a proof that God does not exist last night. However, someone can come along and show it is in error and I will still be an atheist because my atheism is not dependent upon proof that God does not exist but rather, as I said, being unconvinced that he does exist.

 

[Left]

Hi there. Welcome to the apologetics forum. I recognize you from the Minecraft thread.

Let me highlight this part of what you said:

How would you refute that Christianity can't be properly proven or the specifics of what Wikipedia said?

No one is saying that Christianity cannot be proven true. What's being disputed is this age-old idea:

Failure of the theist to prove his case is a victory for atheism based upon the burden of proof. You claim there is a God and therefore you accept the burden of proof. The burden crushes you and that means you lose the argument.

There might be a little confusion on your part. I recently became an Agnostic since that Minecraft thread, and I value your wisdom and consider you a great debater. I'm on your side.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

There might be a little confusion on your part. I recently became an Agnostic since that Minecraft thread, and I value your wisdom and consider you a great debater. I'm on your side.

I definitely did not see that coming.

 

[com7fy8]

How would you refute that Christianity can't be properly proven or the specifics of what Wikipedia said?

I won't claim I can refute, but I'll offer And if it helps, then good

But someone taught me christians often go about things the wrong way.

Well, we are not perfect; so in case an atheist or someone else is dictating that we can perfectly handle things and questions, this is limiting the atheist or whoever to us imperfect Christians

The burden of proof is on someone who makes a claim

How about the burden of proof being on God? The burden of proof is on the proof, not on the one claiming to know it is true, I would say.

Sometimes atheists don't even make the direct claim there's no God, they respond to the claim that theists make.

"How do you know that God is not only an imagined friend that you yourself have created?"

I have not been one to make up what is so good as God and how He has been correcting and confronting me to get real in love, and having me realize how clueless I have been.

And I would say > if I can make-believe having God, am I not supposed to be the product of evolving of genes? So, if I have been making things up, it is interesting how physical genes would produce me with the activities of imagining God and Him correcting me to get a clue about how to really love. I would question that physical genes and molecules and atoms acting only according to scientific principles would produce me and how I am living now and thinking and experiencing God whose love is so superior to any and all physical and human pleasures and other good that I have ever known.

But yes I can fool my own self and not even know it; this is part of why I need God

 

[Left]

I definitely did not see that coming.

Yeah. Recently I believe God spoke to me and I wanted to preach, but I have since realized that it was either my mental illness acting up or a demon (assuming they exist).

Your posts helped me to see the light of rationality as I viewed them from afar, but they are not even 30% of the reason I changed beliefs.

 

[Left]

So I'm skimming this thread because there is a lot of text, and I was wondering, are there any academic articles which back up the belief that in a Christian vs. Atheist scenario, the Christian has the Burden of Proof?

 

[zippy2006]

If there is a dispute, the burden of proof falls onto the challenger of the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative.

I think this is an accurate approach to the burden of proof: it falls on the one challenging the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative. In the Western world the atheist is the challenger of the status quo, which is clearly Christianity. Thus the burden of proof lies on the atheist, which should be unsurprising given the way so many atheists fight tooth and nail to try to dethrone Christianity.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yeah. Recently I believe God spoke to me and I wanted to preach, but I have since realized that it was either my mental illness acting up or a demon (assuming they exist).

Your posts helped me to see the light of rationality as I viewed them from afar, but they are not even 30% of the reason I changed beliefs.

I'm just surprised at this seeing as how two days ago you were worried about the spiritual state of your nephews.

I'm aware that people can hear voices. I'm unable to empathize as nothing of the sort has happened to me.

So I'm skimming this thread because there is a lot of text, and I was wondering, are there any academic articles which back up the belief that in a Christian vs. Atheist scenario, the Christian has the Burden of Proof?

Well, again, the atheist makes no actual claims so they cannot have the burden of proof.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I won't claim I can refute, but I'll offer And if it helps, then good

Well, we are not perfect; so in case an atheist or someone else is dictating that we can perfectly handle things and questions, this is limiting the atheist or whoever to us imperfect Christians

How about the burden of proof being on God? The burden of proof is on the proof, not on the one claiming to know it is true, I would say.

"How do you know that God is not only an imagined friend that you yourself have created?"

I have not been one to make up what is so good as God and how He has been correcting and confronting me to get real in love, and having me realize how clueless I have been.

And I would say > if I can make-believe having God, am I not supposed to be the product of evolving of genes? So, if I have been making things up, it is interesting how physical genes would produce me with the activities of imagining God and Him correcting me to get a clue about how to really love. I would question that physical genes and molecules and atoms acting only according to scientific principles would produce me and how I am living now and thinking and experiencing God whose love is so superior to any and all physical and human pleasures and other good that I have ever known.

But yes I can fool my own self and not even know it; this is part of why I need God

Genes don't cause belief. Indoctrination, persuasion, and social pressures do.

 

[Left]

I'm just surprised at this seeing as how two days ago you were worried about the spiritual state of your nephews.

Yeah - I've made a lot of claims I will have to take back.

I am still worried about my nephews. But I don't think saying Minecraft is totally evil was the answer.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I think this is an accurate approach to the burden of proof: it falls on the one challenging the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative. In the Western world the atheist is the challenger of the status quo, which is clearly Christianity. Thus the burden of proof lies on the atheist, which should be unsurprising given the way so many atheists fight tooth and nail to try to dethrone Christianity.

The burden of proof is on a claim. There is no claim universal to atheists. There is one claim universal to theists: God exists.

 

[Left]

Basically, you can be skeptical of me if you want to Nihilist Virus. I simply respect ALL good debaters. And you are a good debater.

 

[zippy2006]

The burden of proof is on a claim. There is no claim universal to atheists. There is one claim universal to theists: God exists.

The Wikipedia article of the OP gives the meaning and context of a burden of proof, and it is not simply "on a claim." Anyone who has sufficiently considered the problem understands this.

And of course there is a claim entailed in atheism. Colloquially it is simply that God does not exist. The more technical or self-accepted claim would be that God is not worthy of belief.