Christianity and the Burden of Proof

[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?

This is still my burning question.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

I'm not being skeptical of you. When I said that I can't empathize I just meant that I don't know what it is like. Also I was just surprised, not skeptical.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

The only thing that can be proven is a claim. Thus the burden of proof must be on a claim. And atheists make no claim... or do you dispute that we are unconvinced of the existence of a deity?

Essentially, A and B are in an argument. The burden of proof must be on one of them. B makes no actual claim. Therefore the burden is on A.

 

[zippy2006]

The only thing that can be proven is a claim. Thus the burden of proof must be on a claim. And atheists make no claim... or do you dispute that we are unconvinced of the existence of a deity?

Essentially, A and B are in an argument. The burden of proof must be on one of them. B makes no actual claim. Therefore the burden is on A.

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.

 

[Left]

Does anyone mind if I inject my current worldview into this thread? It'll allow people who want to tackle my line of thinking about being an Agnostic to do so, like they seem to want to do in another board that doesn't permit arguing........

I played a video game called Final Fantasy XIII, and what I took from it was all the hero characters had the wrong ideas but were viewed as good because of Faith, to the point of bringing about the end of the world, but the villain characters did nothing bad really but had the right ideas and expressed them but were viewed as bad.

I feel the same about life and religion. I am a Final Fantasy villain. My God is now being right instead of having faith, and I am okay with it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is still my burning question.

Well then, let's douse some of that heat you're feeling, TOF. You might begin by reading the following peer-reviewed article written by skeptics, Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry. Even though the article doesn't pertain to the application of the Burden of Proof to Christianity specifically, it does pertain to "pseudo-scientific claims," part of which can apply to some Christian claims. In my estimation, I think Pigliucci and Boudry handle the edifice of the BoP with a balanced taxonomy and set of criteria. For the most part, it's a good, little educational article that I think just about anyone would benefit by reading.

Pigliucci, M., & Boudry, M. (2014). Prove it! The burden of proof game in science vs. pseudoscience disputes. Philosophia, 42(2), 487-502.

 

[zippy2006]

Does anyone mind if I inject my current worldview into this thread? It'll allow people who want to tackle my line of thinking about being an Agnostic to do so, like they seem to want to do in another board that doesn't permit arguing........

I played a video game called Final Fantasy XIII, and what I took from it was all the hero characters had the wrong ideas but were viewed as good because of Faith, to the point of bringing about the end of the world, but the villain characters did nothing bad really but had the right ideas and expressed them but were viewed as bad.

I feel the same about life and religion. I am a Final Fantasy villain. My God is now being right instead of having faith, and I am okay with it.

Final Fantasy XIII was a great game. Unfortunately I couldn't finish it as the disc was scratched, but I spent many hours playing it.

The central question is, "What is faith?" For the Christian, faith is believing something because God has testified to it, or revealed it. Thus for the Christian "rightness" and faith can never contradict one another, for God is Truth itself who can never lie. It is perfectly rational to believe what God says.

 

[Left]

the central question is, "What is faith?" For the Christian, faith is believing something because God has testified to it, or revealed it. Thus for the Christian "rightness" and faith can never contradict one another, for God is Truth itself who can never lie. It is perfectly rational to believe what God says.

Right. To me, this just seems like a description of closed-mindedness. I hate to say it.

 

[zippy2006]

Right. To me, this just seems like a description of closed-mindedness. I hate to say it.

Why? Do you have any reasons? If God told you something would you believe him?

What has the believer closed his mind to? How is he closed-minded? I think the atheist's closed-mindedness is obvious.

 

[Left]

Why? Do you have any reasons? If God told you something would you believe him?

What has the believer closed his mind to? How is he closed-minded? I think the atheist's closed-mindedness is obvious.

Well I will recall a story where recently, I thought God talked to me. I now don't think so, because the voice was very outward so it could have been schizophrenia or demons.

I do think I have found God, but I pulled deep inside of myself into the abyss. I still think the Bible is important, but that Jesus didn't tell us everything there is to know, if He existed, and also, philosophy is a subject just as important as the Bible.

However, I still assert that I can't know for sure whether God is real. Such is the nature of a paradox.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

Going back to the OP, we have a person giving a positive claim that there is an even number of gumballs in the machine, and another who says that the claim has not met its burden of proof. This second person rejects the claim that there is an even number of gumballs but is not actually claiming that there is an odd number of gumballs.

Now, which do you think is the theist and which is the atheist?

 

[zippy2006]

Going back to the OP, we have a person giving a positive claim that there is an even number of gumballs in the machine, and another who says that the claim has not met its burden of proof. This second person rejects the claim that there is an even number of gumballs but is not actually claiming that there is an odd number of gumballs.

Now, which do you think is the theist and which is the atheist?

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.

 

[Serving Zion]

I still think the Bible is important, but that Jesus didn't tell us everything there is to know.

This is actually very true and deliberate! Do you remember His statements:

"Father, I thank you that you have revealed these things to babes and not to the wise, learned".
"I speak in parables so that you, having been blessed to see and hear may hear, but they who hear yet do not hear will not hear".
"Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, look at all of the wonderful things we did in your name' will enter heaven.. to them I say plainly 'I never knew you, depart from me, you who work iniquity'".
"You search the scriptures diligently, thinking that you have life in them, but the scriptures testify of me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life".

St Paul said "We speak in mysteries, for if the princes of this age had known, they would not have crucified The Lord of Glory".

.. However, Jesus also said "Nothing hidden shall not be revealed, nothing concealed shall not be made known and brought into open view".

 

[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.

You're conflating the colloquial use of the term with the technical use of the term.

 

[Left]

This is actually very true and deliberate! Do you remember His statements:

"Father, I thank you that you have revealed these things to babes and not to the wise, learned".
"I speak in parables so that you, having been blessed to see and hear may hear, but they who hear yet do not hear will not hear".
"Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, look at all of the wonderful things we did in your name' will enter heaven.. to them I say plainly 'I never knew you, depart from me, you who work iniquity'".
"You search the scriptures diligently, thinking that you have life in them, but the scriptures testify of me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life".

St Paul said "We speak in mysteries, for if the princes of this age had known, they would not have crucified The Lord of Glory".

.. However, Jesus also said "Nothing hidden shall not be revealed, nothing concealed shall not be made known and brought into open view".

I admire that people are so focused on Scriptures around here, but using the Bible to prove something has three things against it:

1. Nobody knows the true interpretation of verses.
2. The Bible sometimes contradicts itself, creating a paradox - a paradox is not a problem for me, but it is for others of certain belief sets.
3. Science has already proved the Bible pretty silly on the Genesis account of Creation.

 

[zippy2006]

You're conflating the colloquial use of the term with the technical use of the term.

I noted them both, distinctly, before you even raised the objection. In fact the very language of "colloquial" and "technical" is no doubt coming from my post which you read:

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.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I noted them both, distinctly, before you even raised the objection. In fact the very language of "colloquial" and "technical" is no doubt coming from my post which you read:

You are noting the colloquial and technical definitions of the word "atheism." I'm talking about the colloquial and technical definitions of the term "burden of proof." You have not addressed this.

 

[zippy2006]

You are noting the colloquial and technical definitions of the word "atheism." I'm talking about the colloquial and technical definitions of the term "burden of proof." You have not addressed this.

I am making use of the definition given by the OP's Wikipedia reference. What two definitions do you claim to be talking about? Spell them out.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

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.

Well even if that is the case it doesn't change the fact I asked someone to show proof He doesn't exist. Non-believers ar VERY good with playing word games to try and always avoid questions they are asked. See here:
Fallacies of Relevance

And most atheists I've met do say they don't believe He exists. I've never seen one say they are unconvinced. Though on rare occasions a agnostic will say that since they do believe there "might be" something out there.

Christians always provide evidence to the repetitive questions they get from atheists. But atheists use anything they can to disprove that evidence. So its why many don't bother responding because they know its the atheist troll trap. To get you in a never ending cycle where they just use fallicies to keep you going while change the goal post or redirecting anything put back at them. Actually the best answer I can give when all else fails is you will find out when you die if He is real. If you are wrong though you face the ultimate never ending torture.

Of course the response to this (I've played this game for years) "Your assuming theres only heaven or hell. What if theres not any of that but maybe you are reborn as a buddhist would believe?". Again its just redirecting and what not. WHich is usually when I stop responding because I don't have time for circular fallacy games. We will all found out one day who is right or wrong. Obviously I believe I am right, I know I am right. So for me there is heaven. Though for argument sake, and I really shouldn't say this because its not good to as a christian. But lets pretend I die and I was wrong. There is nothing, I just disappear. Technically then I'd be in a win/win situation. If heaven is real I go there. If heaven is not real I won't know because I am gone. Where as for the non-believer you will either see/know nothing or you will see a lake of fire. My odds sound better.

Again I do NOT endorse that view of talking about heaven as if it may not be real. That would be doubt and I don't doubt heaven/hell is real. I just use that "odds" thing as a thing for non-believers so they realize they choices they make are unchangeable after they die. Because believe it or not I wouldn't wish hell on my worst enemy. I may disagree with people on here and even set them to ignore. But I still pray they see the light before they die.

 

[Serving Zion]

I admire that people are so focused on Scriptures around here, but using the Bible to prove something has three things against it:

Well, you have already decided to be opposed to me without having entered a discussion first.

1. Nobody knows the true interpretation of verses.

The discipline of pursuing truth does require effective communication, that one understands what is being said. The writers did not intend to make their writings impossible to interpret, rather they did intend (just as anybody does) for their audience to understand properly what they are communicating.

Plus, we do have a layer of translation that makes the recipient language (English) liable for ambiguities that do not exist in the original writings.

2. The Bible sometimes contradicts itself, creating a paradox - a paradox is not a problem for me, but it is for others of certain belief sets.

I think that I have not used the bible to achieve that result. Rather, scripture is best used for correction and teaching so that the man of God may be complete.

If you are going to dismiss or refute my message on this basis, it demonstrates Tu Quoque.

3. Science has already proved the Bible pretty silly on the Genesis account of Creation.

Further, nobody has yet told me the origin of Genesis information, so it is inherently unreliable. I am mindful to always use it accordingly. I would prefer that you could view me as I am than as others are who wear the name of My Lord for vanity. I did not enter nor allude to any texts from Genesis, yet you have already dismissed me on that basis.

Even so, it is not the facts of the scriptures that I have entered to discussion here, it is the resulting message which the scriptures are producing. In this particular case, the message is that God possesses the knowledge of the truth about His purposes, and it is only revealed to those whom He chooses to reveal it (Matthew 24:36). The origin or reliability of the words in Genesis is besides the point to that message, and serves to create a Composition/Division fallacy.

I understand that you must be feeling particularly enthusiastic today about having entered into an Agnostic mindset, but you should take a very serious look at this situation. Life is not a game. Children are abused, innocent people are enslaved and tortured, governments are devising ever more creative ways to destroy, and lawyers are misusing law to circumvent the intention of the law. Why? Because people are not practising what they preach.

Here for instance, you have started a thread with the intention of showing how much stronger you are than any Christian who can argue against you, you said in post #25 "My God is now being right instead of having faith", yet when someone comes to discuss with you the points that you make which are true, so that we can achieve together a more refined understanding of the truth, you have not judged to pursue the truth in his speech and contribute constructively, instead you dismissed him entirely and sought to smack him down so that you will be the victor. Why? It is because I came to show you how we can collaborate to bring your understanding to accept that Christianity is the same path that you are seeking to pursue, but your first reaction was to conquer me because you believe me, a Christian, to be your enemy!

It sure is unfortunate that this has happened to you, and you can trace it to harmful things that so-called Christians have done in His name that do not originate from The Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the reality - that you are actively opposing the truth of Jesus Christ because it carries His name. But, you are doing so not because you object to the truth, but because you find satisfaction in being opposed to His name - all originating not from any offense He has caused you, but offenses that so-called Christians have caused you while acting of their own selfish interests in His name.

Oh brother, the path you are going on has no happy ending

Who were you when you came to this website? Search it out - in your heart, why did you come here with an open mind, ready to discuss these things with us? What has happened since you got here that your view of Christians has changed? Is it right to blame Jesus Christ for that? Do you think that Jesus should not love you for who you are and what you stand for? What is the one thing that is holding you back from reaching out to Him with your heart, as if to say "Dear Jesus, I know you have carried a heavy cross, and I hate what your followers have done with your legacy.. but show me, help me to know what I can do for you, so that I can work with you to bring about the paradise that you and I both stand for."

My brother, you are not meant to have in your heart any conflict with Jesus Christ's objectives. I hate to see this forming. Just one thing I really urge you to do, is take a breather for a few days from this website. Get off the battle ground. Let your anger subside, let your thoughts collect. Let your heart cry out to God "Lord.. I know you are good! I have forgotten how to see you that way.. Help Me!!"