Christianity and the Burden of Proof

[zippy2006]

You're just stating the colloquial use again, even after I alerted you of that fact.

No, I am contending that your assignment of "colloquial" and "technical" is mistaken, and that the definition given by Wikipedia is enormously more rigorous than your own definition.

I see that you shied away from actually explaining what is meant by a negative claim. This is probably because you see that there is nothing special about a negative claim with respect to the burden of proof.

An obvious counterexample to your claim that no negative claims have the burden of proof is the claim that the Earth is not a sphere. According to your reasoning, someone who claims that the Earth is not a sphere does not have the burden of proof, but this is absurd.

If you want to say that atheists are under the burden of proof because most people are theists, then you are not listening. I have no actual claim to prove. I'm not saying that there is no God. I'm simply saying that you have not demonstrated his existence. Are you saying that I must prove that you have not demonstrated his existence?

I've already answered your claim that atheists make no claim:

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.

 

[com7fy8]

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

But > ones are saying that genes can determine behavior. yes or no?

And belief is a behavior.

Do you believe that genes can effect what someone is able to prefer???? There are people who now are claiming that certain preferences are genetically determined.

If it were true that physical genes can determined preferences, then it could be true that genes evolving have had a lot to do with what each person is able to prefer, religiously, and how someone selects to interpret and react to circumstances and social pressures.

Not all people react the same way to the same pressures and circumstances

Now there is social pressure to not believe in God. But not all people respond the same way to this pressure.

But I don't buy, that physical genes decide what I believe and prefer; our personalities with preferences are spiritual . . . deeper than only physical. And I have seen how people in a same upbringing, even identical twins, can have exact opposite ideas and orientations and personality items. So, to me this means there is spiritual being, deeper than our genes. And our spiritual nature, our real character, has so much to do with what we can choose, and how we can see things.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, I am contending that your assignment of "colloquial" and "technical" is mistaken, and that the definition given by Wikipedia is enormously more rigorous than your own definition.

I prefer the one used by the scientific community. You apparently prefer the common usage.

I see that you shied away from actually explaining what is meant by a negative claim. This is probably because you see that there is nothing special about a negative claim with respect to the burden of proof.

Did you not get the link? I referenced the null hypothesis.

An obvious counterexample to your claim that no negative claims have the burden of proof is the claim that the Earth is not a sphere. According to your reasoning, someone who claims that the Earth is not a sphere does not have the burden of proof, but this is absurd.

Once upon a time it was not apparent that the earth is a sphere. The null hypothesis would be that it is not. The burden of proof was on those claiming that the earth is a sphere. And then they met the burden and the null hypothesis was falsified. That is how science works.

Making a negative claim that is known to be false is just a waste of time. If you're serious about such a claim then the burden is obviously on you.

So today, the burden of proof would be on someone claiming that the earth is not a sphere, whereas a few thousand years ago that burden was on someone claiming it is a sphere.

The fact that the burden can shift from claim "X" to claim "not X" leads the layman to think that the burden of proof is based on popular opinion. But that's not the scientific method, and you know it.

There are many common misconceptions, and some misconceptions fool the majority. I don't know if the majority of people believe that we only use 10% of our brain, but let's assume for the moment that this is a majority belief. Where does the burden of proof lie? Is the burden of proof on a neurosurgeon who already knows this idea is false, or is it on the uninformed layman?

The fact is that the burden of proof is a scientific idea and you're preferring the mangled layman version.

I've already answered your claim that atheists make no claim:

The null hypothesis about the spherical earth was falsified. The null hypothesis about God has not been falsified.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

But > ones are saying that genes can determine behavior. yes or no?

And belief is a behavior.

Do you believe that genes can effect what someone is able to prefer???? There are people who now are claiming that certain preferences are genetically determined.

If it were true that physical genes can determined preferences, then it could be true that genes evolving have had a lot to do with what each person is able to prefer, religiously, and how someone selects to interpret and react to circumstances and social pressures.

Not all people react the same way to the same pressures and circumstances

Now there is social pressure to not believe in God. But not all people respond the same way to this pressure.

But I don't buy, that physical genes decide what I believe and prefer; our personalities with preferences are spiritual . . . deeper than only physical. And I have seen how people in a same upbringing, even identical twins, can have exact opposite ideas and orientations and personality items. So, to me this means there is spiritual being, deeper than our genes. And our spiritual nature, our real character, has so much to do with what we can choose, and how we can see things.

Behavior is a very complicated phenomenon. It is influenced by genetics. Your belief in God is not a behavior. Identical twins have different behavior because they live different lives with different experiences, and experiences shape us.

 

[bling]

There is a good logical reason for God not making Himself obvious to every skeptic on earth, so if that is what you are looking for it will not happen in this life. It helps those not wanting to believe and it helps those willing to believe with their earthly objective.

True Christians have the indwelling Holy Spirit as their personal guarantee/assurance, but the indwelling Holy Spirit within me is not to be your evidence.

As a Christian we also have the world around us which perfectly fits man’s and God’s objective, but you have to understand the objective to the way this messed up world is.

I will try to address you logically, but there is a base we need to establish:

The problem is there is no quick answer.

I will address this “generally” and then you can ask specific questions.

Generally:

Without getting to philosophical: “Something has had to always exist since it is illogical to think something comes from nothing. Now some atheists have tried to get around this by saying nothing is really “something” and there is no such thing as really “nothing”. The bottom line is there has always been something. Now did that something at least include intelligence or was it just mass/energy/time/space? The problem with “excluding” intelligence is there appears to be a huge amount of intelligence that went into the design of this universe and life that makes it virtually impossible to happen by random “luck”. If there is one thing we have learned it is: “the more we know the more we realize we do not know”, so that means an ever increasing complex universe and the more complex it is the more random chances you need to make the right conditions without intelligence and the more likely scenario is there was intelligence involved.







If there is this eternal intelligence it would be at the epitome of the best it could be and not in the process of improvement. It would be the ultimate bad or good but not somewhere in-between. Why be bad when He can be good just as easily? The ultimate “good” would be what is called Godly type Love (to be defined later) and is totally unselfish type Love. Since this God would be able to direct our thinking, why would He have us think of him as being totally bad, when He could make us think bad was good and thus He would be worthy of praise? If God were bad and we praise a “Good God” than we are not praising Him.



The reason you have free will is because it is required for you to complete your earthly objective.

This messed up world is not here for your pleasure, but to help you become like God Himself in that you have the unique, unbelievable Godly type Love (God himself is Love).

God has created beings to shower them with the greatest gifts possible, the greatest being having a Love like His.

If there is this Creator of the universe out there, His “creations” could not really “do” anything for Him, so this Creator would have to be seen as a Giver (Unselfish Lover) and not trying to “get” something from His creation.





I think you could work with a: “pure "observable" philosophy” and conclude that the most likely alternative would be “There is most likely a god”. This is not to say you have solid “proof” beyond any skeptical doubt, but that it takes a lot less “faith” to believe there is a god than it takes to believe there is no god.

The “evidence” for the existence of God is all around us and has always been around man, but you have to consider the evidence to make it support or deny the existence of God.

You observe life all around you, so what is the most likely source for life to begin?

The universe surrounds you and got started some way and at some time, so how could that happen?

Now if you say: “do not know and do not care” you are avoiding the evidence, so there is where you can begin your investigation.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Eh I'm out of this topic just because this is exactly how they go and of course I got myself caught up in it again.

 

[zippy2006]

I prefer the one used by the scientific community. You apparently prefer the common usage.

Bald assertions don't make something scientific.

Making a negative claim that is known to be false is just a waste of time. If you're serious about such a claim then the burden is obviously on you.

Then you agree that negative claims sometimes have the burden of proof.

There are many common misconceptions, and some misconceptions fool the majority. I don't know if the majority of people believe that we only use 10% of our brain, but let's assume for the moment that this is a majority belief. Where does the burden of proof lie? Is the burden of proof on a neurosurgeon who already knows this idea is false, or is it on the uninformed layman?

It is on the neurosurgeon who opposes the status quo. This is why he will write a paper explaining his findings, thus satisfying or failing to satisfy the burden of proof.

The fact is that the burden of proof is a scientific idea and you're preferring the mangled layman version.

The burden of proof isn't a "scientific idea." It's just a basic aspect of dialogue.

The null hypothesis about the spherical earth was falsified. The null hypothesis about God has not been falsified.

Some negligible percentage of people believe the Earth is flat, and some negligible amount of people are atheists. Both have the burden of proof.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Bald assertions don't make something scientific.



Then you agree that negative claims sometimes have the burden of proof.

No. I don't agree as that is stated. Negative claims only bear the burden of proof when the null hypothesis has already been satisfied.

It is on the neurosurgeon who opposes the status quo. This is why he will write a paper explaining his findings, thus satisfying or failing to satisfy the burden of proof.

You are twisting the analogy. We have known for a long time that the idea that we use 10% of our brain is false. There is just a majority who is misinformed. Care to revise your answer or does that clarification not change it?

The burden of proof isn't a "scientific idea." It's just a basic aspect of dialogue.

The burden of proof is directly related to the null hypothesis.

Some negligible percentage of people believe the Earth is flat, and some negligible amount of people are atheists. Both have the burden of proof.

Lumping us in with flat-earthers. Cute. I see what you're trying to do, but the fact that nearly every flat-earther is a theist kind of makes it backfire.

 

[mark kennedy]

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?

It depends on what you are using the gumballs as figures for.

The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule.

Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise. (Simon Greenleaf, Testimony of the Evangelists)​

At key times of redemptive history there were witnesses who were recorded in historical narratives and doctrinal discussions. These are primary source documents so the burden of proof is on the skeptic 'opposing party' to prove they are forgery or anything other then genuine.

 

[Moral Orel]

Some negligible percentage of people believe the Earth is flat, and some negligible amount of people are atheists. Both have the burden of proof.

Argumentum ad Populum
'nuff said.

 

[zippy2006]

The burden of proof is directly related to the null hypothesis.

You say that the burden of proof is based on the null hypothesis, which comes from an article on inferential statistics. I say the burden of proof is based on the status quo, which comes from an article on the burden of proof.

My claim holds 100% of the time. Every burden of proof is related to the status quo.

Your claim does not hold 100% of the time. According to your own words, it only holds in cases where the null hypothesis has not been overturned. In those cases your claim fails, and opposition to the null hypothesis does not have the burden of proof. In these cases the burden of proof is altered precisely by the fact that the status quo has shifted. My theory accounts for your exceptions, and my theory has no exceptions.

Beyond that, there are cases where the null hypothesis has never been set up against the burden of proof. Consider, for example, the null hypotheses opposed to these positive assertions: "I perceive (something)," "Something exists rather than nothing." These cases serve as very strong counterarguments to your claim in that, in them, the null hypothesis has always had the burden of proof.

 

[zippy2006]

Argumentum ad Populum
'nuff said.

You confuse concluding that something is true and concluding that some position has the burden of proof. Opposition to ubiquitous claims has the burden of proof. Yet the fact that some claim is ubiquitous is not a demonstration of its truth. Truth and burden of proof are not the same thing.

I so wish that these "Wikipedia warriors" actually understood the fallacies they so often cite.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

My theory accounts for your exceptions, and my theory has no exceptions.

Consider a world with a population split 50/50 on Religion A vs Religion B. A cruise boat is travelling from Nation X to Nation Y where both nations have a 50/50 population in this regard. While in international waters, just to make this thought experiment bulletproof, we apply your method. And we see your method has no way of establishing where the burden lies.

 

[zippy2006]

Consider a world with a population split 50/50 on Religion A vs Religion B. A cruise boat is travelling from Nation X to Nation Y where both nations have a 50/50 population in this regard. While in international waters, just to make this thought experiment bulletproof, your method has no way of establishing where the burden lies.

In such a case neither side has the burden of proof.

Consider a debate, the general goal of which is to convince the (majority of) the audience that one's position is true. It would make sense to have the person with the burden of proof begin the debate, for they are the one who must make a case to the unconvinced audience. So who starts the debate? To find out, we poll the audience on the issue at hand. If the audience disbelieves X, then the debater in favor of X should begin the debate. If the audience is split 50-50 between each debater, then neither debater has the burden of proof more than the other. We might just flip a coin to see who goes first in that case.

 

[Moral Orel]

You confuse concluding that something is true and concluding that some position has the burden of proof. Opposition to ubiquitous claims has the burden of proof. Yet the fact that some claim is ubiquitous is not a demonstration of its truth. Truth and burden of proof are not the same thing.

I so wish that these "Wikipedia warriors" actually understood the fallacies they so often cite.

Whoever has the burden of proof, their opposition is assumed to be true. That I didn't draw a distinction between "true" and "assumed to be true" isn't much of an error. To argue that your opposition should have the burden of proof because they are in the minority, is to argue that your opposition's position should be assumed to be false because it is less popular. And that is not a good starting point for discovering the truth. You are technically right about my misuse of the term though.

 

[Uber Genius]

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?

Seems like something one would get from reading the "New Atheists." Michael Ruse, an atheist who abhors the "New Atheists" due to their inane arguments including this crap about burden of proof.

If you make a claim you need to support it.

If you change your claim from a positive claim to a negative claim it is still a belief that needs to be justified.

These are the first principles one discusses in Philosophy and especially epistemology.

"I don't believe in God(s)" is just a negation of the belief "I believe in God(s)"

So as a theist on "New Atheist" logic all I need to do is state my beliefs in a negative fashion and I will not have the burden of proof."

Well then, "I don't believe that no God(s) exist!"

Since it is NOT a belief according to the New Atheists I have no burden to defend it.

More lessons in crap-detection to follow.

BTW an argument from ignorance is when one assumes something without evidence. I don't think the bohmian interpretation of QM is the correct one that does not mean the evidence marshaled in defense of that inference is an argument to ignorance.

Not all arguments are compelling to all individuals.

 

[Uber Genius]

In such a case neither side has the burden of proof.

Consider a debate, the general goal of which is to convince the (majority of) the audience that one's position is true. It would make sense to have the person with the burden of proof begin the debate, for they are the one who must make a case to the unconvinced audience. So who starts the debate? To find out, we poll the audience on the issue at hand. If the audience disbelieves X, then the debater in favor of X should begin the debate. If the audience is split 50-50 between each debater, then neither debater has the burden of proof more than the other. We might just flip a coin to see who goes first in that case.

While I recognize how you are using the term, burden of proof goes to people making a knowledge claim.

So the agnostic who has no view and makes no claim about God's existence is the only one without a burden of proof.

Once one makes a knowledge claim they adopt a burden to justify that claim. Warranted beliefs are ones that have reasons in support of them. We may have been raised as Christians, but our Christian belief only becomes warranted when we study the evidence in support of Christian claims. Also Christian experience serves as evidence. Even if our beliefs didn't change from when we were a child, our warrant for those beliefs did. And we have a burden of proof to support the claim Jesus is the only true way to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well then, "I don't believe that no God(s) exist!"

Since it is NOT a belief according to the New Atheists I have no burden to defend it.

Having no belief that no God(s) exist is not the same as belief that a God does exist. As an atheist, I hold the lack of belief you describe. I also hold the lack of belief in the negation of that statement. Because, you know, that's what it actually means for something to be an open question.

How do you get this post so wrong and then get your next post so right?

 

[zippy2006]

Whoever has the burden of proof, their opposition is assumed to be true. That I didn't draw a distinction between "true" and "assumed to be true" isn't much of an error. To argue that your opposition should have the burden of proof because they are in the minority, is to argue that your opposition's position should be assumed to be false because it is less popular. And that is not a good starting point for discovering the truth. You are technically right about my misuse of the term though.

I don't think the burden of proof is either synonymous with or implicative of falsity. That is to say, just because someone has the burden of proof does not mean that their position is assumed to be false. It just means that, within the dialogue, theirs is the position that primarily requires more argument or evidence. As noted, it is something like saying that the person with the burden of proof should go first in the debate.

 

[zippy2006]

While I recognize how you are using the term, burden of proof goes to people making a knowledge claim.

Yes, Nihilist Virus said the same thing in post 18, and I have argued against that position throughout the thread. You can read the exchange if you like--I'm not interested in re-hashing four pages of argument. The more relevant parts take place on pages 3 and 4.