Should theists have the burden of proof?

[cloudyday2]

I'm sure this topic might be addressed in other threads such the "tricks" threads. As most people know, atheists will typically place the burden of proof on the theists in a debate. Atheism becomes the default when theists fail to persuade the atheists.

In the past, I thought this was unfair. Now I agree that atheism should be the default. I believe this, because atheist beliefs are a subset of theist beliefs. Atheists believe in science, history, etc. Theists also believe in these things, but they want to add extra beliefs such as gods, life after death, angels, etc. It is the theists who are trying to increase the shared set of beliefs with new beliefs, therefore the theists have the burden of proof.

Opinions?

 

[Cute Tink]

The one who wants to convince someone of something should be prepared to do so.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

My feeling is it depends on whos asking. If someone is asking for proof of God because they genuinely are curious about Christianity and maybe being saved down the road, I will provide evidence. But if someone is asking just to start a circular logic debate where it never ends because they don't actually care about evidence. Then I don't have to prove anything. In other words if one is not serious about wanting to know the truth then I am not serious about providing them with anything because for every person who doesn't really care, I can find someone who is looking for truth in life and wants answers.

Or a better way to put it is as someone said in another topic they are here to stir the pot to make Christians ask questions. They have no interest in any real truth because they just look for trouble instead. And yet ironically if you stirred the pot when it came to lets say their children in school wand wanted to teach evolution was wrong and God created everything, you best believe they would suddenly be against pot stirrers who want to make people ask questions. And yes this applies to Christians to. If a christian just wants to argue stir the pot for sake of being annoying, they are someone I would not bother with too.

A good example of one such person is Bill Nye. In may be wrong but he grew up catholic I think. Whatever the case he and Ken Ham battle alot about "truth". But Bills intention is not to argue to find God but to debunk God and make fun of Christians. Which while I did lose some respect for him acting like that, I lost all respect when he essentially said christians were essentially neanderthals who are holding back the world from growing. Thats proof his intentions are just to bully. Granted if he was as smart as he thinks he would realize the world, especially america, is changing to a more worldly view as it is so christians aren't stopping that at all. Its leaving us in the dust.

So thats my view on it all. Being more near 40 I wasted like 2 decades online arguing with people who didn't care about God really or truth. Which is why I get flustered when someone on here just stirs the pot for no real reason and why I won't answer questions that I know lead to the same answers and same questions that lead back to the start all over again. It wastes time.

 

[cloudyday2]

The one who wants to convince someone of something should be prepared to do so.

That is one way to look at it.

Another way is: whoever is trying to add new laws to the consensus model of reality has the burden of proof. He/she must show how the current consensus model is lacking and why the new laws improve the model. Everybody agrees with science, history, etc. Theists think this consensus needs to also include their religious beliefs. The burden is on the theists to make that case.

Also, I don't think it matters if the consensus set of laws is being expanded or reduced. Any change to the current consensus needs to be justified.

If two models work equally well to explain reality, then the simpler model wins.

 

[keith99]

It seems to me the burden changes based on just what is desired.

If some theist whats me to believe in their God the burden of proof is on them and it is not just that some vague higher being exists but that it matches their claims about their God. If their desire is to be left to worship in peace and their worship does not entail harming others then the burden is on me. If they want the laws changed to reflect the commands of their God because their God will otherwise strike us all down then I'll mock them and test the claims they make about their God if I'm at all in a surly mood.

EDIT: And if their desire is to change the Science taught in schools the burden is on them and their proof had better be clear and indisputable.

 

[xianghua]

I'm sure this topic might be addressed in other threads such the "tricks" threads. As most people know, atheists will typically place the burden of proof on the theists in a debate. Atheism becomes the default when theists fail to persuade the atheists.

In the past, I thought this was unfair. Now I agree that atheism should be the default. I believe this, because atheist beliefs are a subset of theist beliefs. Atheists believe in science, history, etc. Theists also believe in these things, but they want to add extra beliefs such as gods, life after death, angels, etc. It is the theists who are trying to increase the shared set of beliefs with new beliefs, therefore the theists have the burden of proof.

Opinions?

the burden of proof is actually in the atheistic side. even dawkins admit this in is book "the blind watchmaker". this is because as far as we know: a self replicating watch that made from orogoanic components is evidence for design. so atheist need to prove that such a watch can evolve naturally.

 

[cloudyday2]

the burden of proof is actually in the atheistic side. even dawkins admit this in is book "the blind watchmaker". this is because as far as we know: a self replicating watch that made from orogoanic components is evidence for design. so atheist need to prove that such a watch can evolve naturally.

I'm not familiar with Dawkins ideas and writings, but here is what I think. If somebody tells you there is a teapot in orbit around Mars, do you think you must first send a space probe to Mars to justify your disbelief? That's how atheists see this. The default is to believe the consensus model of reality. Atheists are satisfied with believing what is fairly certain and not knowing about the rest. Theists imagine teapots orbiting Mars and expect atheists to prove the teapots aren't there.

Regarding the self-replicating watch, I don't think that is a problem. "Design" and "intelligence" are hard to define, so claiming that something exhibits these traits is just an opinion. It's like saying that a bouquet of flowers is a work of art when it might be only that you are feeling particularly romantic and everything seems like a work of art.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Atheism becomes the default when theists fail to persuade the atheists.

Contrary to a popular claim "you can't prove negatives", proving negatives is not impossible. Like for example it's possible to prove that there are no humans in a house at some given moment.

So making a negative claim needs evidence too. If one person claims that the house is empty and other person says there is 10 persons, but neither one can prove how many, if any, people there are, should we automatically believe the house to be empty?

And yes, I recognize the problem of the analogy which is that we all share the belief in the possibility of humans existing in a house. What I'm trying to say is that it comes down to levels of agnosticism and likelihoods when no proof is presented either way.

 

[xianghua]

Regarding the self-replicating watch, I don't think that is a problem. "Design" and "intelligence" are hard to define, so claiming that something exhibits these traits is just an opinion.

what you mean by "just an opinion"? that a self replicating watch need a designer is just an opinion?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

The claim "THERE ARE NO GODS" has the burden of proof.

The claim "THERE IS A GOD" has the burden of proof.

When you make either claim, you have to burden to convince the unconvinced.

 

[Moral Orel]

Contrary to a popular claim "you can't prove negatives", proving negatives is not impossible. Like for example it's possible to prove that there are no humans in a house at some given moment.

So making a negative claim needs evidence too. If one person claims that the house is empty and other person says there is 10 persons, but neither one can prove how many, if any, people there are, should we automatically believe the house to be empty?

And yes, I recognize the problem of the analogy which is that we all share the belief in the possibility of humans existing in a house. What I'm trying to say is that it comes down to levels of agnosticism and likelihoods when no proof is presented either way.

What if you also claim that those persons in the house are invisible and immaterial? That's the real problem with your analogy, we're talking about something that is specifically defined as being outside of our abilities to prove non-existent. The claim of "a god" isn't anywhere near as narrow as a claim of a visible, physical object inside the space of 2000 square feet.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

If someone says, "THERE IS NO GOD," and you reply, "maybe not, but I doubt there is no God," they can't then say, "PROVE THERE IS A GOD."

If someone says, "THERE IS A GOD," and you reply, "maybe, but I'm not convinced there is one," they can't then say, "PROVE THERE ISN'T A GOD."

If you make the claim, you back it up. Atheist or theist is irrelevant; it's the claimer that has the burden of proof.

 

[cloudyday2]

what you mean by "just an opinion"? that a self replicating watch need a designer is just an opinion?

Imagine for a moment that you are an atheist who believes in metaphysical naturalism. What is a human watch designer and a watch? At a certain level, the human watch designer is no more an "intelligent designer" than a rock rolling down a mountain side from erosion. The watch is no more a design than the shape of the mountainside formed by erosion.

My point is that calling something an "intelligent design" is similar to calling a bouquet of flowers "pretty".

 

[cloudyday2]

Contrary to a popular claim "you can't prove negatives", proving negatives is not impossible. Like for example it's possible to prove that there are no humans in a house at some given moment.

So making a negative claim needs evidence too. If one person claims that the house is empty and other person says there is 10 persons, but neither one can prove how many, if any, people there are, should we automatically believe the house to be empty?

And yes, I recognize the problem of the analogy which is that we all share the belief in the possibility of humans existing in a house. What I'm trying to say is that it comes down to levels of agnosticism and likelihoods when no proof is presented either way.

Let's take the teapot orbiting around Mars as an example. Isn't it reasonable to assume that there is no teapot orbiting mars until somebody can prove otherwise? Why should a skeptic need to send a space probe to Mars to confirm that no teapots are there?

I think the teapot is a closer analogy than the number of people inside a house, because we know from experience that people are often inside houses. We have never found teapots orbiting other planets.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Let's take the teapot orbiting around Mars as an example. Isn't it reasonable to assume that there is no teapot orbiting mars until somebody can prove otherwise? Why should a skeptic need to send a space probe to Mars to confirm that no teapots are there?

I think the teapot is a closer analogy than the number of people inside a house, because we know from experience that people are often inside houses. We have never found teapots orbiting other planets.

Neither one is a good example.

We can compare theism to the teapot when people discover something tea-like in the space (analogy for creation/creator - logic) and people start experiencing things that could be interpreted as them receiving tea from space (spiritual experiences) and these reasons would exist in all cultures worldwide.

The point again was that it's possible to prove negatives. If one can't prove a negative, then we can debate about how likely we consider those positives or negatives to be, but neither one is a proven fact.

 

[Moral Orel]

The one who wants to convince someone of something should be prepared to do so.

I absolutely agree with this, by the way. That's why, as a non-believer, when I argue with theists I don't try to prove there are no god(s). That "something" you mention is whatever you want to prove, but some people try to tell you what you need to prove, and that's where the problem comes in. I don't care if people believe in god(s) or not, so I don't try to convince people there isn't one. I might try to convince someone to not take the Bible so literally, for example, but that doesn't require me proving that there are no god(s) so I don't try to convince anyone of that.

tldr version: I get to pick the claim, not my opponent. And I don't call myself an "atheist" because I don't want to have to argue with someone over what my claim is.

 

[cloudyday2]

Neither one is a good example.

We can compare theism to the teapot when people discover something tea-like in the space (analogy for creation/creator - logic) and people start experiencing things that could be interpreted as them receiving tea from space (spiritual experiences) and these reasons would exist in all cultures worldwide.

The point again was that it's possible to prove negatives. If one can't prove a negative, then we can debate about how likely we consider those positives or negatives to be, but neither one is a proven fact.

I never said that it isn't possible to prove a negative. What I said is that atheist beliefs are a subset of theist beliefs. Theists believe everything that atheists believe, but they add a few more beliefs about their gods.

Occam's razor says the simpler explanation wins. Atheism is a simpler explanation, so it wins unless theists can prove their theistic explanation is better in some way. Apparently there are mathematical definitions that make Occam's razor more than simply a heuristic. That is why atheism must be the default and the burden falls on theists.

(I don't mean to be a nit-picker, but it seems that I didn't make my argument very clear in the OP.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I never said that it isn't possible to prove a negative. What I said is that atheist beliefs are a subset of theist beliefs. Theists believe everything that atheists believe, but they add a few more beliefs about their gods.

Occam's razor says the simpler explanation wins. Atheism is a simpler explanation, so it wins unless theists can prove their theistic explanation is better in some way. Apparently there are mathematical definitions that make Occam's razor more than simply a heuristic. That is why atheism must be the default and the burden falls on theists.

(I don't mean to be a nit-picker, but it seems that I didn't make my argument very clear in the OP.)

The funny thing is that Occam (Ockham, William 'of') was a philosopher and theologian. And somehow he didn't see fit to take his own medicine. I wonder why?

1) Science, Ockham’s Razor & God | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now

2) http://www.iep.utm.edu/ockham/#H2

 

[KCfromNC]

The funny thing is that Occam (Ockham, William 'of') was a philosopher and theologian. And somehow he didn't see fit to take his own medicine. I wonder why?

People are good at compartmentalizing beliefs.

 

[cloudyday2]

The funny thing is that Occam (Ockham, William 'of') was a philosopher and theologian. And somehow he didn't see fit to take his own medicine. I wonder why?

1) Science, Ockham’s Razor & God | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now

2) http://www.iep.utm.edu/ockham/#H2

Thanks for the links, @2PhiloVoid
The article seems to argue that atheists must get involved in the details of the theist's philosophical arguments for gods rather than brushing them aside as unnecessary additions to the scientific model of reality. I think it is the responsibility of the theists to show how their gods can improve the scientific model. Many of the questions that theists claim to answer with their gods are actually malformed questions. For example, asking "how did the universe come into being?" is a natural common sense question, but it is a question formed from concepts that fall apart at the beginning of time. "Before" and "after" make no sense at the beginning of time. Likewise, "cause" makes no sense at the beginning of time.

It is funny how these gods become increasingly elusive and irrelevant as science advances. In the past, the gods were expected to bless us with rain in the proper season, good health, prosperity, etc. Now we expect nothing from our gods, but we continue to cling to them.