0
   

God & The Burden of Proof

 
 
Chumly
 
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2006 11:20 pm
I know it's a bit rambly but I was having fun, so you might indulge me and respond:

As far as the common position that the burden of proof must always fall on the owner of the assertion, it is nowhere near that simple, nor should it always be the case. Let me give you an example based on the premise that the more extreme the claim, the higher the burden of requisite proof. In other words, the more extraordinary the claim, the more stringent the proof required.

If I make an assertion that tomorrow it will get light in the daytime, I expect that the burden of proof will be very moderate to nonexistent. If I make the claim that there is a Christian god, I expect the burden of prove to be very high indeed. If I make the assertion that there is no Christian god, I expect the burden of proof to be somewhat less than the assertion that there is a Christian God for four reasons:

The difficulty in wholly proving a negative (no Christian god) versus a positive (yes Christian god), levels the playing field somewhat, because as is well understood, certain negative proofs are virtually impossible to do (no Christian god) but by that token it does not make the opposite of said negative proof (yes Christian god) any more likely.

The fact that it is less of an extraordinary claim to say there is no Christian god versus saying that there is a Christian god.

Despite all the efforts by millions of people over thousands of years there is not one iota of solid evidence to support the extraordinary claims of the existence of a Christian god.

Because of the conflicting nature of not only the interpretation of what constitutes a Christian god within the Christian faith, but that competing religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism, which have equal or superior support and lineage, discount or contradict many consequential aspects of the premise of a Christian god.

Because the definition of a Christian god is ill-defined, there can be no clear defining of terms, and without defining one's terms, any assertion based on such vagueness cannot be substantiated.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 10,201 • Replies: 224
No top replies

 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 01:30 am
Failed geometry, eh?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 01:49 am
If you are a seasoned member does that mean you have assaulted your sausage?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 09:00 am
Re: God & The Burden of Proof
Chumly wrote:
I know it's a bit rambly but I was having fun, so you might indulge me and respond: . . .
Think about what you are saying here. The topic you have chosen has challenged the greatest minds in history. No one has yet proved either side of the argument; but you come in and post a riddle.

You seem like an intelligent fellow. Give us a break. Sharpen your thoughts.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 09:36 am
I am well aware that the topic chosen has occupied many great beans, (although some have been so severely off track as to be wildly humorous, despite their presupposed greatness) and I have no real intention securely proving the argument, as indeed I prefaced.

I must say however, it's a bit excessive an expectation to have the sharpness you allude to, in particular given your references of lacking proof and your great minds discourse.

I might suggest you take a stab, have some fun, and not worry so much!
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 09:38 am
The problem is that the degree of extremity of the claim is subject to interpretation.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 09:46 am
No fun if it wasn't!

Yes I am aware that extraordinary claims may require extraordinary arguments/evidence. In fact I touched on that in my modest preamble.

Move ahead Smile
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 12:14 am
I carry no burden to prove God to anyone since proving God is an impossible task for any man.

If a person demands proof....then God would be the only one who could provide it and even then....what level of proof would be required?

I believe one day you will have proof....of course I can't prove that you will accept any form of proof.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 08:01 am
Re: God & The Burden of Proof
Chumly wrote:
I know it's a bit rambly but I was having fun, so you might indulge me and respond:

As far as the common position that the burden of proof must always fall on the owner of the assertion, it is nowhere near that simple, nor should it always be the case. Let me give you an example based on the premise that the more extreme the claim, the higher the burden of requisite proof. In other words, the more extraordinary the claim, the more stringent the proof required.

If I make an assertion that tomorrow it will get light in the daytime, I expect that the burden of proof will be very moderate to nonexistent. If I make the claim that there is a Christian god, I expect the burden of prove to be very high indeed. If I make the assertion that there is no Christian god, I expect the burden of proof to be somewhat less than the assertion that there is a Christian God for four reasons:

hmmm.... interesting...

The difficulty in wholly proving a negative (no Christian god) versus a positive (yes Christian god), levels the playing field somewhat, because as is well understood, certain negative proofs are virtually impossible to do (no Christian god) but by that token it does not make the opposite of said negative proof (yes Christian god) any more likely.

The fact that it is less of an extraordinary claim to say there is no Christian god versus saying that there is a Christian god.

The only reason it is less extraordinary to claim there is no christian God is because at this time in our world (or maybe just in this forum... who knows really) more people believe there isn't. So what. That is not proof either way. And certainly doesn't mean the burden of proof should be any less. If anything it should be MORE, because, apparently there are more people supporting that idea! (if I understand you correctly that is...) It's like a kid saying, "Awwww MOM! Everyone else is doing it." when the mom tells them no to something they want to do. And the common response is, "If all your friends jumped off a bridge... would you follow them?"

Despite all the efforts by millions of people over thousands of years there is not one iota of solid evidence to support the extraordinary claims of the existence of a Christian god.

Yet millions have believed it, still believe it, and will continue to believe it through-out the years... Do you honestly believe THAT many people believed it without any sort of understanding or proof on their part?

Because of the conflicting nature of not only the interpretation of what constitutes a Christian god within the Christian faith, but that competing religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism, which have equal or superior support and lineage, discount or contradict many consequential aspects of the premise of a Christian god.

Do you really believe that christianity is the only religion in which there is a conflicting nature of what constitutes that persons god or beliefs? BOLOGNA! Look around you. Everyone hold their own beliefs about everything! Everything. I find it hard to believe that anyone could ever be 100% in agreement with anyone else on everything within a certain context, simply because of our nature, our thought processes and so forth.

Because the definition of a Christian god is ill-defined, there can be no clear defining of terms, and without defining one's terms, any assertion based on such vagueness cannot be substantiated.

The reason for not believing presented most often by those who don't believe in a God as the christians do is, "Because you have shown me no proof that He does exist". Is it just me, or does that sound vague too... so then the assertion that God does not exist cannot be substantiated either.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 10:10 am
Hi heph,
You'll need to carefully reformat your response so I can tell exactly what you have written and what exactly you are quoting from me. Using the quote commands will get the job done

Chumly wrote:
Me
You
Chumly wrote:
Me
You
Chumly wrote:
Me
You
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 10:21 am
LOL too funny... sure... no problem chumly. Smile

You:

Quote:
If I make an assertion that tomorrow it will get light in the daytime, I expect that the burden of proof will be very moderate to nonexistent. If I make the claim that there is a Christian god, I expect the burden of prove to be very high indeed. If I make the assertion that there is no Christian god, I expect the burden of proof to be somewhat less than the assertion that there is a Christian God for four reasons:


Me:

hmmm.... interesting...

You:

Quote:
The difficulty in wholly proving a negative (no Christian god) versus a positive (yes Christian god), levels the playing field somewhat, because as is well understood, certain negative proofs are virtually impossible to do (no Christian god) but by that token it does not make the opposite of said negative proof (yes Christian god) any more likely.

The fact that it is less of an extraordinary claim to say there is no Christian god versus saying that there is a Christian god.


Me:

The only reason it is less extraordinary to claim there is no christian God is because at this time in our world (or maybe just in this forum... who knows really) more people believe there isn't. So what. That is not proof either way. And certainly doesn't mean the burden of proof should be any less. If anything it should be MORE, because, apparently there are more people supporting that idea! (if I understand you correctly that is...) It's like a kid saying, "Awwww MOM! Everyone else is doing it." when the mom tells them no to something they want to do. And the common response is, "If all your friends jumped off a bridge... would you follow them?"

You:

Quote:
Despite all the efforts by millions of people over thousands of years there is not one iota of solid evidence to support the extraordinary claims of the existence of a Christian god.


Me:

Yet millions have believed it, still believe it, and will continue to believe it through-out the years... Do you honestly believe THAT many people believed it without any sort of understanding or proof on their part?

You:

Quote:
Because of the conflicting nature of not only the interpretation of what constitutes a Christian god within the Christian faith, but that competing religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism, which have equal or superior support and lineage, discount or contradict many consequential aspects of the premise of a Christian god.


Me:

Do you really believe that christianity is the only religion in which there is a conflicting nature of what constitutes that persons god or beliefs? BOLOGNA! Look around you. Everyone hold their own beliefs about everything! Everything. I find it hard to believe that anyone could ever be 100% in agreement with anyone else on everything within a certain context, simply because of our nature, our thought processes and so forth.

You:

Quote:
Because the definition of a Christian god is ill-defined, there can be no clear defining of terms, and without defining one's terms, any assertion based on such vagueness cannot be substantiated.


Me:

The reason for not believing presented most often by those who don't believe in a God as the christians do is, "Because you have shown me no proof that He does exist". Is it just me, or does that sound vague too... so then the assertion that God does not exist cannot be substantiated either.

Me:

Sorry about that....
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 10:30 am
Bartikus wrote:
I carry no burden to prove God to anyone since proving God is an impossible task for any man.
I don't see why that should be, if god is all powerful, it would be easy for him, in fact the bible is full of such examples where he appears. What's the point of the all needless mystery now? Why was it OK for him to appear earlier but not now?
Bartikus wrote:
If a person demands proof....then God would be the only one who could provide it and even then....what level of proof would be required?
Why would god be the only one who can prove proof of god? For example if he appeared before a group of scientists they could take all sorts of measurements and tests and if these measurements and tests were properly presented, I and many others would believe in god without god needing to directly supply proof to me personally.
Bartikus wrote:
I believe one day you will have proof....of course I can't prove that you will accept any form of proof.
What's wrong with right now? Why does it have to be "one day"?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 10:35 am
I recommend The Elements of Style, by Strunk & White, available in paperback. It's an easy read.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 10:41 am
It asserts that one must first know the rules to break them, I read it 30 years ago, it came out in 1959, I was born in 1955. Unlax doc!
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 10:57 am
Chumly wrote:
It asserts that one must first know the rules to break them, I read it 30 years ago, it came out in 1959, I was born in 1955. Unlax doc!
Breaking the rules is fine for artistic license, not so fine for well constructed argument.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 11:06 am
Chumly wrote:
Hi heph,
You'll need to carefully reformat your response so I can tell exactly what you have written and what exactly you are quoting from me. Using the quote commands will get the job done

Chumly wrote:
Me
You
Chumly wrote:
Me
You
Chumly wrote:
Me
You


Chumly, I did what you asked... are you going to reply? I apologize if my reply sounded sarcastic. LOL, honestly chumly I'm just in a laugh it up mood, and was trying to be humorous about the situation...
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 11:26 am
hephzibah wrote:
The only reason it is less extraordinary to claim there is no christian God is because at this time in our world (or maybe just in this forum... who knows really) more people believe there isn't. So what. That is not proof either way. And certainly doesn't mean the burden of proof should be any less. If anything it should be MORE, because, apparently there are more people supporting that idea! (if I understand you correctly that is...) It's like a kid saying, "Awwww MOM! Everyone else is doing it." when the mom tells them no to something they want to do. And the common response is, "If all your friends jumped off a bridge... would you follow them?"
There are many reasons to assert that is a less extraordinary to claim that there is no christian God and "more people believe there isn't" is not one of them. One of the major reason is that there is no proof despite the millions of people over generations trying to find some. I mean what's the big deal why doesn't the Christian's version of god just show himself in a reasonable fashion?
hephzibah wrote:
Yet millions have believed it, still believe it, and will continue to believe it through-out the years... Do you honestly believe THAT many people believed it without any sort of understanding or proof on their part?
Yes I honestly believe THAT many people can believe all sorts of things without any sort of understanding or proof on their part? astrology, witches, trolls, killing Jews, native Indian rain dances, South American blood sacrifices, flat earth, UFO's, alien abductions, the list is incredible.
hephzibah wrote:
Do you really believe that christianity is the only religion in which there is a conflicting nature of what constitutes that persons god or beliefs? BOLOGNA! Look around you. Everyone hold their own beliefs about everything! Everything. I find it hard to believe that anyone could ever be 100% in agreement with anyone else on everything within a certain context, simply because of our nature, our thought processes and so forth.
I am well aware that all religions contain a huge amount of contradictions and errors historically, scientifically and spiritually. But why does not god come down and set the record straight so that everyone knows the truth? Millions upon millions of people have killed each other because of such conflicts, why would god allow that?
hephzibah wrote:
The reason for not believing presented most often by those who don't believe in a God as the christians do is, "Because you have shown me no proof that He does exist". Is it just me, or does that sound vague too... so then the assertion that God does not exist cannot be substantiated either.
It is true that is very difficult to prove a negative but the difficulty in proving a negative does not make the opposite more likely. I'll give you an example: prove to me that the dark side of the moon did not turn into strawberry jam for 10 minutes 200 years ago. You can't! Do that mean I must be right?
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 11:43 am
Quote:
One of the major reason is that there is no proof despite the millions of people over generations trying to find some. I mean what's the big deal why doesn't the Christian's version of god just show himself in a reasonable fashion?


Nor is there proof that God does not exist despite the millions who have been trying to prove He doesn't.

Quote:
I am well aware that all religions contain a huge amount of contradictions and errors historically, scientifically and spiritually. But why does not god come down and set the record straight so that everyone knows the truth? Millions upon millions of people have killed each other because of such conflicts, why would god allow that?


Why doesn't buddah, or any of the other "gods" referred to in this forum? Why is the God of christianity always the one who must prove Himself?

Quote:
It is true that is very difficult to prove a negative but the difficulty in proving a negative does not make the opposite more likely...


I can agree with that.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 11:49 am
neologist wrote:
Chumly wrote:
It asserts that one must first know the rules to break them, I read it 30 years ago, it came out in 1959, I was born in 1955. Unlax doc!
Breaking the rules is fine for artistic license, not so fine for well constructed argument.
I agree but I am a lousy proof reader and time is tight and I did preface with "I know it's a bit rambly but I was having fun, so you might indulge me and respond".

Also no disrespect intended, but there is no obligation on your part to indulge, if you feel it's not in keeping with your sensibilities. You could throw caution to the wind and indulge, you could excuse yourself from any posts I start that don't meet your criteria, the "sty's" the limit neo.

If you like, when/if I start a new thread, I could put pro-neo or anit-neo as a caution. That would at the least inject some well needed humor Smile

Now on the other hand, you should remember that you guys elected two Burning Bushes and a Ray-Gun so from that perspective at the least I would not be too quick to overtly critique a wonderful Canuck such as myself.

http://www.dubyaspeak.com/

10. We're making the right decisions to bring the solution to an end.
9. I'm not the expert on how the Iraqi people think, because I live in America, where it's nice and safe and secure.
8. I want to be the peace president.
7. My most important job is to defend the homeland, to protect innocent Americans from the deaths of the killers.
6. First thing that Medicare has done is it says that if you're -- when you join Medicare, you get preventative screenings. Put in Texas terms, in order to solve something, you got to diagnose it.
5. Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better.
4. I want to send the signal to our enemy that you have aroused a compassionate and decent and mighty nation, and we're going to hunt you down.
3. I want to thank the President and the CEO of Constellation Energy, Mayo Shattuck. That's a pretty cool first name, isn't it, Mayo. Pass the Mayo.
2. Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
1. This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table.

10. It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way.
9. There's a lot of us getting ready to retire. We're called baby boomers. As a matter of fact, my retirement age is 2,008.
8. I like to tell people, Laura and I are proud to be Texas -- own a Texas ranch, and for us, every day is Earth Day.
7. I'm looking forward to a good night's sleep on the soil of a friend.
6. And so, in my State of the -- my State of the Union -- or state -- my speech to the -- nation, whatever you wanna call it, speech to the nation -- I asked Americans to give 4,000 years -- 4,000 hours over the next -- of the rest of your life -- of service to America. That's what I asked. I said 2 -- 4,000 hours.
5. And, most importantly, Alma Powell, Secretary of Colin Powell, is with us.
4. No question in my mind these are tough times for America. But there's no question in my mind we'll prevail. Right is on our side. And we'll prevail, because we're a fabulous nation, and we're a fabulous nation because we're a nation full of fabulous people.
3. I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe -- I believe what I believe is right.
2. We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country.
1. There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once -- shame on -- shame on you. You fool me, you can't get fooled again.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 12:04 pm
Miss Eppie, the Buddha was not, and never has been alleged to have been, a god. We discuss the christian god in these fora because the site is located in the United States, where the overwhelming majority of dangerous religious extremists are christians.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » God & The Burden of Proof
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 04:43:34