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:
Sure, why not
I will indulge you
Chumly wrote: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.
Although providing proof may not be that simple in certain circumstances, it makes complete sense to leave the burden of proof with the individual putting forth an assertion.
Chumly wrote: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.
That there may be a
higher burden of proof (I think what you mean here is that more evidence is required to support the proof in question) does not remove the fact that the one making the assertion owns the burden to prove their assertion is true, if they want their assertion to be accepted as something more than opinion.
Chumly wrote: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.
Why? I challenge you right now to give me reason (without question begging) as to why it will get light in the *daytime tomorrow (*by "daytime" I assume those hours of the day that it typically gets light).
Chumly wrote:If I make the claim that there is a Christian god, I expect the burden of prove to be very high indeed.
You may expect this, but is that expectation warranted? Let's look at your reasons
Chumly wrote: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.
Nor does it make the opposite of said negative proof any
less likely.
Chumly wrote: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.
I know this has already been asked of you, but I would like you to support your assertion that it is less extraordinary to claim the Christian god does not exist, then it is to claim he does. I think what you will find is that your judgment is not shared by everyone, specifically because said judgment is informed by whether one already believes the Christian god exists.
Chumly wrote: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.
You realize this is an assertion you are making, right? Can you back it up?
Chumly wrote: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.
Yet those who believe in the Christian god probably would not agree with you that he is ill-defined.
In short, when debating with a person who believes in the Christian god, all you can do is debate
their particular opinion of what defines him.
I
