Burden of Proof

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

Yes they do. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it so.

No they don't. Just because you say they do doesn't make it so.

Quote

Yes we can Just because you don't like it doesn't make it so.

No you can't. Just because you say you can doesn't make it so.

(Notice that you aren't presenting anything, just saying that you could.)

Quote

Only for you. For others, there is plenty of evidence.

Evidence that depends on who's looking at it isn't evidence. It's wishful thinking.

Quote

And your point is? I really have no idea where you are going with this.

You don't? Huh.

A divine being that never manifests itself within the universe counts out damn near every divine being that has ever been worshipped... including the one(s) from your old and new testaments. So if you want to defend the one you believe in, you can't just say "it's outside the universe therefore there will never be proof of it."

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[devildog 0]

Quote

the statement about trust is the true one. The point about "God being a given" is the absolute statement of blind faith.

Well I would agree with this. But then again, we hold on to all sorts of beliefs with blind faith. For example, and one of the most fun once you really get down to it, why should anything -- and I mean anything at all -- that you see, hear, taste, touch, etc. in your brain (because that's where your experience is, supposedly) have anything to do with what's really going on outside your head? Why should the inner experience match the outside Universe? We all blindly believe that it does, but how can you test such a thing? You can't, and thus everything you "know" about "everything" really is based on a blind belief :)



But, back on topic. I do abhor the idea that people believe in a God/gods with no backing whatsoever. That to me, is weak and flimsy. However, those that look around and say, "I see this, this, this and this" and that leads me to believe God/gods are more likely than not, often jump the gun and say for future arguments, "God is a given." I won't speculate on individual usages of it.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

I didn't miss the point. Faith (or trust) can be devoid of proof. Good, great, grand. The thread is about making a claim and bearing the burden of proof ... you missed the thread.

that's the point -

the truly faithful should not feel compelled to make these claims - if they had strong enough convictions. It's all about recruitment (or ego) - or it wouldn't be necessary

ditto for the anti-religious

As mentioned, the video uses religion as context but this thread is not about religion it's about making claims and bearing the burden of proof. There are plenty of other topics in Speakers Corner (and elsewhere) where individuals are making claims ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

It was stated that faith is belief without evidence. I was stating that as far as the OT/NT is concerned, that is not nor ever has been the case for the usage and understanding of "faith" in either the Greek or Hebrew texts. I then went to explain that the real usage was more synonymous with what we consider "trust".

You must have some epic arguments with other Jesusites who say the exact opposite.

I don't seek out Jesuits or anyone else to ensure they know their Greek / Hebrew. But from time to time, when the usage is wrong and I'm in the conversation, I'll pipe up.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[Butters 0]

Quote

For example, and one of the most fun once you really get down to it, why should anything -- and I mean anything at all -- that you see, hear, taste, touch, etc. in your brain (because that's where your experience is, supposedly) have anything to do with what's really going on outside your head? Why should the inner experience match the outside Universe? We all blindly believe that it does, but how can you test such a thing?

I'll give you a hint how you can test such a thing, it's called ... the scientific method.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Plenty of people find proof and evidence for some sort of Divine at work (or had been at work).

No they don't.

Yes they do. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it so.

You're correct, it doesn't matter if someone likes the evidence but it does matter whether the evidence is subjective or objective. Do you have any objective evidence?

Depends on what you will consider valid in terms of objective evidence. If you're going to want something like, "How tall is God?" then no, I don't. Can't test / measure / observe something out of our own little universe. But if you want to talk about things like properties of the universe, or other measurements, recorded history, etc. that to me point to "A God/gods is more likely than not" then sure. So why don't we start with, "What would be objective evidence for you that God/gods exist?"

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[Butters 0]

Quote

But if you want to talk about things like properties of the universe, or other measurements, recorded history, etc. that to me point to "A God/gods is more likely than not" then sure. So why don't we start with, "What would be objective evidence for you that God/gods exist?"

If you use (at any point) "to me" in regards to your evidence then it's subjective.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

For example, and one of the most fun once you really get down to it, why should anything -- and I mean anything at all -- that you see, hear, taste, touch, etc. in your brain (because that's where your experience is, supposedly) have anything to do with what's really going on outside your head? Why should the inner experience match the outside Universe? We all blindly believe that it does, but how can you test such a thing?

I'll give you a hint how you can test such a thing, it's called ... the scientific method.

Nope, sorry. Doesn't work and you haven't gotten the point yet.

Anything you do, ANYTHING, played out in your head. You aren't actually "seeing" the world right now. Remember how you learned the brain flips the image after the light goes through lens in your eye and is projected upside down? What you are seeing is the end product (assuming we have things right on biology / anatomy) of neurons firing in your brain. The image you see is not the world, but some project in said brain. The same thing goes for all your senses. Everything you smell, taste, touch and hear is also just your brain interpreting signals arcing through those neurons. Once we agree on that, we can move on.

The question is, if everything you experience is internal, why should that match anything that's going on outside your brain? The easy way to think about this is, let's say we really do have a brain and we have all these nerves, but instead of being hooked up to a body, they're hooked up to say a computer that's feeding us info. The outside world is completely different than what we experience. Think Matrix. Yes, its far out there, but how would you ever tell the difference? And then once that sinks in, why should the real world be anything like what we think at all? Maybe we don't have brains at all, but our experience lets us believe we do. The idea of the inner experience matching the out experience has been something that philosophers have been wrestling with for a long, long time. To date, no one that I'm aware of has been able to state why believing the outside world matches what we experience is not a matter of blind belief.

It is, ultimately, a given / assumption we have to work with.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Nope, sorry. Doesn't work and you haven't gotten the point yet.

Anything you do, ANYTHING, played out in your head. You aren't actually "seeing" the world right now. Remember how you learned the brain flips the image after the light goes through lens in your eye and is projected upside down? What you are seeing is the end product (assuming we have things right on biology / anatomy) of neurons firing in your brain. The image you see is not the world, but some project in said brain. The same thing goes for all your senses. Everything you smell, taste, touch and hear is also just your brain interpreting signals arcing through those neurons. Once we agree on that, we can move on.

The question is, if everything you experience is internal, why should that match anything that's going on outside your brain? The easy way to think about this is, let's say we really do have a brain and we have all these nerves, but instead of being hooked up to a body, they're hooked up to say a computer that's feeding us info. The outside world is completely different than what we experience. Think Matrix. Yes, its far out there, but how would you ever tell the difference? And then once that sinks in, why should the real world be anything like what we think at all? Maybe we don't have brains at all, but our experience lets us believe we do. The idea of the inner experience matching the out experience has been something that philosophers have been wrestling with for a long, long time. To date, no one that I'm aware of has been able to state why believing the outside world matches what we experience is not a matter of blind belief.

I'm fully aware that the human body can be described in terms of sensors, processors, and actuators and that our perception of reality is based on our sensors and processors.

Our "inside" world may not be an accurate representation of the "outside". However, by using the scientific method we have been able to deduce that the "outside" world exists and is independent of our "inside" world. As you mentioned before, just because you don't like it doesn't make it so.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Actually pretty interesting.

I make the claim that there is a God because I am here. If you believe that you are here, you must follow the chain backwards. (I have no problem with eveloution) at some point it all "started" therefore I accept a "God" because I cannot logically understand something starting by itself.

Weird works for me.

Quantum mechanics, the most precisely confirmed set of laws in all of science, has no problem with something from nothing. And yes, quantum mechanics is weird, but weird is no reason to believe in a supernatural invisible friend.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

I saw most of the video. I think he has the concept of "burden of proof" wrong.

What the video is covering is "presumption." In science it is called the "null hypothesis." In law and policy it is a presumption. Example: presumption of innocence for a criminal defendant. What's that mean? It means that nothing happened unless the prosecution proves it. A presumption of guilt would mean that the person was guilty unless proven otherwise.

The video is all about which side the presumption falls upon. The discussion related to a person who is "presuming" in the existence of God and a person who "presumes" the absence of God. Each side operates under different PRESUMPTIONS.

"Burden of Proof" is a different concept that relates to "what needs to be demonstrated to disprove the presumption." This is where it gets tricky. In law, we typically have three different "burdens of proof" that we rely upon:
(1) Preponderance of the evidence - that there is more evidence of something happening that something not happening (50% plus 1). Also more likely true than not true (or more likely "not true" depending on the Presumption;
(2) Clear and convincing evidence - it is highly probable that something is true or not true, depending on the presumption; and
(3) Beyond a reasonable doubt - that there is no reasonable doubt that something is true or not true, depending on the presumption.

Here is where debate takes a turn - there is no uniform standard. In the video, there are two people operating under different presumptions. Thus, who wins the argument is largely a matter of folly because both are operating by different "presumptions." If it is PRESUMED that God exists, then simply knocking out every last argument that supports the existence of God is pointless because a presumption in favor requires no "burden of proof." Instead, the person arguing against God must provide EVIDENCE TO COUNTER that argument.

The video operates under the presumption of the lack of existence of God and therefore shreds arguments in favor of. This is expected under that presumption.

Then there is also no standard for "burden of proof." What is the standard for burden of proof for the existence of God or lack therefore? Preponderance? Clear and convincing? Beyond a reasonable doubt? some other standard?

if a person wants to see clear and convincing evidence of the existence of God but only gets receives a preponderance of evidence, then the advocate for the existence of God did not meet the standard to convince his opponent otherwise. Likewise, the proponent of the existence of God may be satisfied that he prevailed because he provided a preponderance of the evidence.

When viewed in this way, neither side is being unreasonable because both operate under opposite PRESUMPTIONS and both have different burdens of proof.

In the video, a "preponderance" burden of proof would have had the proponent for existence of God would win is the presumption was in favor of God. If the presumption was against God and there needed to be a preponderance of evidence to overcome it, it's even closer because if just ONE argument has some merit, then because the person denying the existence of God put forth no evidence of his own proving the nonexistence of God.

Note - proving a negative is really friggin hard. I've done it before on four occasions and I don't ever want to have to do it again. But that is to overcome the presumption.


The video title is misleading. "Burden of Proof" is not the correct title. Instead, "Presumption" or "Null hypothesis" should be the title. It seems like a little thing, but the difference is absolutely huge. They are two different concepts that are related but different, and there is absolutely no standard for what the presumption should be or what the "burden of proof" should be.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Butters 0]

I think the confusion lies in the difference between asking for proof of a claim and making a contrary claim.

If you present me with a claim and I ask for proof, I am not making a contrary claim, and the burden of proof is on you. If you lack proof then your claim is false.

If I make a contrary claim then the burden of proof is on me. If your claim is false it does not make my claim true.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Marinus 0]

tl;dr

The burden of proof is the obligation for the party that makes a claim to support that claim with evidence. It's all very simple, and you don't need to write essays of thousands of words about it.

Unless you're trying to create a smoke curtain, to hide the fact that the claim "God exists" has absolutely no evidence top back it up.

[deltron80 0]

Belief in a god is not the default position. The default position is atheism. We don't fly out of the womb wearing yarmulkes after all.

The person making the supernatural claim bears 100% burden of proof. Otherwise his claims are worthless

[Butters 0]

Quote

Unless you're trying to create a smoke curtain, to hide the fact that the claim "God exists" has absolutely no evidence top back it up.

If you make the claim that God exists then the burden of proof is on you. The opposite is true, if you claim that God doesn't exist then the burden of proof is also on you.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

f it is PRESUMED that God exists

What is the reason for such a presumption, when there's no evidence whatsoever. It is no more reasonable than PRESUMING that any of thousands of deities exist.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Marinus 0]

I don't claim that God doesn't exist. The only claim I'll make about God is that I've absolutely no reason to believe that God exists.

[Butters 0]

Quote

I don't claim that God doesn't exist. The only claim I'll make about God is that I've absolutely no reason to believe that God exists.

No problem with that. You have no reason to believe that God exists and no proof that God doesn't exist. All this means is that in future claims you can't use the existence/non-existence of God as proof for the future claim.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Marinus 0]

Quote

You have [....] no proof that God doesn't exist.

Believe me, I'm only agnostic due to a couple of technicalities. For example: it's absolutely not clear what we're looking for when we're searching for God. There are loads of descriptions of God, most are too vague/nonsensical to be usable, and the usable definitions are always conflicting with other usable definitions. "God" is a nonsensical term that can refer to almost everything, even non-existent things. The question: "Does God exist" is so nonsensical that it doesn't need to be answered, one could say.

When it's about specific Gods, well that's easier. Does Jaweh exist? of course not. Jaweh would extremely easy to proof, because of all the miracles, and smiting of sinners.

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

Doesn't work and you haven't gotten the point yet.

What is the point that you think you're making and what does it have to do with your other posts claiming there is evidence for god?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

f it is PRESUMED that God exists

What is the reason for such a presumption, when there's no evidence whatsoever. It is no more reasonable than PRESUMING that any of thousands of deities exist.

Here you're getting into another portion. I don't know. I'm not a believer in God. I'm not a believer in moan hoaxes. I'm not a believer in some grand conspiracy that killed JFK.

But we go off of presumptions. Why do some people presume people to be, at their nature, good when there is so much evidence to the contrary? Why do some people presume people are, at their nature, bad when there is so much evidence to the contrary?

People make presumptions on things. We go through our lives presuming things. We get by on presumptions because requiring proof in our daily lives would be unworkable. I presume that the car is going to stop at that red light. What if I don't? The person in front of me who presumes that I will proceed through a green light will have problems with the both of us.

The religious and the scientist, I believe, can peacefully coexist so long as they stick to their own turfs. Let the scientist stick to finding answers to how the universe came about and leave the "why did the universe come about" to the theologians and philosophers. Why was the primeval atom theory of LeMaitre ridiculed as a "Big Bang" for so long? Because the consensus of scientists like Hoyle did not like the theological aspects of a moment of creation - especially when proposed by an ordained Catholic like LeMaitre. Fair moment - LeMaitre also had to fight the Vatican, who wanted to use the Big bang theory as evidence of the truth of the Bible.

Because Hoyle and the steady state guys were all looking at Einsteins equations with an ideological slant. So was Einstein. It took a guy like LeMaitre who did not share those same presumptions to look at Einstein's equations with an open mind. And view Hubble's discovery and mesh it to look backwards on an expanding universe.

Presumptions can be wrong. You are an engineer and a scientist and you know that paradigms are presumptions with some bases in data available but that paradigms change. Read up Thomas Kuhn - who explained it nicely.

Why do people presume God? Because it was the best explanation at the time. Why did Hoyle refuse to his dying day to believe that the universe was anything but static? Because nobody could meet his own burden of proof in disproving his presumption. To him, his presumption was valid. There just wasn't enough evidence to make a Nobel Prize winner change his mind.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

Here is where debate takes a turn - there is no uniform standard.

That's where you've gone wrong.

If something can't be shown to exist, the presumption is that it does not exist (See Russell's Teapot, Invisible Pink Unicorns, the FSM, that psychic thing in Pluto on the video etc. for elaboration). That is the standard.

Quote

If it is PRESUMED that God exists...

Then the people arguing are really, really stupid.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

But we go off of presumptions. Why do some people presume people to be, at their nature, good when there is so much evidence to the contrary? Why do some people presume people are, at their nature, bad when there is so much evidence to the contrary?

Relevance?

Quote

People make presumptions on things. We go through our lives presuming things. We get by on presumptions because requiring proof in our daily lives would be unworkable. I presume that the car is going to stop at that red light. What if I don't? The person in front of me who presumes that I will proceed through a green light will have problems with the both of us.

Relevance?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Think Matrix.

No, I think solipsism. One of the few dogmas I have is the conviction that solipsism is stupid.

Edit: Well, stupid isn't the right word, in fact it's an interesting idea, just like the idea that the whole universe, inclusive us and all our memories, came into existence 5 minutes ago. Great idea, huh? But it would be stupid to dwell on it.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If something can't be shown to exist, the presumption is that it does not exist (See Russell's Teapot, Invisible Pink Unicorns, the FSM, that psychic thing in Pluto on the video etc. for elaboration).

You've got people searching all over for Higgs Boson - theorized to exist, searched for like mad, but nobody has found it.

You've got effects seen on things. Check out "dark energy" and "dark matter." We see evidence of something going on but there is nothing we know of to explain it. "Dark energy" and "dark matter" are nothing but handles that are given to explain these phenomena. Calling them "Arthur" and "Jennifer" is as valid of a name. Call them "Oden" and "Thor" and it doesn't matter - they are effects that we don't know the cause of.

There may yet be an explanation for these things that is rational even under our present understanding. We cannot show that dark matter EXISTS - all we see is an effect that may be explainable by some existing mechanism we just don't understand.

Why is the effect of some supernatural entity that we cannot see or measure but has some effect that we can see any different that the effect of some supernatural entity that we cannot see or measure?

I don't like the presumption of God one bit. But I am also uncomfortable with the presumption of "The Force" out there.

Note: there is a difference between presumptions and provably false allegations. For example, a law passed in Congress is presumed to be Constitutional. that differs from alleging that the for the SCOTUS to strike the Health Care financing law would be unusual and unprecedented.

Linking provably false allegations with unprovable presumptions is not stupid, just really, really lacking in getting to the foundational issues.

My wife is hotter than your wife.