Burden of proof (philosophy)

I get frustrated with the constant need to explain this in every thread hopefully this will clear a few things up for people.

Burden of proof (philosophy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about burden of proof as a philosophical concept. For other uses, see Burden of proof (disambiguation).

In epistemology, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shorthand for Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

Holder of the burden

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1]

Shifting the burden of proof

One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[5][6]

Proving a negative

A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. Saying "You cannot prove a negative" is a pseudologic because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim.[11][12]


Example
Internet personality Matt Dillahunty gives the example of a large jar full of gumballs to illustrate the burden of proof.[13][14] 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.[15][16][17] 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.[18] If there is no agreeable and adequate proof of evidence to support a claim, the claim is considered an argument from ignorance.[19]





Agnostic neither affirms nor denies either position therefore no position no dog in the fight.

Atheist Denies, therefore a position has been taken, therefore a dog in the fight.

Theist Affirms, therefore a position has been taken, therefore a dog in the fight.

Both atheists and theists take a position, who came up with the idea first is not relevant, each have a position therefore an obligation to defend their position.

The theist position can also be stated as a negative as I have shown throughout these threads so now we have both theists and atheists arguing negatives.

Atheists continually dodge the debate by using cant prove a negative [which is not true] as an excuse to duck out of proving their position while insisting the theist position remain positive in attempts to force the theists to do all the explaining.

Regardless what method one uses to conclude a belief or lack of belief, both are a conclusion therefore a position taken. There is no getting around that fact in philosophy.

This is known as an argument from ignorance, and philosophically the only 'logical' position is agnostic, since both sides claim the other has no evidence.

 

Well I place the need for evidence of a deity or deities on the respective deity or deities on the simple and honest grounds since they are apparently outside of nature as we can explore it then its on them to make regular contact, keep up to date on their needs and wants from humanity and apprise us on what happens good and bad for not worshipping the being or beings in question. Until then we have no need to spend our resources and time as a species on their respective selves and by contact I mean relevant unarguable contact not ancient holy books if I could talk to you it should able to talk to at least the servant being of a said deity face to face. Or an App click here to talk to this deity.

Philosophically its at the wrong side expecting us to do the work when its pointless it seems.

 

As the God entity can be any one of the thousands of documented versions in literature one of them must be chosen to disprove. When this is done the ONLY data that can be used in this is the aforementioned literature, anything else is opinion and arbitrary information considered useless in the process.

If you truly wish to begin this pointless exercise you must state which God we are discussing.

 

I see atheists trying to duck and dodge under the veil of negative, and the illusion that lack of belief is not a conclusion hence a belief in itself. They presumably reviewed the matter formed a belief and from the beliefs they formed made a conclusion, they do not believe in a deity due to insufficient evidence. Fair enough, but to claim lack of belief is not a belief is dishonest on its face.

 

Well not exactly since there can only be one god by definition it appears all the others have been disproved no matter which one you choose to believe is real.

 

Um this thread is about burden of proof, where forming and concluding a lack of belief is in fact a belief, and takes the position atheist which is the opposite or negation of theist.

The only one thats neither is agnostic, most here take the position of atheists then try to build their argument by screaming cant prove a negative, and as we can see from wiki, everyone who takes a position is obligated to prove out their position negative or positive.

 

I see...so you still want Atheists to prove the negative? This tactic is getting very old.

 

So since neither the theist or the atheist can prove their claim can we assume both positions have equal merit?

 

Since theists originated the argument by claiming to have deities the burden of proof remains on them.

However, as Tecoyah so astutely pointed out, theists must FIRST make the determination as to which deity it is that they claim exists and then provide said evidence of existence to support their allegation.

This onus exists entirely on theists alone since they are also making the claim that there is only a single deity and therefore all other deities are null and void.

Those theist claims must be established before any atheist is obligated to provide anything at all.

Needless to say the OP will throw a hissyfit because he knows he cannot prove either of those claims and will instead fallaciously try to shift the burden of proof. This is 100% predictable because it has been stipulated by the OP already.

 

Theists lack believe that no God exists!

See you still want theists to prove a negative.

seems we have a problem houston!

 

That is the false equivalence stunt that the OP is trying to pull off with a sleight of hand that is patently transparent.

 

Assumes fundamentalist theist factoids NOT in evidence.

 

There's a generally recognised difference between "strong atheism" which does involve specific denial, and "weak atheism" which is just a lack of belief. There are all sorts of disagreements and arguments over the terminology (which is why statements of the form "Xs say Y" are best avoided) but what can't be denied is that there are lots of people who will identify their own position as atheism but who wouldn't be subject to the burden of proof on the basis of your quote.

 

This was supposed to be funny? haha

 

Did I hear the word atheism Joe? Yes I did, if something has an bad noxious odor the strength of the noxious odor is irrelevant, it is identified as a noxious odor, its binary, you said atheist therefore its atheist does not matter if its .000001% or 100% its still atheist Joe.

Dont get me wrong thats great tea time talk, however in the world proofs strong or weak is not part of the binary logic methodology. (means its meaningless)

 

It was an accurate observation of the fallacy of your position.

Yes, your absurd position is ludicrous so I am glad that we can, at least, agree to that extent.

 

This has got to be the worst Twister move you have pulled yet, which is saying something. So now you want me to prove the negative, negative you just made up to excuse your wish for me to prove the initial negative?

.....uh...that's a Negative good buddy.

 

lol This thread makes me like the enthusiasm of Alien Hunters more.

* * *

Here's quotes of Richard Feyman: Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which 'are' there.

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

 

I think that speaks more to your apparent hatred of "atheists" than anything else. Your warped perception doesn't change anything, there remains millions of atheists all over the world who are each vastly different individuals.

If you're treating this as a simplistic binary ("For me or against me!"), why did you bring up agnosticism as a third position? How do you address deists, polytheists or even simply monotheists who have an entirely different view of god to you?

By you definition, I'm only agnostic. Does that somehow change you're opinion of me?

 

So, you've had this explained to you in about 5 different threads now. Why did you decide to start an entire thread on something you've already been schooled on?

The burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the one making the positive assertion. It is not possible to prove a negative, or non existence.

this thread is dumb.

 

Nope I guess yer wrong again!


Proving a negative

A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. Saying "You cannot prove a negative" is a pseudologic because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.


For those who do not know "pseudologic" is 'false' logic, faulty NFG and all that.

You made the claim you prove it!

 

no, I am not wrong. It is not possible to prove a negative, or prove non existence.

This is logic 101. And you suck at it.

 

I am absolutely fine with that. That has been my position & repeated points for years, in this forum. they are both abstract beliefs, of an 'opinion' about the nature of reality. Neither 'side' can produce empirical evidence for their position, & both sides have subjective 'evidence' for their beliefs.

Philosophically speaking, they are a logical dichotomy.. 'A.. not A'.. 'God.. noGod'

It does not seem that complicated to me.

 

Nah I only point out the craziness of the flawed logic, pretty much any positive can be restated according to the rules of logic in the negative as I have done. Likewise lack of belief in a deity can be restated as belief no deity exists. Logically, that is according to the rules of logic identical. Its logic 101 frankly.

I brought up agnosticism because they have no dog in this fight, they do not take a position for or against in 'either case'.

Take note the operative word is position. Atheist is a position a negation of theist and theist is a position a negation of atheist. pretty much as binary as it gets

 

This is why I put up this thread, because we have people out here that through nothing more than raging personal denial are passing along disinformation to others, since most negatives are easily proven. It even gives an example using the marbles, the difference between a rational and irrational choice in so far as logic is concerned, which means faith is excluded from the equation 'either way'.

Here is what I posted

Theists lack believe that no God exists!

If you have problems with that by all means make corrections to the statement