Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
The whole "burden of proof" thing.?
A bit lengthy, but worth it.
Which side (theists vs atheists) the burden of proof rests on has been argued for far too long. Theists claim that atheists had the original claim that there is no God, because "there really is", so the claim that God exists is not made explicitly. Atheists claim that theists had the original claim, because they one day said "maybe there is a God" when there actually isn't. In this way each side believes the other is the first arguer and therefore the one who possesses the burden of proof.
The problem is that the atheists actually claim that theists are using a claim of existence, whereas theists claim that atheists are using a claim of nonexistence. However, in any conservative model of argumentation, the burden of proof rests on the party who makes the claim of existence. IE: In the American court system, the prosecution makes a claim of existence of a crime, which they must then prove. This is because a claim of existence is really more accusatory, (IE: You have weed in your room, don't you? vs: You do not have weed in your room, do you?) simply because of the fact that the natural state of things is assumed to be nonexistant in any one place; if it did exist there, it was planted there and thus someone is to blame (accusation). Therefore: Claims of existence are accusatory.
The existence of (a) God(s) is surely an important topic, and as such we do not want to err in our decision. Therefore: The argument surrounding the existence of God must be handled in a conservatory fashion.
As established already: Conservatory approach to argumentation results in the burden of proof resting on the accuser (claim of existence) because it alleges that something happened, whereas nonexistence alleges that said accuser is incorrect.
Therefore: The burden of proof rests on theists.
Forgot to make it a question:
Rebuttal?
Steve: Yes, it is an accustion, however as I said it is an accusation of nonexistance, which is by nature LESS accusatory than a claim of existance.
9 Answers
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
You, sir, are entirely true.
For example, if I claimed that I had a unicorn, it would be silly to say that all who don't believe me must prove that I do not have a unicorn. Everyone will think I'm full of crap unless I prove that I have a unicorn. It is common sense that the burden of proof would rely on me.
Same thing with god.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I think we need to start from the assumption that we simply do not know where the universe came from or the origins of the human species. Or imagine that there is a neutral party to whom we would offer our arguments. In this case, both have the duty of making their case.
We cannot conclude that if A cannot be proved, then B must be true. In the past, Christians used to assume that debunking some pitiful carcature of evolution would somehow confirm creationism.
Also, we have to follow the principal of parsimony: all else being equal, the simplest explanation is preferable.
- PROBLEMLv 71 decade ago
It depends how you define "proof." There are plenty of people who are convinced of God's existence and others who simply accept it on faith. What is ample proof for me is not for someone else. Two physicists can look at the same data and argue for years what it means. One can be an atheist, the other a devout theist. There is no proof. There is believing or not believing.
- 80s FaceLv 71 decade ago
I guess the theists will have to rewrite the Wikipedia page on Philosophical Burden of Proof because it pretty much agrees with what you just said.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
You can disprove a negative.
It is fairly simple.
If something is self contradictory
it must therefore be false.
Therefore...
The bible says
God is capable fo all things
But also says
God Cannot tell a lie.
If God Can Lie...
Then how do you know
any of the bible is true.
If he can not then he is
incapable and therefore
not omnipotent.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Great point, but that won't stop them. They can't read about the "null hypothesis" without their brains hurting.
- Steve PLv 51 decade ago
Actually, stating that God does not exist, is an accusation as well and deserves proof.
Steve
Source(s): Bible
