The burden of proof
BackIf someone makes a claim, where does the burden of proof lay?
The answer is "with those making the claim".
If the police charge you with speeding, then they must provide proof this was the case. They do so with radar guns. The system does not work if the police send you a ticket and ask you to prove you were not speeding at a certain place and time.
If I claim I have a diamond the size of a fridge in my backyard you may require proof. If my response is "I have not found it there, but I know it exists and I would not want to live in a universe where there wasn't a diamond the size of a fridge in my backyard" - you may conclude (rightly) that I was a bit crazy.
The same goes for God. If you claim an all powerful, all knowing, benevolent being created the universe, then I demand to see the evidence that supports this view.
Existence is not proof enough, for the universe itself can be eternal and therefore requires no creator. If I accept your hypothesis, then how can we tell the two options apart?
Please devise an experiment to support your claim, or I will apply Occam's razor and go with the solution that makes the fewer assumptions. The God hypothesis makes many assumptions and raises far more questions than it answers and solves nothing.
A claim must be able to be proven false, or it is not a testable proposition and a worthless idea.
Channel: People & Blogs
Uploaded: June 18, 2007 at 12:41 am
Author: askegg
Length: 00:07:31
Rating: 4.59
Views: 2924
Tags: burden proof theist atheist religion God science logic rational
Video Comments:
shaybshay (September 10, 2008 at 5:57 am)
The main problem one might see upon viewing the atheist/theist debate is that it is often a useless one. Theists say "God exists." This is just an opinion and is useless to debate. It's not an argument. It's also like saying chocolate is better than vanilla. Why should one debate your taste or opinion? In this regard there is no need for Burden of proof since there isn't a need to prove an opinion. People should(nt) believe in God is debatable and the burden of proof now lie on the affirmative.
DeismScienceReason (July 29, 2008 at 7:14 am)
The God hypothesis does raise many questions than our paradigmatically derived sciences can acquire at this present time. In addition, Occams' Razor is not empirical justification to preclude the God hypothesis, on the grounds that it more complicated. The veracity of a theory is dependent upon the empirical evidence that can be confirmable through controlled experimental conditions. In all truth, you are not a sceptic but a cynic, who also happens to be scientifically illiterate.
funkliemonkie (July 23, 2008 at 11:56 am)
Im sorry but did u read what i wrote? I said that im not saying to believe in "god" or anything like that. There is no evidence on either side. You cant prove that "god" exists or that "god" doesn't exist. everyone has an opinion and religion is just a group of people with like opinions. Its all opinions. you cant provide evidence on an opinion or it wouldn't be an opinion it would be a fact, and then more than likely there would be a law making that the only religion.
funkliemonkie (July 23, 2008 at 2:19 am)
I am not saying to believe in "god" or anything like that. Why should someone like me try to push a certain religion on you, Im just trying to say that arguing a case thats never gunna end and that was around long before any of us existed is pointless. There isn't any evidence on either side. Believers and non-believers both have nothing, neither have anymore evidence then the other because neither side has any evidence.
askegg (July 23, 2008 at 2:28 am)
You still seem to be having trouble grasping the burden of proof concept.
Since there is no evidence for Zeus, Apollo, Poseidon, Xenu, Vishu, Allah, Leprechauns, Fairies, Goblins, Yahweh, or God. Why should I maintain a belief in any of these?
However, I am open to the possibilities for all or any of them, provided someone can show me evidence of their existence.
Since there is no evidence for Zeus, Apollo, Poseidon, Xenu, Vishu, Allah, Leprechauns, Fairies, Goblins, Yahweh, or God. Why should I maintain a belief in any of these?
However, I am open to the possibilities for all or any of them, provided someone can show me evidence of their existence.
DeismScienceReason (July 29, 2008 at 7:03 am)
Perhaps you also have trouble grasping the burden of proof concept. If a person asserts that there is no God, then they're required to demonstrate the evidence for that proposition. You in fact have this mentality like most atheists, that only a positive claim can be proven. Essentially, this is a fundamental, critical aspect of logic. A negative can be proven on a priori or a posteriori grounds. Nevertheless, you've provided no evidence for your assertions, so I can dismiss it without evidence.
askegg (July 22, 2008 at 5:30 pm)
"Paul a follower of jesus Christ was bitten by a snake and everyone watching him expected him to die but he didn't"
And?
Lot's of people are bitten by snakes, but don't die. This is hardly proof of god's existence. It may be evidence of ineffective or inadequately delivered poison.
And?
Lot's of people are bitten by snakes, but don't die. This is hardly proof of god's existence. It may be evidence of ineffective or inadequately delivered poison.
askegg (July 22, 2008 at 5:24 pm)
Yes I am an atheist, to which to sum total of requirements is the disbelief in gods or deities of any kind. There is no evidence for a divine creator, let alone any particular one, so why should I believe there is one?
askegg (July 22, 2008 at 5:20 pm)
" I see evidence all around me, with the naked eye as well as on the cellular and quantum levels"
What you see is *apparent* design and your hypothesis is a designer created it. No one has witnessed this designer creating a universe, so my comment stands.
Furthermore, you solution to complexity and design is to conjure the most immense and complex thing imaginable - an omniscient, omnipotent being, yet you give no explanation as to where this designer came from.
What you see is *apparent* design and your hypothesis is a designer created it. No one has witnessed this designer creating a universe, so my comment stands.
Furthermore, you solution to complexity and design is to conjure the most immense and complex thing imaginable - an omniscient, omnipotent being, yet you give no explanation as to where this designer came from.
You're spot on.
My compliments.