Religious people bear the BoP. Provide an argument against this statement.
God and the BoP
Posts
Total:
122
-->
@Juice
That statement doesn't need to be refuted, because it's true... and I say this as someone who leans theist in their beliefs.
When someone says something exists and another person says "I see no proof of it existing," if the contested thing existing is not a truism, then the BoP naturally falls on the person making the claim. That doesn't mean there isn't a good case for God existing, though. Just as even though the BoP falls on those claiming abortion is a-ok, you can make a decent case for why it might be.
-->
@MisterChris
@Juice
Theists will always try and shift the B.O.P. because they have no actual proof of their claim.
So you're right...Theists make the claim....It's their B.O.P.
Atheists cannot disprove something that theists cannot prove.
And if theists could actually prove the existence of their specific GOD....Then rational thinkers would cease to be atheists.
Theists bear the bop of course. Even if the atheists also do it still doesn’t make theists lack of it.
-->
@Juice
Religious people bear the BoP. Provide an argument against this statement.
It is you who must be making the argument because you started the argument so then you must have to be proving the argument what you made because religious people don't know why you have to argue anyway so you really dont no what your argument is anyway.
-->
@MisterChris
That statement doesn't need to be refuted, because it's true
It is.
It is a universally accepted law that the Burden of Proof lies with he or she that brings the claim.
But there really are pig ignorant theist that will create a whole new argument around this universal accepted fact of law and all in a fruitless attempt not to prove or deny something, but simply to save face or in a vain to be right.
They will turn to the law of the Burden of Proof and where it lays when its suites them to do so, and so they should. But will in the very next breath, deny categorically that the same law applies when it come to the existence of God and controversial statements made in the biblical scriptures or made by themselves. There are a very recent examples of this on this religion forum. Here's just one https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5083-the-god-topic where the author opening post includes this incredible retarded nonsense:
" What would be helpful in the discussion is this. For an atheist to produce any evidence that GOD does not exist". #1
I have to wonder at times - do they realise how ridiculous and retarded they come across when they stoop to this level of argument. It makes any reasonable argument they feel they have worthless and pointless.
She or He that denies the universally accepted law of where the Burden Of Proof Lays automatically loses any argument.
-->
@Juice
Religious people bear the BoP. Provide an argument against this statement.
The burden of proof does not rest with man when it comes to God's existence or nonexistence.
-->
@Juice
Religious people bear the BoP. Provide an argument against this statement.
I don't agree at least when it comes to the question of the existence of God. Perhaps it might apply to other areas of religion. Yet that is quite distinct.
There is a principle relating to B.of P. And that is that the person making the positive assertion ought to prove it.
Yet there are also exceptions to the rule. Burden of Proof - Courting The Law
Generally, there are two situations in which the burden of proof takes exception to the aforementioned general rule:
- where a disputable presumption of law exists or a “prima facie case” been proved in favour of one party; or
- where the subject matter of a party’s allegations is in the knowledge of the opposing party.
Similarly, there are other exceptions that relate to the burden of proof - such as relating to the elements necessary for the defense of insanity. In that particular situation - the burden shifts from the police who make the initial assertion that the defendant committed a crime - to the defendant to prove he or she is not sane.
In other situations the burden of proof shifts in relation to default or traditional assertions - where such a default position is considered an axiom. If the assertion is axiomatic situation - then the burden of proof shifts from the positive assertion to those who attempt to refute it.
An example is reason. Reason or logic is considered an axiom - but the person who asserts that such is their axiom does not need to demonstrate that such axiom is true. IT is assumed as such. It is impossible to prove logic is true without using logic. Logic therefore becomes a circular argument. If someone uses something other than logic to prove logic is true, then that person by definition demonstrates that logic is not axiomatic.
Similarly in relation to the existence of God. It is an axiom. Only God can prove the existence of God. If something other than God attempts to prove the existence of God, then God is not axiomatic.
-->
@Tradesecret
If you cannot prove that a specific GOD exists...Then I have nothing to prove
If you can prove that a specific GOD exists....Then I have nothing to prove.
It's the LAW of common sense.
Your above rhetoric, designed to confuse, nonetheless just goes around the houses and back to the start....If you really want to move your argument forwards, then the only way, will be to unequivocally prove that a specific GOD exists.....BOP.
-->
@zedvictor4
If you cannot prove that a specific GOD exists...Then I have nothing to proveIf you can prove that a specific GOD exists....Then I have nothing to prove.It's the LAW of common sense.Your above rhetoric, designed to confuse, nonetheless just goes around the houses and back to the start....If you really want to move your argument forwards, then the only way, will be to unequivocally prove that a specific GOD exists.....BOP.
My above rhetoric is not designed to confuse. It is for clarification. It simply points out that the B of P is a rule which has exceptions. Why is it that the atheist feels threatened by such evidence that the B of P is one which has exceptions?
-->
@zedvictor4
I wrote above:
"They [theists] will turn to the law of the Burden of Proof and where it lays when its suites them to do so, and so they should. But will in the very next breath, deny categorically that the same law applies when it come to the existence of God and controversial statements made in the biblical scriptures or made by themselves".#6
So I suppose it only correct that I have to prove my claim and produce an example of the accusation I made at post #6
In a response to a reasonable question about scripture that I had asked :
Stephen wrote: "52 the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the description of what is said to have happened at the exact time Jesus is said to have died, isn't it? A yes or no will do.Tradesecret; I don't answer yes or no. I am not a witness to be cross-examined or to be led by a lawyer. #5I counsel all of my clients never to answer yes or no. Why would I not take my own advice? Life is more complex than black and white - yes and no answers.#15I love how people talk about things like facts when they don't have any way to ACTUALLY prove it. None of this would pass a court room test. #11
Notice above that all those responses are court of law setting related. Where we have words such as " advise & council" "clients" "cross examined" & "court room".
After another attempt at getting an answer to the same question I received this reply (from a qualified lawyer no less) with more specific detail concerning where the Burden of Proof in law actually lays with:
" I am a Lawyer [........] I always counsel my clients that "no comment" is the only wise thing to do when being questioned by the police. I don't care how you read that - no comment is the right thing to do. When we are in a contested hearing, I, in the first instance, will counsel my client not to get into the stand to be cross examined. It is the role of the prosecutor to prove their case. It is not mine to prove we are innocent" .[ #20
And I totally agree with that comment. I accept it because it is the accepted law particularly in the western civilizations..
Read then the change of attitude to this accepted law when it then we come to the existence of god>
" What would be helpful in the discussion is this. For an atheist to produce any evidence that GOD does not exist". #1
And
My attitude to B of P is not actually the person who asserts must do so. I think that is the way some people understand it.In other words, atheists are unable to prove God does not exist. Similarly,theists cannot prove God exists. We all know that as well. It is a political point of view.it would be the atheist who has the B. o P.
Keeping in mind that I asked someone to simply confirm if or not that a verse in question was from the scripture and correct ; we see how willing, fast and keen to bring the court setting and its law into a discussion forum and using the universally accept law when it suites them to defend their right and reasons for not answering a perfectly reasonable question.
But when the questions are about the existence of god or question about the scriptures that they don't like , then the universally laws of B of P fly clean out of the window and dismissed as if they never existed in the first place.
I use to think you have to lie to yourself approx five times to have the ability to belive in god.
I'm thinking it's like twenty now.
I'm thinking it's like twenty now.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I use to think you have to lie to yourself approx five times to have the ability to belive in god.I'm thinking it's like twenty now.
If your lying to yourself then your lying to everybody and I believe in god and I dont lie to everybody so that means that god is true but I sometimes lie to my boss though but I do that because he wants me to chop the chickens heads to high and sometimes when you do that they run away and you have to going into the bush to be finding them.
-->
@Tradesecret
Nope. It's just jargon and doesn't clarify anything.
I clarified the situation in the bits of my previous post that you overlooked.
Atheists do not make claims, and so have nothing to prove.
Theists claim that specific GODS exist.
Atheists do not claim that GODS do not exist.....All that atheists require is for you to unequivocally substantiate your claim.....And then we can all be true believers together.
It's not a Chicken and Egg scenario.
-->
@Tradesecret
@zedvictor4
@MisterChris
@Intelligence_06
@Juice
Religious people bear the BoP. Provide an argument against this statement.
The burden of proof rests with whoever affirms. So, if one were to affirm the existence of God (i.e. "God does exist") then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation. If one were to affirm the nonexistence of God (i.e. "God does not exist") then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would also bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation.
The notion that Atheists merely bear no burden of proof because of the prevailing notion "we don't have to prove a negative" is nonsense.
-->
@Athias
Religious people bear the BoP. Provide an argument against this statement.The burden of proof rests with whoever affirms. So, if one were to affirm the existence of God (i.e. "God does exist") then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation. If one were to affirm the nonexistence of God (i.e. "God does not exist") then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would also bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation.The notion that Atheists merely bear no burden of proof because of the prevailing notion "we don't have to prove a negative" is nonsense.
When it comes to the existence of God, man doesn't have a place to affirm or disaffirm. The reason is that saying God exists or does not exist isn't an independent claim, but a responsive one.
-->
@zedvictor4
Theists will always try and shift the B.O.P. because they have no actual proof of their claim.So you're right...Theists make the claim....It's their B.O.P.Atheists cannot disprove something that theists cannot prove.
Then don't argue from ignorance and use the failure to provide information to the effect of God's existence as information for its inverse argument. That is logically inconsistent.
And if theists could actually prove the existence of their specific GOD....Then rational thinkers would cease to be atheists.
Is it "rational" to employ a No True Scotsman fallacy?
-->
@Lit
When it comes to the existence of God, man doesn't have a place to affirm or disaffirm. The reason is that saying God exists or does not exist isn't an independent claim, but a responsive one.
Man does have a place to affirm or negate. And independent claims, which I presume you mean to mirror "objective" claims are irrational. So is the affirmation of nonexistence.
-->
@zedvictor4
Atheists do not make claims, and so have nothing to prove.
Yes you do. I wouldn't presume to say all of you, but some (if most) of you do.
Theists claim that specific GODS exist.
(Some) Atheists claim that specific GODS DO NOT exist.
Atheists do not claim that GODS do not exist....
That is a lie.
.All that atheists require is for you to unequivocally substantiate your claim.....
This is also a lie. I cannot speak for all atheists. But I can speak to my experience broaching this subject with you. You don't require unequivocal substantiation. You require a presentation of a material nature, and a reproduction of the supernatural feats mentioned in the Bible.
And then we can all be true believers together.
The fact that your contention centers on "belief" makes methinks that thou doth protest too much.
-->
@Athias
When it comes to the existence of God, man doesn't have a place to affirm or disaffirm. The reason is that saying God exists or does not exist isn't an independent claim, but a responsive one.Man does have a place to affirm or negate. And independent claims, which I presume you mean to mirror "objective" claims are irrational. So is the affirmation of nonexistence.
Yes, you're right. I tripped up. Put prove and disprove in place of affirm and disaffirm in my post, because it being a responsive act would necessitate these two actions.
An independent claim would be an invention by man and showing it to those who don't know it exists. This is independent and separate from man. A person doesn't independently say God exists because it is based off a stirring in the conscience. Similarly, a person cannot deem themselves to say God doesn't exist unless there are reasons which touch the conscience to reject. This is responsive.
For example, saying the apparent order of the universe credits the existence of God is based off a stirring in the human conscience because we perceive order.
-->
@zedvictor4
Atheists do not make claims, and so have nothing to prove.
Baloney, they make claims all the time.... being an atheist consequently means your refusal to accept that God or gods exist. Of course, you don't have to "prove" that but here in a forum tailored for religious and Theistic debate you have to provide reason you don't accept it. So why don't you accept the existence of God? there must be some sort of reasoning no?
Theists claim that specific GODS exist.
Theists believe in the existence of God and have reasons for doing so. Atheists reject (disbelieve) the existence of God and have reasons for doing so, don't be silly.
Atheists do not claim that GODS do not exist.....
They do all the time, where have you been? not only that but claim and think they can show it as well.
All that atheists require is for you to unequivocally substantiate your claim.....And then we can all be true believers together.
Lol cute, atheism is to disbelieve in the existence of God or gods. To disbelieve something, you must show what it is that has convinced you of disbelieving. If you refuse to accept the existence of God, or reject Theistic claims you must have reason for doing so, to be an atheist one must have a counter position. If you have a stance that God does not exist, you have to provide good reason for believing that.
Theists could sit back and say nothing, and wait for atheists to show and give reasons for why they insist God does not exist. Or why they disbelieve. I love how atheists pretend that both "disbelieve", and "in the existence of God or gods" is not in the definition of an atheist lol. Even if you claim you lack a belief, you still lack a belief in the existence of God, why?
Even if you were to take the easy route and claim there is no good evidence to accept it, you would still have to account for all the evidence that points to it, that indicates the human experience goes well beyond an atheists worldview. Having no good evidence to accept it, must mean you have good evidence to reject it.
It's not a Chicken and Egg scenario.
Yes is it actually, I say yes you say no. But there is a middle ground between theism and a-theism. Atheism is not some default position and don't pretend that it is. It is a term used in association that directly opposes theism. Otherwise the term has no meaning. Atheism is not a lack of beliefs, it specifically refers to Gods existence. So if you lack belief in Gods existence you must have a reason why. Once you have a reason why, you have a position.
But we know you could say you are agnostic concerning the proposition.
-->
@Athias
That's a generally accurate standard, but there is a level of nuance I think from topic to topic that it doesn't account for. For example, topics related to positive good fit your standard. If we argue that there is a positive good to installing a 5G network in the United States, then the negative does not bear BoP and can simply say "I see no evidence of the affirmative" if we do not substantiate the claim with evidence that proves a positive good without reasonable doubt. Likewise, If we argue that there is a negative effect of 5G, then the negative could say "I see no evidence of the affirmative" and win if we do not substantiate our claim with evidence that proves a negative effect without reasonable doubt.
But with topics related to the existence or non-existence of something, I feel the BoP naturally lies on the person making the claim that the thing exists to prove beyond reasonable doubt it does or doesn't exist. This doesn't mean that what you say here isn't true:
"If one were to affirm the nonexistence of God (i.e. "God does not exist") then the one who affirmed the aforementioned would also bear the onus to substantiate said affirmation."
This is true. But "substantiating an affirmation" does not translate to having the BoP of proving that God doesn't exist beyond a reasonable doubt. "Substantiating the affirmation" could just as easily be the athiest arguing they only have to prove that there is no substantial evidence for God's existence because a belief in something with no evidence is a fallacy in of itself.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Why don't you believe in big foot ?
How did ya figure out that you don't believe in big foots.?
How did ya figure out that you don't believe in big foots.?
-->
@MisterChris
But with topics related to the existence or non-existence of something, I feel the BoP naturally lies on the person making the claim that the thing exists to prove beyond reasonable doubt it does or doesn't exist.
I don't think anyone is denying that. The point is to show the counter position, not a neutral position. Atheism is not a neutral position, it is directly a counter position to theism. If I say God exists I need to show why I think that, if an atheists say no, God does not exist or probably does not exist they need to show why they believe that. Note you said to "prove it does OR doesn't exist". Both are positions.
If you said I still believe Santa Clause exists I would say give me reason why, if I said Santa does not exist I would have to provide a good reason why I have offered a counter position.
BOP isn't always about proving something, but offering the reasoning behind a position. If there is a counter position, then there is also a shared BOP.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Why don't you believe in big foot ?
Never said I didn't, there is sufficient reason to consider the amount of testimonials. However, since I have no official experience with Bigfoot (unlike I do with spirituality) I cannot take a position, OR a counter position.
How did ya figure out that you don't believe in big foots.?
Did I make that claim? lol
-->
@Juice
This is the Table Metaphor for a Rational Conversation. (TTMFARC)
Imagine if you will, two people in a room.
They both bring with them a table with some number of legs.
The first person says, here's my table, it has six legs, please let me know if you see any problems.
The second person says, here's my table, it has nine legs, please let me know if you see any problems.
The two people then examine the tables and if there's a structural problem with one of the legs, they point out the problem and give the other a chance to modify or repair the flaws.
If a leg is fundamentally flawed it must be removed from that table.
If either table has fewer than three legs, it can no longer function as a table and that person will have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a (possibly similar) but better table.
Perhaps both tables will stand, and perhaps both tables will fall.
However, if one table stands and the other falls, there is absolutely no obligation for the person with the fallen table to adopt the design of the table that didn't fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, imagine that one of the two people decides to employ an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Person (a) says, here's my table and it has seven legs.
Person (b) says, I don't like any of those legs because they look strange and you smell bad (ad hominem).
Person (a) says, perhaps they look a little strange to you, but they do a perfectly good job of holding up my table, can you please explain, if you believe they don't support my table, what specific -structural-problem- can you identify?
Person (b) refuses to answer this question and instead says, my table is better and therefore your table is wrong (bald assertion, argumentum ad lapidem, false dichotomy).
Person (a) says, what table are you talking about, you haven't shown me your table. AND more to the point, even if your table is "perfect" it does not make my table "wrong". You still need to explain any structural flaws you are able to identify.
Person (b) says, well, it's difficult to describe my table but it is waaaay better than yours, so yours is wrong. I saw a table like your once and it was so dangerous it fell over and killed a bunch of people and made babies cry. (false dichotomy, emotional appeal, bald assertion, strawman, affirming the consequent, and argumentum ad baculum).
Person (a) says, that's not really how this works. You have to show me your table.
Person (b) says, my table is round and has like nine million legs (bald assertion).
Person (a) says, can you be a little more specific?
Person (b) says, YOU CAN'T PROVE MY TABLE IS WRONG (argumentum ad ignorantiam).
Person (a) says, what table are you talking about? It is obviously impossible for me to point out structural flaws in a table that either doesn't exist or that you refuse to show to me or that you only explain in ridiculously vague terms.
Person (b) says, I can't be bothered to show you my table because you could never understand it (ad hominem, argumentum ad ignorantiam).
Person (a) says, if you can't (or won't) show me your table and at least three legs, I think this conversation is over.
-->
@EtrnlVw
BOP isn't always about proving something, but offering the reasoning behind a position. If there is a counter position, then there is also a shared BOP.
I agree with the first statement 100%, but the notion of shared BoP varies from topic to topic (and resolution to resolution).
Again, with topics related to positive good there is no shared BoP. With these topics, BoP lies on the person making the claim like Athias said. I think with the God topic, though, if the resolution is positing that God does not exist, then there is some shared BoP inherent to the resolution. But if the resolution is positing that God exists, then the BoP lies solely with the affirmative.
Really, most of these things have to be interpreted on a case by case basis imo.
-->
@MisterChris
belief in something with no evidence
Do you know anyone who does that? if evidence is defined as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
If we are in a debate forum, most likely there's going to be reasons for beliefs that indicate to the person something is true.
And if an atheist takes the position that God does not exist, most likely there is some reason that indicates to them to refuse such a proposition. If they have reason, then they have a position that needs substantiation.
-->
@MisterChris
But if the resolution is positing that God exists, then the BoP lies solely with the affirmative.
Of course, again, I don't think anyone has denied that. But once a counter position is offered (atheism)....someone says that God does not exist, then there is a shared BOP.
There's two positions with one being in the middle. God exists, God does not exist and I just don't know either way. Atheism is not defined as not knowing something. Perhaps there are more agnostics that are atheists they just don't know it lol. Atheism is a counter position to theism, both share a BOP.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Hmmm, I suppose I misunderstood what you said initially. If we expand the definition of BoP to "providing a reason for your position" then even saying "I see no evidence of this, PRO/CON must prove that there is evidence of it" is a reason and all topics carry an element of shared BoP.
Not sure if I agree with it, I'll need to think on that. It's an interesting idea