Cosmos on Fox & NGC

[RD2191]

Prove that we came from a fish.

[xmas1997]

To wit:

The Philosophical Burden of Proof

Most discussions about the existence of God are not scientific ones. They may involve observations about the universe and things that science studies (e.g., order, design, etc.).

However, they also involve premises that cannot be verified scientifically.

Many of them involve premises of a philosophical nature, and so the discussion of God’s existence is often regarded as a philosophical matter rather than a scientific one.

Who holds the burden of proof in philosophy?

As in science, it’s whoever is making a claim.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re:

* asserting the existence or non-existence of Plato’s Forms,
* claiming the truth or falsity of a particular view of epistemology, or
*asserting that moral judgments are just expressions of emotion or something else.

The principle remains the same: The burden is on you to argue for your own claims.

Philosophy may use a different method than science, but its assignation of the burden of proof is the same.

[SnakeBoy]

I mean emotionally, I need to be at peace with myself, accept my peers, and respect them.

Well just look into the mirror more closely.

Try stripping yourself of lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy & pride. Then look deep into the mirror. Then ask yourself ...what's in the box.

[Bito Corleone]

You can believe your fairy tales and your make-believe stuff all you want to, but it still won't make you right about this.

Oh, the irony...

[xmas1997]

I ain't said incorrect. Sorry.

It doesn't matter who says what first or second or what ever. The requirement for proof is not ordinal, and I would challenge you support that.

I haven't claimed God doesn't exist, nor would I. Not a burden of proof I would venture to accept, as it would seem to require some pretty iron-clad proof.

It is far easier to simply point out, yet again, that believers have not met any reasonable burden in proving the existence of a god, or their preferred God.

And it could just as equally be said the same for non-believers supporting their claims of non-existence of said Being.
We are going in circles on this subject.
My only contention had to do with "burden of proof" and who it was required of.
Whether or not you choose to believe or disbelieve is purely up to you, not me or anyone else.
It is an individual choice one makes based upon whatever criteria they have, had, and will have, no more and no less.
Thus I would never criticize someone for their own particular beliefs, simply because those beliefs are for the most part "subjective."

[xmas1997]

Or shall we talk about LEGAL burden of proof?
To wit:

The Legal Burden of Proof

In legal settings, the burden of proof is linked to the presumption of innocence.

In a criminal case, the defendant is presumed innocent until the prosecution shows otherwise. The prosecutor thus has the legal burden of proof.

The reasons for this are practical. History shows that if the defendant is not presumed innocent then, when the machinery of the state is pitted against an individual, tyranny results.

Many modern legal systems thus incorporate the presumption of innocence.

In fact, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states:

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.

This does not apply on Cardassia, however, where they apparently like tyranny.

[xmas1997]

Or since we are on the subject of science,
to wit:

The Scientific Burden of Proof

In the sciences, the burden of proof falls to the one proposing a hypothesis.

It doesn’t matter what the hypothesis is:

*If you want to propose that Particle X exists, the burden of proof falls to you.
*If you want to propose that Particle X does not exist, the burden again falls to you.

Either way, in science the person proposing a hypothesis needs to provide evidence for it by using the scientific method (i.e., making a prediction based on the hypothesis and then seeing whether the prediction is fulfilled when a test is run).

Only by doing this can the hypothesis be scientifically established (to the extent that anything can ever be scientifically established).

[Blake]

Nobody is making the direct claim that a god does not exist.

But a claim is being made that a god exists.

[RandomGuy]

You are completely wrong on this point.
And I showed you this the last time we had this discussion, but you were too dense to check it out for yourself to see that I was right.
I'm not going to bother schooling you again on philosophy, science, and/or theology because you are too hard headed ignorant and to learn anything.
My quote that I put in bold came directly from sources in the internet that are well accepted and the generally agreed upon consensus on the matter.
You can believe your fairy tales and your make-believe stuff all you want to, but it still won't make you right about this.

There is a philosophical burden of proof in certain contexts, yes.

I think, however, you are fundamentally misunderstanding what science and or atheists really put forth.

I would say though, the God depicted in the Bible is pretty much logically impossible, and even were it real, it would be evil and/or insane.

That I would be readily prepared to support, and have.

[RandomGuy]

Prove that we came from a fish.

Already done. Even were it presented to you simply and with solid mountains of evidence, you would reject it.

Why should I bother?

Does the truth matter, yes or no?

[RandomGuy]

To wit:

The Philosophical Burden of Proof

Most discussions about the existence of God are not scientific ones. They may involve observations about the universe and things that science studies (e.g., order, design, etc.).

However, they also involve premises that cannot be verified scientifically.

Many of them involve premises of a philosophical nature, and so the discussion of God’s existence is often regarded as a philosophical matter rather than a scientific one.

Who holds the burden of proof in philosophy?

As in science, it’s whoever is making a claim.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re:

* asserting the existence or non-existence of Plato’s Forms,
* claiming the truth or falsity of a particular view of epistemology, or
*asserting that moral judgments are just expressions of emotion or something else.

The principle remains the same: The burden is on you to argue for your own claims.

Philosophy may use a different method than science, but its assignation of the burden of proof is the same.

I don't see about an ordinal burden of proof here.

Next....

[RandomGuy]

Or shall we talk about LEGAL burden of proof?
To wit:

The Legal Burden of Proof

In legal settings, the burden of proof is linked to the presumption of innocence.

In a criminal case, the defendant is presumed innocent until the prosecution shows otherwise. The prosecutor thus has the legal burden of proof.

The reasons for this are practical. History shows that if the defendant is not presumed innocent then, when the machinery of the state is pitted against an individual, tyranny results.

Many modern legal systems thus incorporate the presumption of innocence.

In fact, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states:

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.

This does not apply on Cardassia, however, where they apparently like tyranny.

Again, all about an ordinal burden of proof.

Strike two.

[RandomGuy]

Or since we are on the subject of science,
to wit:

The Scientific Burden of Proof

In the sciences, the burden of proof falls to the one proposing a hypothesis.

It doesn’t matter what the hypothesis is:

*If you want to propose that Particle X exists, the burden of proof falls to you.
*If you want to propose that Particle X does not exist, the burden again falls to you.

Either way, in science the person proposing a hypothesis needs to provide evidence for it by using the scientific method (i.e., making a prediction based on the hypothesis and then seeing whether the prediction is fulfilled when a test is run).

Only by doing this can the hypothesis be scientifically established (to the extent that anything can ever be scientifically established).

Final fail.

You're out.

The claim that the burden of proof only rests on the first person making a claim is rejected.

Atheism is simply the rejection of a claim, nothing more, nothing less. It has no accepted burden of proof.

If someone really wants to go out on a limb and prove the non-existence of God that is their bidness, but not mine.

[xmas1997]

There is a philosophical burden of proof in certain contexts, yes.

I think, however, you are fundamentally misunderstanding what science and or atheists really put forth.

I would say though, the God depicted in the Bible is pretty much logically impossible, and even were it real, it would be evil and/or insane.

That I would be readily prepared to support, and have.

And for the most part, I would logically have to agree with you.
However, this does not change my faith that a loving giving God indeed exists.
My own experience on this living on this planet makes it the epitome of ignorance to believe otherwise.
But I would never criticize you or anyone else for believing else wise.
That would be even more ignorant of me to do so.

[RD2191]

You have no proof, you simply posted links to old studies.

[RandomGuy]

And it could just as equally be said the same for non-believers supporting their claims of non-existence of said Being.
We are going in circles on this subject.
My only contention had to do with "burden of proof" and who it was required of.
Whether or not you choose to believe or disbelieve is purely up to you, not me or anyone else.
It is an individual choice one makes based upon whatever criteria they have, had, and will have, no more and no less.
Thus I would never criticize someone for their own particular beliefs, simply because those beliefs are for the most part "subjective."

We aren't.

I am simply rejecting a positive claim.

You are attempting to commit a strawman fallacy for something that I have not yet seen claimed by anyone here.

Are you trying for a strawman?

[Bito Corleone]

The burden of proof falls upon "the one making the initial claim in the first place."

What about the claim itself? Which actual claim do you think was made first? The claim that there is a God, or the claim that there isn't?

Most people who dispute the claim that there is a God don't flat out say that God doesn't exist, but rather point out that there is no concrete evidence to support the claim. People who claim that God exists offer no true supporting evidence, but do outright claim that the existence of God is real.

So where should the real burden of proof fall? On those who make a claim without evidence, or on those who dispute the claim because of lack of evidence?

[RandomGuy]

You have no proof, you simply posted links to old studies.

I have mountains of proof for evolution in multiple fields of science. The funnest, newest stuff is in genetics, with things predicted by the theory of evolution that have been fully borne out by the evidence we are discovering.

If you want evidence, get into some college level biology, physics, and chemistry classes.

You don't seem interested in learning the truth here, maybe if you have to s out some good money for it, you might take it a bit more seriously.

[Blake]

And for the most part, I would logically have to agree with you.
However, this does not change my faith that a loving giving God indeed exists.
My own experience on this living on this planet makes it the epitome of ignorance to believe otherwise.
But I would never criticize you or anyone else for believing else wise.
That would be even more ignorant of me to do so.

Neh. It's illogical to deduce that a loving god would put you on a planet filled with hunger, disease and death.

[RandomGuy]

And for the most part, I would logically have to agree with you.
However, this does not change my faith that a loving giving God indeed exists.
My own experience on this living on this planet makes it the epitome of ignorance to believe otherwise.
But I would never criticize you or anyone else for believing else wise.
That would be even more ignorant of me to do so.

Oh please, erase my ignorance.

What argument am I ignorant of, that supports the claim that a loving God exists?

[xmas1997]

Final fail.

You're out.

The claim that the burden of proof only rests on the first person making a claim is rejected.

Atheism is simply the rejection of a claim, nothing more, nothing less. It has no accepted burden of proof.

If someone really wants to go out on a limb and prove the non-existence of God that is their bidness, but not mine.

Obviously you have a lot to learn, otherwise you would not have made such an offhand ignorant claim.
I did not make this up.
This came from authorized sources that I got off the internet who are considered the authorities on the subject.
You may of course believe whatever you want such as your 2 + 2 = 5, but I will stick with the truth which basically is 2 + 2 = 4.
Your argument will never be true except maybe in some alternate bizarro universe.
I prefer to stick with the truth and not fantasy. And when it comes to "burden of proof", I have given you the accepted and authority backed definitions.
It is what it is, regardless of what you wish it was.
Sorry, you lose this argument convincingly.

I am not now, nor have I ever wasted time, arguing over the non-existence or existence of God.
It is what it is, and has nothing to do with "burden of proof" in general.

[Blake]

Obviously you have a lot to learn, otherwise you would not have made such an offhand ignorant claim.
I did not make this up.
This came from authorized sources that I got off the internet who are considered the authorities on the subject.
You may of course believe whatever you want such as your 2 + 2 = 5, but I will stick with the truth which basically is 2 + 2 = 4.
Your argument will never be true except maybe in some alternate bizarro universe.
I prefer to stick with the truth and not fantasy. And when it comes to "burden of proof", I have given you the accepted and authority backed definitions.
It is what it is, regardless of what you wish it was.
Sorry, you lose this argument convincingly.

Uh oh. You just asked for it.

[xmas1997]

Uh oh. You just asked for it.

I am not now, nor have I ever wasted time, arguing over the non-existence or existence of God.
It is what it is, and has nothing to do with "burden of proof" in general.

[xmas1997]

Uh oh. You just asked for it.

I asked for nothing except the acceptance of Truth.
This is more of your incessant trolling.

[xmas1997]

Oh please, erase my ignorance.

What argument am I ignorant of, that supports the claim that a loving God exists?

I would put the burden of proof on you for stating the non-existence of God in the first place.
I only stated what I believed, and my beliefs come from experience that is "subjective" and as I said since they are subjective they are not replicable scientifically or in any other way, they are based on faith.
You and others are welcome to criticize that all you want to, but it just makes you look really foolish to criticize someone based on that someones' subjective experience.
Get it now?