Burden of Proof

Some definitions:


"Proposition" A statement of fact, such as "Nature is real" "There is no divine" "Obama was not born in the USA." "Toyotas last longer than any other make of car." "Japan bombed Pearl Harbor." These are propositions, these have a burden of proof.

Belief. Something regarded, assumed, held as real, true, valid, reliable. But without necessarily having PROOF (especially not absolute, objective proof of a totally non-circular nature and in the philosophical sense. And yet such should not be nonsensical, sometimes this is associated with the admittedly very loose epistemology of "reasonable but not provable." Often it is based on some assumption (for example, that the Bible is true) and thus have a circular or assumptive nature. "I BELIEVE Obama was born in Hawaii" is a belief, not a proposition.

Faith. Reliance, trust in what is believed or a proposition known. Faith might be revealed by drinking a glass of water believed to be safe.


1. Some (Atheists and Naturalists might be examples) tend to insist on absolute, objective, non-circular PROOF for positions. I generally find that the more one insists upon this for OTHERS, the more they tend to dodge it for themselves. And I've had Atheists disallow a Theist from using anything remotely regarded as "unnatural" or "supernatural" to evidence the supernatural.... but then provide evidence for the natural by using the natural - the very thing they mocked as disallowed.


2. Others (Theists, for example) tend to admit that their position is primarily a belief. They may be able to evidence it via some rule THEY accept as normative (the Christian Bible for example) but not by something absolutely objective and non-circular and non-assumptive. We may conclude some believes appear more credible than others - but none are proven true or false in any absolute sense.


3. ALL people have beliefs and faith in them. We could not take a breath of air or drink a glass of water otherwise. Obviously, no one would drive or ride in a car or board a plane or cross the street. To mock belief or faith per se is to support that kind of radical, pan-paranoia. To deny that we have BELIEFS and FAITH is simply to admit we suffer from very radical, extreme paranoia. No. We all are people of belief..... we all walk by faith.


4. It is humbling (if frustrating) to realize that actually.... in an "uber" absolute, objective sense..... nothing can be PROVEN. "We" could be nothing but a program running on some game machine on Mars.... NONE of this, NONE of us may exist - at all. Not even Mars or that computer or that program. Humbling..... but not too helpful, lol. Just keep it in mind when there's a demand for PROOF. In debate (and in most disciplines) there is an acceptance that something should be evidenced (I didn't say proven!) TO THE LEVEL CLAIMED. "Life on Mars is possible." "Life on Mars is probable." "Life on Mars exists" are three very, very different statements (also if moved to beliefs by adding "I believe" in front of each). In Theology, we often classify teachings as "pious opinion" "tradition" "official teaching" "doctrine" "dogma" "de fide dogma" all to indicate the LEVEL of claim. In theology, the "evidence" we look for is to "match" the level of the claim - thus often the STATUS is more an issue than the actual pov.


5. In usual, informal speech, these terms often are (unfortunately) used loosely. People often do state things as propositions that they actually admit are beliefs. While this can lead to misunderstandings, it doesn't per se indicate deception. But it's often helpful to be clear how we are presenting this.


6. IMO, intellectual honesty and personal integrity typically involves two things in this context: A. The admission that absolute, objective, non-circular PROOF simply doesn't exist (for anything) and so it is impractical and nonsensical to demand such (particularly of the other while exempting only self). What we're actually talking about what is SUFFICIENT support for the REASONED conclusion of the one supporting it (and yes, that may include SOME aspect of assumption, SOME aspect of circular reasoning). B. Embrace a "level playing field." Don't demand of the other what you yourself cannot produce. For example, don't ask the Theist to PROVE the supernatural without anything supernatural or assuming anything about the supernatural when you can't PROVE the natural without anything natural or any assumptions about the natural. If one side insists it must STATE that in the words of the Bible, a "level playing field" would mandate the same can be said of me and any equal point I make. Or if I allow me to quote my denomination as evidence that a view is right, a "level playing field" mandates I allow another to quote his/her denomination as evidence that his/her view is right.



Now, here's PARTLY what motivates this thread. I got so sick of Atheist ranting on and on at CHRISTIAN websites about how there is no god, and people who belief there is are stupid, ignorant, unthinking, childish, of low IQ and obviously MUST also tech the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. I've been mocked, ridiculed, told I had a psychological disease, and obviously had no education and a low IQ.... And I've been told I must present PROOF - objective, absolute, non-assumptive, non-circular PROOF for this "God" and Easter Bunny or admit I'm just being silly, and this PROOF can ONLY involve the natural, never anything supernatural and can ONLY involved what the Atheist regards as relible and normative, not what I do. Yet, if I say "Likewise, prove that only the natural exists - without anything natural in your evidence" well....

I'm not a relativist. I'm not a minimalist. I simply think that discussions should be intellectually honest and (as much as is possible) with a level playing field and the realization that ultimately, we are ALL people of beliefs, we ALL walk by faith. Just keeps it intellectually honest.... real. And maybe humble. Did anyone read this, lol?



- Josiah

Josiah said:

Some definitions:


"Proposition" A statement of fact, such as "Nature is real" "There is no divine" "Obama was not born in the USA." "Toyotas last longer than any other make of car." "Japan bombed Pearl Harbor." These are propositions, these have a burden of proof.

Belief. Something regarded, assumed, held as real, true, valid, reliable. But without necessarily having PROOF (especially not absolute, objective proof of a totally non-circular nature and in the philosophical sense. And yet such should not be nonsensical, sometimes this is associated with the admittedly very loose epistemology of "reasonable but not provable." Often it is based on some assumption (for example, that the Bible is true) and thus have a circular or assumptive nature. "I BELIEVE Obama was born in Hawaii" is a belief, not a proposition.

Faith. Reliance, trust in what is believed or a proposition known. Faith might be revealed by drinking a glass of water believed to be safe.


1. Some (Atheists and Naturalists might be examples) tend to insist on absolute, objective, non-circular PROOF for positions. I generally find that the more one insists upon this for OTHERS, the more they tend to dodge it for themselves. And I've had Atheists disallow a Theist from using anything remotely regarded as "unnatural" or "supernatural" to evidence the supernatural.... but then provide evidence for the natural by using the natural - the very thing they mocked as disallowed.


2. Others (Theists, for example) tend to admit that their position is primarily a belief. They may be able to evidence it via some rule THEY accept as normative (the Christian Bible for example) but not by something absolutely objective and non-circular and non-assumptive. We may conclude some believes appear more credible than others - but none are proven true or false in any absolute sense.


3. ALL people have beliefs and faith in them. We could not take a breath of air or drink a glass of water otherwise. Obviously, no one would drive or ride in a car or board a plane or cross the street. To mock belief or faith per se is to support that kind of radical, pan-paranoia. To deny that we have BELIEFS and FAITH is simply to admit we suffer from very radical, extreme paranoia. No. We all are people of belief..... we all walk by faith.


4. It is humbling (if frustrating) to realize that actually.... in an "uber" absolute, objective sense..... nothing can be PROVEN. "We" could be nothing but a program running on some game machine on Mars.... NONE of this, NONE of us may exist - at all. Not even Mars or that computer or that program. Humbling..... but not too helpful, lol. Just keep it in mind when there's a demand for PROOF. In debate (and in most disciplines) there is an acceptance that something should be evidenced (I didn't say proven!) TO THE LEVEL CLAIMED. "Life on Mars is possible." "Life on Mars is probable." "Life on Mars exists" are three very, very different statements (also if moved to beliefs by adding "I believe" in front of each). In Theology, we often classify teachings as "pious opinion" "tradition" "official teaching" "doctrine" "dogma" "de fide dogma" all to indicate the LEVEL of claim. In theology, the "evidence" we look for is to "match" the level of the claim - thus often the STATUS is more an issue than the actual pov.


5. In usual, informal speech, these terms often are (unfortunately) used loosely. People often do state things as propositions that they actually admit are beliefs. While this can lead to misunderstandings, it doesn't per se indicate deception. But it's often helpful to be clear how we are presenting this.


6. IMO, intellectual honesty and personal integrity typically involves two things in this context: A. The admission that absolute, objective, non-circular PROOF simply doesn't exist (for anything) and so it is impractical and nonsensical to demand such (particularly of the other while exempting only self). What we're actually talking about what is SUFFICIENT support for the REASONED conclusion of the one supporting it (and yes, that may include SOME aspect of assumption, SOME aspect of circular reasoning). B. Embrace a "level playing field." Don't demand of the other what you yourself cannot produce. For example, don't ask the Theist to PROVE the supernatural without anything supernatural or assuming anything about the supernatural when you can't PROVE the natural without anything natural or any assumptions about the natural. If one side insists it must STATE that in the words of the Bible, a "level playing field" would mandate the same can be said of me and any equal point I make. Or if I allow me to quote my denomination as evidence that a view is right, a "level playing field" mandates I allow another to quote his/her denomination as evidence that his/her view is right.



Now, here's PARTLY what motivates this thread. I got so sick of Atheist ranting on and on at CHRISTIAN websites about how there is no god, and people who belief there is are stupid, ignorant, unthinking, childish, of low IQ and obviously MUST also tech the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. I've been mocked, ridiculed, told I had a psychological disease, and obviously had no education and a low IQ.... And I've been told I must present PROOF - objective, absolute, non-assumptive, non-circular PROOF for this "God" and Easter Bunny or admit I'm just being silly, and this PROOF can ONLY involve the natural, never anything supernatural and can ONLY involved what the Atheist regards as relible and normative, not what I do. Yet, if I say "Likewise, prove that only the natural exists - without anything natural in your evidence" well....

I'm not a relativist. I'm not a minimalist. I simply think that discussions should be intellectually honest and (as much as is possible) with a level playing field and the realization that ultimately, we are ALL people of beliefs, we ALL walk by faith. Just keeps it intellectually honest.... real. And maybe humble. Did anyone read this, lol?



- Josiah

Click to expand...

Thank you Rens, popsthebuilder and Lammchen for the thumbs up.....



- Josiah

MarkFL said:

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim

Click to expand...

Well, the proposition (not claim). Such as "There is no supernatural." That's a proposition, that of Atheism.

The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever

Click to expand...

True.... as in the Atheists inability to disprove the supernatural.

Of course, the opposite is also the case. I can't prove there is life anywhere but on the planet Earth but that doesn't disprove that there is.

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.

Click to expand...

The "burden of proof" is the obligation of the one presenting a proposition to present SUFFICIENT warrant for such. Not to prove it in some absolute, objective manner - with no assumptions and nothing circular. Again, friend, try proving you exist.

And the "burden of proof" applies to PROPOSITION, not to beliefs. Although, yet again, beliefs should be credible, reasonable.

And it's NOT the "burden" of anyone to present something IRREFUTABLE that has no other possibility than to cause full assent. What is "sufficient" is.... well..... pretty subjective in many cases.



Of course, we all have beliefs (at the most fundamental level) and we all have faith (well, if you are breathing, etc.). Some are examined..... some not. I don't really disagree fundamentally with your points, only that you seem to exempt yourself from all of them: I think you've been pointing one figure at others (always with Theists especially in mind) while very skillfully evading that you're also pointing a figure at you (and yes, typically Atheists). And while you keep talking about PROOF, this seems to apply only to that which you don't regard as real ("Natural" whatever that is - you've dodged proving such or even defining such). Friend, there is no PROOF in the way you'd like others to have. And friend, we ALL have beliefs.... we ALL have faith. Not always the same beliefs or same faiths, of course. And they would not be beliefs if they had the absolute, objective, nonassumptive PROOF of which you insist for others.



Continues.....




.

.... continuing from post 6

When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim

Click to expand...

And of course if that party raises an alternative position (such as "there is no divine") he/she would have an equal burden of proof - otherwise, we have a double standard, an "uneven playing field." And obviously, seeking confirmation is not the same thing as the proposition "That's WRONG!"


And of course, such "proof" would never be absolute.... but rather regarded by the holder as sufficient. And of course, it would be nonsense and an "uneven playing field" and unequal epistemology to mandate that the person substantiate the position via a means making it impossible, such as an Atheist who holds that only the natural exists (whatever that is) and thus only the natural can be used as evidence to prove the supernatural. That would be utterly absurd. And yet, I seem to recall a poster here at CH who made that demand to me and others here...

An argument from ignorance 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.

Click to expand...

You evade the point?

I believe (note: we now are speaking of beliefs, not propositions..... beliefs should be reasonable but don't have a burden of proof) that life (at least in a very broad sense) at least at one time existed on Mars. Now, if that were a proposition, it has a pretty low burden of proof... but it's not a proposition, it's a belief. I would argue it's REASONABLE although I'd also admit I have NOTHING - absolutely nothing of any nature (natural or otherwise) to support it - absolutely no evidence whatsoever, zero, nada, zip. And yet - I think you might agree with my BELIEF (not proposition) that life in sense at least once existed on Mars is reasonable IN SPITE OF having NO evidence whatsoever for it. A BELIEF with zero evidence..... possibly quite reasonable. And IF (not so, but run with me here, lol) I dedicated my whole career to trying to show that life exists or existed on Mars - I would thus be a person of enormous FAITH in my BELIEF - because I'm acting on it, my thoughts and attitudes and actions flow from my belief. Which...... um....... has ZERO evidence of ANY kind (valid or otherwise) to support it. Oh, I could post the movie War of the Wars to you but we'd both agree that's not really substantiation. Mark, we are all believers...... we all walk with faith......


This "proof" thing is not as simplistic as you would have all others but you accept...... all others provide but you (STILL waiting for you to prove that the natural exists - after you define exactly what you mean by that - with NO assumptions and with NO circular arguments so NOTHING "natural" used in or by in the evidence).

This has the effect of illegitimately attempting to shift the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition

Click to expand...

No. Seeking "proof" is one thing, stating a proposition and insisting it is exempt from such proof is what is illegitimate and not intellectually honest.

In another thread, I gave an example of the number of grains of sand in the Sahara desert to illustrate the burden of proof. The number of grains 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:

• The number of grains is even.
• The number of grains is odd.

Either claim could be explored separately; however, the two claims are intimately related, since the number of grains is even if and only if it is not odd. Odd in this case means "not even" and could be described as a negative claim. Before we have any information about the number of grains, 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. If there is a claim proposed and that claim is disputed, the burden of proof falls onto the proponent of the claim.

The burden of proof is often abused in rhetoric and arguments. Often, someone will present a new idea and say that it must be accepted because it cannot be disproved. This is insufficient because without evidence there is no reason to accept an idea, even if there is no contrary evidence. One example is that of a simulated reality, which proposes that the human race does indeed live in The Matrix and we are a computer simulation. There is no evidence against this idea, in fact, it may be impossible to fully disprove, but as there is no real evidence for it there is no reason to accept the idea as real. Another famous example is the teapot proposed by Bertrand Russell, the existence of which cannot be disproved.

Click to expand...

Then why should we accept the proposition that there is no divine because it's not been proven?


It is intellectually dishonest to state the proposition: "The number of grains is NOT odd and I hold no position on whether the number of grains is odd or even, I'm neutral, both are possible - neither is being denied or affirmed." One could be an agnostic (holding no position) and conclude "there is insufficient evidence to convince me the number is odd" but then one could not proclaim the proposition that "the number is not odd." That's illogical, it's a contradiction, it's nonsensical - and we'd wonder why an otherwise intelligent person would take such an absurd position - perhaps so that they would BOTH insist the number is not odd AND dodge any "burden of proof" for their proposition? To have it both ways - while denying the same to others? That's what @ Tigger ; theorized and you seemed to affirm. Is that intellectually honest? Is that integrity? Is that AT BEST intentionally confusing but more likely just a ploy?


TRUE, if the one simply said, "The number of grains of sand is NOT odd" - that would be a proposition, and the "burden of proof" would like with that one. But again, absolute, objective PROOF with no assumptions and nothing circular is not possible (for anything), what should exist is evidence that is sufficiently convincing (at least to the holder - of course, it may not be to others).


And it is intellectually dishonest (and nonsensical) to create a mandate of evidence that creates an impossibility. For example, when Atheists should to Theists that we must present evidence for the supernatural that excludes anything supernatural, excludes any assumptions, excludes anything regarded as circular. That's like the person shouting, "Okay, PROVE the number of grainls of sands is EVEN and you can't use even numbers!" Or "PROVE there is life on Mars but you can't use any evidence on Mars or anything alive or once alive." Atheists do this as a matter of course. And when the "tables" are turned, "prove that natural exists and only natural exists" then run (if they are smart) or they do the very thing they just disallowed (if they are typical) - proving the absurdity of their epistemology and the double standard they insist on. I think you indicated that the reason a few Atheist invented this new position and "scripted" words of meaning is precisely so that they can use this double standard, this intellectual dishonesty, holding the Theist absolutely, objectively accountable for PROOF but they can pretend they are Agnostics rather than Atheists if they get back what they dish out.

In this thread, I offer what I think is a far more reasonable and traditional and practical approach than the two-sided, contradictory, illogical, nonsensical approach you've presented: Of holding propositions but exempting only those of self from this burden of proof. If one wants to be an Atheist - fine. Present that as a belief (perhaps in which you have faith) - that only needs to be credible (like my belief that life on Mars is or at least was likely), not proof. Or present it as a proposition (in which case, ACCEPT the SAME level and type of "proof" that you'd accept and you use)..... It's called honesty, integrity, fairness.


And yup, we ALL have beliefs...... we ALL walk by faith.


Again, I'm not so much disagreeing with you Mark - just noting the same applies to you.






- Josiah

MoreCoffee said:

Try as you might to shift responsibility on to Mark you have failed. Your arguments rely on authority and misconceptions about Mark's refusal to accept your claims.

Click to expand...

The only "claims" I've made in this and the related thread are:

1. We all have beliefs and faith (as defined again in the opening post of this thread).
2. The "proof" that some demand is in reality not possible
3. There should be a "level playing field."

I've not witnessed our friend Mark disagree or reject any of my "claims." I've noted that observation on my part and he has not once disagreed with it. Odd you would.



As for #1:

While our friend has very skillfully and persistently "dodged" this point, I think he has affirmed it simply because he's always evaded the many requests made for him to "prove" that the only reality he propositions as true ("nature" "natural") be proven as such. He's stated his proposition but never even attempted to verify it - not even an attempt. With anything. In any way. I think he very likely agrees that all of us (including him) have beliefs and that we tend to act accordingly (thus have faith in them). What I've said is I think this applies to him too.


As for # 2:

I've agreed that objective, absolute PROOF for the Proposition: "God is" is missing. Of course, it's missing for everything..... including Mark's proposition that "nature" is what is (and nothing else). Again, I think his very skillful and persistent avoidance in offering ANYTHING of ANY type or level for his proposition reveals that, although he is very careful to not admit it, he actually agrees with my "claim" (as you put it).


As for # 3:

I'm only stated that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Here's where all of the "disagreement" has come. I think it is "intellectually honest" to extend to others what you yourself desire/demand/need. If one is going to hold up some proposition not held to PROOF of an objective, absolute nature - then one should welcome such in reverse. If one is going to say that propositions of OTHERS have a burden of proof, then their proposition do too (none of this dodging back and forth to agnosticism). If one holds that their positions only require what self regards as conclusive evidence, then they should not mock others for doing the same thing. Nearly the entirely of this thread is about this point: MoreCoffee, you claim he disagrees with me on this. And I think you are probably correct.




While I've not encountered many Atheists (I think they are a very tiny group), I have encountered - very consistently since I was maybe 10 years old - their wrath, their anger, their hatred, their bitter mockery.... and above all, their INSISTENCE that I PROVE - to an absolute - using only objective, non-assumptive evidence using nothing circular and with nothing supernatural because the supernatural doesn't exist. Of course, I cannot. NOR NEED I . But when any Theist turns the table, and asks for a "level playing field" they suddenly either just get even more angry or turn up the mockery even more, or suddenly shout, "BUT I'm an agnostic - just one who claims there is no God - and agnostics have no burden of proof." I've decried that (but Mark has never indicated he agrees with me there, he's always evaded and ignored that point). MoreCoffee, I'm not sure you've read any of my posts on this, but I've point out repeatedly I don't really disagree with Mark's points - I only want him to CONSIDER that it applies to him too. Equally. THAT request I've made repeatedly. It's always been ignored, evaded, dodged.

Josiah said:

I simply think that discussions should be intellectually honest and (as much as is possible) with a level playing field and the realization that ultimately, we are ALL people of beliefs, we ALL walk by faith. Just keeps it intellectually honest.... real. And maybe humble. Did anyone read this, lol?

.

Click to expand...

It seems you didn't, MoreCoffee?

Rens, popsthebuilder, Lämmchen all read it - and publicly, officially "Liked" it.

I invite you to read the opening post, MoreCoffee. Then review the bottom line summery that I quoted here for you. IF there's something in it you want to discuss, quote it and supply your points and questions. If you disagree with something in it, QUOTE it and state why you disagree.

MarkFL said:

Yes, the persistent stumbling block of the OP is the failure to understand that atheism is not the claim that God/gods do not exist, but rather the simple rejection of the claim of existence. I suspect this failure arises solely from the intellectually dishonest intent to put the burden of proof where it doesn't belong.

Click to expand...

In the past few days, I've learned that in 1888, some Atheist (otherwise inconsequental) had a felt need to "STRIP" the word of meaning - in order to make it seem more like Agnosticism. And since then, some other Atheists have jumped on that "stripped" bandwagon for that reasons. And I think you suggested this is so that the Atheist position could dodge the burden of proof issue. But I note you've also "dodged" any aspect of Atheism - including your position that the "natural" is what rather, instead is "real" and exclusively so. If I need to PROVE that the supernatural exists (absolutely - using nothing supernatural for evidence, using no assumptions, using nothing of a circular nature), why don't you need to equally "PROVE" that the "natural" exists and only that? For just ONE of the many such points I've raised but it seems to me you have entirely avoided.....

And Mark, again, I AGREE with you, it's extremely hard to discuss anything when everything can be "stripped" and redefined as we go..... hard to hit a moving target, lol. But again, Tigger theorized the WHY of the shell game, the "stripping", the whole justification for this new, 4th position of ATHEIST/AGNOSTIC. Interestingly, you ignored it entirely (in spite of my efforts to get a reply from you) but eventually you affirmed it: So that the burden of proof can work only one way. I think you are just trying to play some semantic gymnastics here - and I don't think YOU necessarily have the same intent as the inventors of this some 130 years ago (although again, you said it was all about using that term ATHEIST - and you said it's unstripped meaning - while being able to dodge proof by running over to the AGNOSTIC label). I suspect it's more than a silly word game created by 'stripping' words of meaning, I think it has the intent you indicated. Well, I TRIED to suggest we should have fairness, a level playing field - and you never seemed to consider anything. I think you made solid, valid (even important points) - just failed to apply them equally to yourself. And I've been calling for a "level playing field". Knowing you just a bit, I've been more than surprised that you've been so negative to my posts on this but I've given up trying to consider why. I hope this has not been a total waste to time, LOL.


Best to you, Mark.





- Josiah




.