• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Burden of Proof

Status
Not open for further replies.

From the link:
Proving Non-Existence
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:
I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn’t.
If you can’t, X exists.
Example #1:
God exists. Until you can prove otherwise, I will continue to believe that he does.
Explanation: There are decent reasons to believe in the existence of God, but, “because the existence of God cannot be disproven”, is not one of them.
 
Burden of proof (law)

Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit

The burden of proof always lies with him who alleges.

https://openjurist.org/law-dictionary/semper-necessitas-probandi-incumbit-ei-qui-agit


Burden of proof (philosophy)

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes,
the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof
to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)



The burden of proof is on the one making the allegation

This is true in philosophy, in law, and in discourse generally

If you allege delusion, hoax, fraud, falsehood, etc.,

then the burden in the first instance falls on you to make the case

in support of your allegation

...
[/CENTER]

vs.

No, no one has to prove that God exists. No one can prove that God exists. Belief in God is a private and personal matter of faith. You get all up in my face and allege delusion or fraud or hoax or make-believe, etc, then the burden of proof is on you.

I knew it would turn out to be a meaningless and vapid thread. If you are exempting yourself from the burden you seek to lay on others, you have nothing to say. It's really that simple. That's Level 1 of the intellectual dishonesty in this thread.




Of course nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God. The concept puts itself necessarily beyond empirical proof or disproof. That's why devildavid is correct that the concept may be simply dismissed by someone without their having to follow the "burden of proof" rules that you refuse to follow yourself.

On one hand, you try to use the impossibility of proving God's existence to excuse yourself of the burden of proof. On the other hand, you are trying to place the equally impossible burden of disproving God's existence on everyone else.

Now that's some serious Second-Level intellectual dishonesty right there.
 
vs.



I knew it would turn out to be a meaningless and vapid thread. If you are exempting yourself from the burden you seek to lay on others, you have nothing to say. It's really that simple. That's Level 1 of the intellectual dishonesty in this thread.




Of course nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God. The concept puts itself necessarily beyond empirical proof or disproof. That's why devildavid is correct that the concept may be simply dismissed by someone without their having to follow the "burden of proof" rules that you refuse to follow yourself.

On one hand, you try to use the impossibility of proving God's existence to excuse yourself of the burden of proof. On the other hand, you are trying to place the equally impossible burden of disproving God's existence on everyone else.

Now that's some serious Second-Level intellectual dishonesty right there.
No, my intellectually honest friend, I am not making ANY CLAIM or ALLEGING anything in my Faith. It is a personal and private matter. You allege delusion, you show delusion.
 
More accurately the burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim.

John says X is not true.
Bob says X is true.

The burden of proof generally would fall on Bob since he is making the positive claim.
 
No, my intellectually honest friend, I am not making ANY CLAIM or ALLEGING anything in my Faith. It is a personal and private matter. You allege delusion, you show delusion.

More silly game playing.



God's existence cannot be proven or disproven. When someone dismisses serious belief in God's existence, they are not saying "God does not exist" yet that is what you are pretending they are all saying. They are instead dismissing the serious belief that something that cannot be proven or disproven in fact exists.

Belief despite lack of proof is literally what religious faith is, and it is that which is being dismissed.
 
The burden of proof does not apply to dismissing the make believe. It's those who make things up who face the burden of proof.

Anyone making any positive claim bears the burden of proof. Rejecting claims because they are unsupported does not require proof that they are false.
 
More accurately the burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim.

John says X is not true.
Bob says X is true.

The burden of proof generally would fall on Bob since he is making the positive claim.

Not necessarily. It would fall on both. A neutral claim would be "I don't believe you". If you are stating, either positively or negatively, that a position is true or false, then you have to back it up with evidence. A Christian claiming that Krishna isn't real would have to prove it. A Christian saying they don't believe or accept the claims of the Hindu regarding Krishna does not.
 
So, do you dispute my claim that the 'Tooth Fairy' exists? How about the Flibbertybob?

If you say that the tooth fairy exists, the burden of proof is on you to defend/support your claim.

Likewise if you say that the tooth fairy does not exist, the burden of proof is on you to defend/support your claim.

Think the trial re the existence of Santa Claus in "The Miracle on 34th Street". It is not always simple to do, but the burden of proof remains just the same.

There is a caveat in the argument presented in the OP however.

If I declare that I was visited by the Tooth Fairy (or Santa Claus) last night, and there is no physical evidence available to support my declaration, there is no proof possible and it is unreasonable to require proof. It is entirely a fallacious argument to assert that because I cannot prove it, that it didn't happen. It is an entirely fallacious argument to assert that because something cannot be proved legally or scientifically that it does not exist.
 
Not necessarily. It would fall on both. A neutral claim would be "I don't believe you". If you are stating, either positively or negatively, that a position is true or false, then you have to back it up with evidence. A Christian claiming that Krishna isn't real would have to prove it. A Christian saying they don't believe or accept the claims of the Hindu regarding Krishna does not.

I respectfully disagree. Otherwise you are requiring people to prove a negative, which is generally frowned upon in logic. At least that is one of the few things I recall from my Intro to Logic college class over 20 years ago. :)

I do agree with you if you just say you don’t believe something then you don’t have a burden of proof.
 
More silly game playing.



God's existence cannot be proven or disproven. When someone dismisses serious belief in God's existence, they are not saying "God does not exist" yet that is what you are pretending they are all saying. They are instead dismissing the serious belief that something that cannot be proven or disproven in fact exists.

Belief despite lack of proof is literally what religious faith is, and it is that which is being dismissed.
Listen to yourself, man.
Reread your post.
You conclude:
Belief despite lack of proof is literally what religious faith is, and it is that which is being dismissed.
But you fail to conclude:
Disbelief despite lack of disproof is literally what atheism is, and it is that which is dismissing.

I'm not pretending anything. I have my religious beliefs, and you're up in my face about them because you don't share those beliefs.

The existence of God is impossible of proof or disproof, but because you don't share my belief, I have to prove to you that God exists?

Don't you see how absurd that is?

Imagine, carrying on the law theme from the OP, that you brought suit in a court of law alleging that theism is a fraud. Which side has the burden of proof?
 
I respectfully disagree. Otherwise you are requiring people to prove a negative, which is generally frowned upon in logic. At least that is one of the few things I recall from my Intro to Logic college class over 20 years ago. :)

I do agree with you if you just say you don’t believe something then you don’t have a burden of proof.

They aren't arguing a negative, they are making a positive claim about a negative. They are saying that the non-existence of X is true. That is a positive claim. They bear the burden of proof. As I said, there is a difference between a positive claim (I believe X) and a neutral one (I don't believe Y). Saying that the non-existence of X is true is still making a claim. It is subject to the burden of proof.
 
Not necessarily. It would fall on both. A neutral claim would be "I don't believe you". If you are stating, either positively or negatively, that a position is true or false, then you have to back it up with evidence. A Christian claiming that Krishna isn't real would have to prove it. A Christian saying they don't believe or accept the claims of the Hindu regarding Krishna does not.

The onus is on Bob, who is making the positive claim. John is merely stating the default position. Until a case is positively made, then it's untrue.
 
More silly game playing.
God's existence cannot be proven or disproven. When someone dismisses serious belief in God's existence, they are not saying "God does not exist" yet that is what you are pretending they are all saying. They are instead dismissing the serious belief that something that cannot be proven or disproven in fact exists.

Belief despite lack of proof is literally what religious faith is, and it is that which is being dismissed.


Listen to yourself, man.
Reread your post.
You conclude:
But you fail to conclude:

I'm not pretending anything. I have my religious beliefs, and you're up in my face about them because you don't share those beliefs.

The existence of God is impossible of proof or disproof, but because you don't share my belief, I have to prove to you that God exists?

Don't you see how absurd that is?

Imagine, carrying on the law theme from the OP, that you brought suit in a court of law alleging that theism is a fraud. Which side has the burden of proof?



I said, at various points:

1. IF you claim God exists, THEN you have to prove God exists. You do not get to claim God exists and then say it's on everyone else to disprove God's existence.

2. You responded "no one has to prove that God exists. No one can prove that God exists", then demanded everyone else step up to disprove God's existence. So I responded by pointing out that just as nobody can prove God's existence, nobody can disprove God's existence. I first pointed out that you have no business demanding that other people prove their claims if you don't want to prove yours. I next pointed out how dishonest it was to say that you don't have to prove God's existence because it's impossible, but that someone else has a burden to disprove it despite its being impossible.

3. You then moved the goal-posts by saying you aren't making any claims or alleging anything, you just have this "faith" that is apparently beyond question. I shot down the argument on the new field of battle by pointing out that when someone dismisses someone else's faith, they are not necessarily and in fact rarely making a claim that God does not exist - as you pretend - but rather are dismissing the act of the faithful in believing something despite knowing it to be beyond proof or disproof.



So you see, I haven't in fact said anyone with faith has to prove God exists. However, I am saying that if such persons tell other people that their faith is in some way correct or logical, then that necessarily involves a claim that some God or Spiritual Whatsit exists, and therefore it's on them to prove that this thing exists. If they cannot do that, then someone else can rightfully dismiss the claim without proving it.

Play by your own rules.

If you think you are being somehow misunderstood, I'd suggest making your point clear in the OP. You created an OP only talking about the burden of proof, and then proceeded to argue with various people and demanding that they disprove God's existence. I can only imagine you created this thread as a response to some other religious-type argument you had elsewhere. The most reasonable reading of all you said is that the only people who have a burden of proof on the question of religion are those people who dismiss the religion. That is wrong for multiple reasons, all of which I've said more than enough times. If that wasn't what you intended to communicate, then you should have posted what you meant right in the OP.







(And, PS, some of those posts you are "liking" actually run counter to what you are saying, at least as of the time of this edit.)
 
Last edited:
I said, at various points:

1. IF you claim God exists, THEN you have to prove God exists. You do not get to claim God exists and then say it's on everyone else to disprove God's existence.

2. You responded "no one has to prove that God exists. No one can prove that God exists", then demanded everyone else step up to disprove God's existence. So I responded by pointing out that just as nobody can prove God's existence, nobody can disprove God's existence. I first pointed out that you have no business demanding that other people prove their claims if you don't want to prove yours. I next pointed out how dishonest it was to say that you don't have to prove God's existence because it's impossible, but that someone else has a burden to disprove it despite its being impossible.

3. You then moved the goal-posts by saying you aren't making any claims or alleging anything, you just have this "faith" that is apparently beyond question. I shot down the argument on the new field of battle by pointing out that when someone dismisses someone else's faith, they are not necessarily and in fact rarely making a claim that God does not exist - as you pretend - but rather are dismissing the act of the faithful in believing something despite knowing it to be beyond proof or disproof.



So you see, I haven't in fact said anyone with faith has to prove God exists. However, I am saying that if such persons tell other people that their faith is in some way correct or logical, then that necessarily involves a claim that some God or Spiritual Whatsit exists, and therefore it's on them to prove that this thing exists. If they cannot do that, then someone else can rightfully dismiss the claim without proving it.

Play by your own rules.

If you think you are being somehow misunderstood, I'd suggest making your point clear in the OP. You created an OP only talking about the burden of proof, and then proceeded to argue with various people and demanding that they disprove God's existence. I can only imagine you created this thread as a response to some other religious-type argument you had elsewhere. The most reasonable reading of all you said is that the only people who have a burden of proof on the question of religion are those people who dismiss the religion. That is wrong for multiple reasons, all of which I've said more than enough times. If that wasn't what you intended to communicate, then you should have posted what you meant right in the OP.







(And, PS, some of those posts you are "liking" actually run counter to what you are saying, at least as of the time of this edit.)

What he said. Especially this part:
So you see, I haven't in fact said anyone with faith has to prove God exists. However, if such persons tell other people that their faith is in some way correct or logical, then that necessarily involves a claim that some God or Spiritual Whatsit exists, and therefore it's on them to prove that this thing exists. If they cannot do that, then someone else can rightfully dismiss the claim without proving it.
 
(And, PS, some of those posts you are "liking" actually run counter to what you are saying, at least as of the time of this edit.)
I applaud reasonable discussion and welcome opposing points of view.
 
... You do not get to claim God exists and then say it's on everyone else to disprove God's existence.
...
You responded "no one has to prove that God exists. No one can prove that God exists", then demanded everyone else step up to disprove God's existence.
...
I don't think that's what I said. I said that if you allege delusion, the burden of proof is on you to show delusion. How you do that is your business. You're making the allegation. (Needless to say by "you" I don't mean you)
 
The onus is on Bob, who is making the positive claim. John is merely stating the default position. Until a case is positively made, then it's untrue.

No, it's unknown. Failing to prove that the claim is false doesn't make it true, or vice versa.
 
More silly game playing..........~.
It isn't the first time to see this lame attempt at standing logic on its head by trying to reverse it. Followed by a gish gallop to unrelated examples in the equally lame attempt to justify the previous fallacy.

That's what has by now ruined the reputation of the old sophists.
 
3. You then moved the goal-posts by saying you aren't making any claims or alleging anything, you just have this "faith" that is apparently beyond question. I shot down the argument on the new field of battle by pointing out that when someone dismisses someone else's faith, they are not necessarily and in fact rarely making a claim that God does not exist - as you pretend - but rather are dismissing the act of the faithful in believing something despite knowing it to be beyond proof or disproof.
dismissing the act of the faithful in believing something despite knowing it to be beyond proof or disproof.
But that is precisely what faith is, "belief in what is beyond proof or disproof."
So dismissal of faith, in your view, entails defense of the faith. I disagree. I am certain it entails an argument for the dismissal. (See my court of law thought experiment above.)
 
I said, at various points:

1. IF you claim God exists, THEN you have to prove God exists. You do not get to claim God exists and then say it's on everyone else to disprove God's existence.

2. You responded "no one has to prove that God exists. No one can prove that God exists", then demanded everyone else step up to disprove God's existence. So I responded by pointing out that just as nobody can prove God's existence, nobody can disprove God's existence. I first pointed out that you have no business demanding that other people prove their claims if you don't want to prove yours. I next pointed out how dishonest it was to say that you don't have to prove God's existence because it's impossible, but that someone else has a burden to disprove it despite its being impossible.

3. You then moved the goal-posts by saying you aren't making any claims or alleging anything, you just have this "faith" that is apparently beyond question. I shot down the argument on the new field of battle by pointing out that when someone dismisses someone else's faith, they are not necessarily and in fact rarely making a claim that God does not exist - as you pretend - but rather are dismissing the act of the faithful in believing something despite knowing it to be beyond proof or disproof.



So you see, I haven't in fact said anyone with faith has to prove God exists. However, I am saying that if such persons tell other people that their faith is in some way correct or logical, then that necessarily involves a claim that some God or Spiritual Whatsit exists, and therefore it's on them to prove that this thing exists. If they cannot do that, then someone else can rightfully dismiss the claim without proving it.

Play by your own rules.

If you think you are being somehow misunderstood, I'd suggest making your point clear in the OP. You created an OP only talking about the burden of proof, and then proceeded to argue with various people and demanding that they disprove God's existence. I can only imagine you created this thread as a response to some other religious-type argument you had elsewhere. The most reasonable reading of all you said is that the only people who have a burden of proof on the question of religion are those people who dismiss the religion. That is wrong for multiple reasons, all of which I've said more than enough times. If that wasn't what you intended to communicate, then you should have posted what you meant right in the OP.


(And, PS, some of those posts you are "liking" actually run counter to what you are saying, at least as of the time of this edit.)

But that is precisely what faith is, "belief in what is beyond proof or disproof."
So dismissal of faith, in your view, entails defense of the faith. I disagree. I am certain it entails an argument for the dismissal. (See my court of law thought experiment above.)



You only quoted this much of my post as of the time of this edit:

"3. You then moved the goal-posts by saying you aren't making any claims or alleging anything, you just have this "faith" that is apparently beyond question. I shot down the argument on the new field of battle by pointing out that when someone dismisses someone else's faith, they are not necessarily and in fact rarely making a claim that God does not exist - as you pretend - but rather are dismissing the act of the faithful in believing something despite knowing it to be beyond proof or disproof. . . .dismissing the act of the faithful in believing something despite knowing it to be beyond proof or disproof."

But that is precisely what faith is, "belief in what is beyond proof or disproof." So dismissal of faith, in your view, entails defense of the faith. I disagree. I am certain it entails an argument for the dismissal. (See my court of law thought experiment above.)

The omitted portions of my post (just about ALL of it) make clear that you are lying about what I'm saying. Because you're going to play the game of quoting a fraction of what I said and lying about the rest, I'm done with you.

(PS: your thought experiment is idiotic because this isn't a court of law, the rules of which are established by precedent. This isn't a legal debate. You put this in the philosophy section.)
 
Last edited:
You only quoted this much of my post:



The omitted portions of my post (just about ALL of it) make clear that you are lying about what I'm saying. Because you're going to play the game of quoting a fraction of what I said and lying about the rest, I'm done with you.

(PS: your thought experiment is idiotic because this isn't a court of law, the rules of which are established by precedent. This isn't a legal debate. You put this in the philosophy section.)
I replied to your post piecemeal over three or four posts.
So I'm "idiotic" and "lying" for giving your points separate treatment?
So much for reasonable discussion, apparently.
 
More accurately the burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim.

John says X is not true.
Bob says X is true.

The burden of proof generally would fall on Bob since he is making the positive claim.

Let X = Harvey Weinstein committed sexual assault.
 
I replied to your post piecemeal over three or four posts.
So I'm "idiotic" and "lying" for giving your points separate treatment?
So much for reasonable discussion, apparently.

And between those two other posts (#40, #41), you quoted an entirety of three cherry-picked sentences.


Just FYI, this kind of game-playing mainly works in a very active thread with 20+ pages. At that point, even interested posters are not likely to keep clicking ">>" until the entirety of an exchange. But when it's a slow thread, now at 5 pages, someone genuinely interested will have at least skimmed the first five pages. They'll see what you're up to.



Anyway, they don't have a "turn the other cheek" emoji, but they do have this: :bootyshake

It's technically accurate, I suppose.
 
Not necessarily. It would fall on both. A neutral claim would be "I don't believe you". If you are stating, either positively or negatively, that a position is true or false, then you have to back it up with evidence. A Christian claiming that Krishna isn't real would have to prove it. A Christian saying they don't believe or accept the claims of the Hindu regarding Krishna does not.
Likewise an atheist claiming God "isn't real" and an atheist saying 'they don't believe or accept the claims of [the theist] regarding [God]"?
 
And between those two other posts (#40, #41), you quoted an entirety of three cherry-picked sentences.


Just FYI, this kind of game-playing mainly works in a very active thread with 20+ pages. At that point, even interested posters are not likely to keep clicking ">>" until the entirety of an exchange. But when it's a slow thread, now at 5 pages, someone genuinely interested will have at least skimmed the first five pages. They'll see what you're up to.



Anyway, they don't have a "turn the other cheek" emoji, but they do have this: :bootyshake

It's technically accurate, I suppose.
You omitted #44.
#40
I applaud reasonable discussion and welcome opposing points of view.

#41
I don't think that's what I said. I said that if you allege delusion, the burden of proof is on you to show delusion. How you do that is your business. You're making the allegation. (Needless to say by "you" I don't mean you)

#44
But that is precisely what faith is, "belief in what is beyond proof or disproof."
So dismissal of faith, in your view, entails defense of the faith. I disagree. I am certain it entails an argument for the dismissal. (See my court of law thought experiment above.)
And you yourself ignored my post #35.

So moon me if you must, but I think the record proves me responsive, and proves you unfair here. I was enjoying our exchange, and am at a loss to account for your bitter withdrawal.
Peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom