Burden of Proof

[alex1212]

http://randalrauser.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Religion-cartoon.jpg

[searcherman]

WLC has been quiet on this BoP issue since his podcast last year about the "definition that refuses to die". I've amassed a lot of evidence that past theologians define most atheists in the category that assumes no burden. He tends to skulk away from his ridiculous hypotheses, like his "taxicab fallacy".

[alex1212]

WLC has been quiet on this BoP issue since his podcast last year about the "definition that refuses to die". I've amassed a lot of evidence that past theologians define most atheists in the category that assumes no burden. He tends to skulk away from his ridiculous hypotheses, like his "taxicab fallacy".

WLC has gone off the deep end. I watched a recent podcast on morality, and in the podcast, Craig said that atheists have no moral excuse before God (and atheists just want to sin). Makes no sense since Craig thinks an atheist isn't epistemically obligated to accept his arguments for God's existence. Perhaps, he thinks that God's existence is just incredibly obvious apart from the arguments.

[UnreasonableFaith]

I think it's always funny how WLC says something along the lines of  "We've heard five good arguments that Christianity is true and no good argument that atheism is true"

And then when his opponent says that he has BoP, he answers that "but the resolution is in the form of question!"

When discussing whether X exists, it's always default position that it doesn't exist. Otherwise we would have to assume that things that are logical contradictions do exist, for example unicorns, and a legendary hunter who killed all unicorns that ever existed do exist at the same time.

So no, it's still his job to prove the existence of god even when the resolution is in the form of question.

Plus he presupposes that atheists believe that god don't exist (I think only then his phrase "atheism is true" makes sense), many do, but that doesn't seem to be an obvious requirement.

[lucious]

Craig or not, the BOP is handled in far too clumsy a fashion online.

[palewine]

Craig or not, the BOP is handled in far too clumsy a fashion online.

I don't believe you. Prove it.

[jayceeii]

I don't believe you. Prove it.

You probably meant this as a joke, to put the burden of proof on someone arguing about the nature of the burden of proof. Nonetheless there is an echo here of the Pharisees, demanding proofs from Jesus, who retorted that an evil generation seeks a sign. I guess I’d turn it back to you, the way it might’ve been turned back to the Pharisees. One sign of a logical mind is to know when something has been proved. Instead of simply demanding a proof, can you tell us what you would agree would be sufficient proof? We have it on record that even supposed miracles from Jesus only made the Pharisees laugh in derision. In other words, though demanding proofs, they had no intention of admitting any proofs!

[palewine]

Yes, my comment was purely tongue-in-cheek

But if you want to discuss what I would accept as proof, I would be open to a divine manifestation. In the same way that all other relationships start: there is a direct, personal introduction. Something that was clearly a Being of higher power who knows me intimately and communicates with me, and who appears unambiguously (i.e., I don't have to tease out whether it is just my own thoughts / feelings or not) would do it for me, personally.

There are probably other ways God could demonstrate his own existence that I could accept, but that one would certainly do it.

[jayceeii]

Yes, my comment was purely tongue-in-cheek

But if you want to discuss what I would accept as proof, I would be open to a divine manifestation. In the same way that all other relationships start: there is a direct, personal introduction. Something that was clearly a Being of higher power who knows me intimately and communicates with me, and who appears unambiguously (i.e., I don't have to tease out whether it is just my own thoughts / feelings or not) would do it for me, personally.

There are probably other ways God could demonstrate his own existence that I could accept, but that one would certainly do it.

Palewine, haven’t you simply repeated here the exact thing that every Christian already claims? This is what they say in nearly every sermon, Christians have a direct, intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus, that they feel the Holy Spirit’s presence in their lives and this gives them direction. So reading this I should simply retort, “Attend church, the pastor will call you up at the end of the service, where you will receive the Holy Spirit.”

From my perspective, I’d call this delusion, until I see some Christians meeting God’s actual standards. If God is speaking to you, shouldn’t your mind and activities start to reflect His divine ways? The Christians go their own way, dragging God to their level.

I don’t think every mind is fit to receive Jesus. Most would initiate fell persecution before one sentence is finished. In general it would need to be someone fit to discern stable differences in personality, so the Lord can start to say, “My mind is not like yours, my moods are not like yours, my spirit is not like yours.” The person also would need to understand this is IMPORTANT, with salvation at stake since only someone who is not a creature, can possibly be the Savior. I am not seeing anyone like that, anywhere on Earth.

[Wretch]

The OP cartoon has a point, and illustrates why Christian apologetics is so valuable.  The Christian ought to be able to share the reasons for his/her faith.  David and Paul said it succinctly:

"The heavens declare the glory of God."

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. ... "Thinking the,selves wise, they became as fools."

In short, it is foolishness to believe that absolutely nothing created everything.  Creation is proof of the creator, aka God.

Don't be foolish.  Pray to God that you may repent of your wickedness, that your thoughts may be made righteous and your soul saved from Hell.

[jayceeii]

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people...

Don't be foolish.  Pray to God that you may repent of your wickedness, that your thoughts may be made righteous and your soul saved from Hell.

How do you say God’s wrath is being revealed? To me God looks extraordinarily weak at present, allowing the humans to bring Earth to destruction’s brink. Where is God’s Power? Which war did He stop? Which superfund site did He preserve as it used to be? The world at this point truly looks as if the apes arose as material entities, end of story.

Noticing the evil is not the same as bringing Judgment, but is the only possible first step in case anyone sought justification at Judgment, for which the religions gave no serious guidance. Like in the Bible I’d cry, “There is no righteous man, not one.” Unlike Abraham I have no Lot to show, saying, “Would you stop Judgment for one good man?”

I find you merely repeating sanctimonious ideas of every Christian, when Jesus warned against hypocrisy. You count yourself among the justified, but what if God disagrees? Wouldn’t you then be one who “weeps and gnashes teeth,” thinking the road to salvation lies elsewhere than it does? If you know, then please explain the real causes of Judgment.

[Wretch]

You think it's sanctimonious to pray to God that He may grant you repentance?

I think it is sanctimonious and foolish to look to oneself for truth.  There is no truth to be found there absent God.  You e erected yourself as your own false idol, your own supreme authority.  Please reconsider.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life" ... "If you will abide in my word, then you shall truly be my disciple, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

[jayceeii]

You think it's sanctimonious to pray to God that He may grant you repentance?

I think it is sanctimonious and foolish to look to oneself for truth.  There is no truth to be found there absent God.  You e erected yourself as your own false idol, your own supreme authority.  Please reconsider.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life" ... "If you will abide in my word, then you shall truly be my disciple, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

The sanctimoniousness is not in the prayer, but in the belief one has been justified when it does not fit objective facts. It isn’t enough to say, “I’ve read the Bible, I’m righteous,” when the Bible did not list the actual criteria for salvation (which is why I asked you to related the causes of Judgment, as you see them). Christians shout about righteousness without defining it, or allowing input on the criteria, as you appear set to reject any input.

You say it is foolish to look into yourself to see if you have a created soul, but if you did it would supply an immense arsenal by which to push back the atheists, as well as to help establish yourself in knowledge of justification, rather than just accepting rumors passed around the pews. Are you afraid to look within? Do you lack the power, or the curiosity? You would not have to argue if there’s an external God, if you could see His work in you.

You commit the fallacy of defamation here, accusing me of erecting myself as an idol, without offering cogent or logical argumentation regarding it. It’s finger-pointing, or one could say mud-slinging, the kind of mud you’ve seen flying around the doomed Christian churches perhaps. Please explain yourself. It’d be interesting for me to hear an argument instead of mere name-calling, over this question. Were I an authority you’d persecute me.

Jesus never finished His sentences. The key to understanding these affirmations is that you must always abide in the Lord’s Word, when He speaks. There isn’t enough in Jesus’ revelations to generate good, warmhearted people, ready to cooperate and leave war. He allowed Himself to be set up as an idol to those who’d reject higher affirmations brutally. If the Lord is with you and you reject Him of course any claim to justification is nullified.

[Der Chemiker]

Burden of proof... intresting topic

I saw lots of criticism on William Lane Craig for "trying to shift the burden of proof" and lots of different other accusations. So I did research and checked out different sources to make my own picture.

There are some opinions from both Chritians and Atheists who claim that both sides have a burden of proof:
Who has the burden of proof? - Christian article
4 errors about the burden of proof - Christian article
Atheist article on the burden of proof
When I compare this with the Craig debates, Craig is not shifting the burden of proof, he spreads the burden of proof and can bear his own burden of proof.

There are Christian website like debate blogspot where the Christian claims to have an atheist challenge and all of his opponents failed to accomplish the challenge. The challenge is: "Can you prove that Atheism is accurate and correct?"
Looking from logic perspective, by challenging the opponent with this challenge, he shifts the burden of proof completly.

One supporter of him tries the atheist challenge at Matt Dillahunty: Video

Atheism is the lack of belief
[...]
My position is validated by the fact he hasn't present any evidence for his claim
[...]
Atheism isn't a dogma", it's not an ideology, it's not a worldview, it is nothing more than a single position on a single issue

So, in his response, Matt Dillahunty declines the burden of proof on side of the Atheist completly.

In an other video about the burden of proof, he says: "There are 2 default positions:
1. believe until it's disproven
or 2. disbelieve until it's proven"

And he brings an analogy with leprechauns and dragons to explain his view of the burden of proof.
But I disagree with his definition of Atheism. He defines Atheism in a way the can defened it easier. And with the 2 default positions, he brings a false dichotomy. There is 3th option: it can be either true or wrong but we have to prove one side.
Looking at all 3 options, not the 2nd option should be default position, it should be the 3th option, which is the agnosticism.

Let's compare it with a different example: Some people deny the climate change. We have possible options:
1. Climate change exists
2. Climate change doesn't exist
3. We don't know if climate change exists or doesn't exists

Or the discussion about the shape of the earth:
1. The earth is spherical
2. The earth is not spherical (e.g. it is flat)
3. We don't know if the earth is spherical or not

I see the debate between Christianity and Atheism like that.
Atheism corresponds to position 2 and makes a negative truth claim: XY doen't exist. If anyone defends any positon 2, he has to bear burden of proof on this position.

And if the Atheist tries to escape with: "Atheism is just my personal believe", the personal belief (subjective) doesn't matter in a discussion about objective reality. You can believe that the earth is flat (subjective), but in reality the earth is spherical (objective truth),

[jayceeii]

Burden of proof... intresting topic

You’re right, this is an interesting topic. I’d point out the major dichotomy between theistic and atheistic burdens of proof, is that the atheists try to base everything in the senses. The theists are trapped referring to ancient texts, since prophets aren’t accepted any more and no one is citing direct experience of the soul or other possible mystical proofs. The atheists feel quite smug in their positions, but this is only because they have “material minds,” without any inner awareness of living spirit to point them any higher. The theists, importantly, also lack this inner awareness of living spirit, by and large. Their faith comes to them mainly through joining a group, believing there is eventual benefit.

What you learn is that the materialist worldview is reactive in nature. These are indeed minds trapped in the senses with no higher context, and this means that for them, only what is in the local sense experience seems “truly real.” From this there are tremendous gaps when their worldview is compared to a holistic worldview, even on the material plane. The world they see is a local world only; they are unable to translate to the whole.

The atheists are not the last word in rationality, as they believe of themselves. I’d point out that challenging an atheist, “Can you prove that Atheism is accurate and correct?” does not shift the burden of proof, because only the theists are positing something that is beyond the senses, and the atheist always has his sense experience for a ready proof. The correct way to challenge them is pointing out they haven’t seen what truly rational people would have seen about this very globe we’re living on. If you ask, I’ll tell you what it is.

The quote from Dillahunty reflects how secure atheists feel from belief in their senses.

Atheism is the lack of belief
[...]
My position is validated by the fact he hasn't present any evidence for his claim
[...]
Atheism isn't a dogma, it's not an ideology, it's not a worldview, it is nothing more than a single position on a single issue

Again, this is a mind surrounded by his senses, that he thinks supplies any proof he needs. The theistic position is inherently weak since it references the prophets. But it is possible to show the atheists are not fully rational entities, and not only this but they are not what you would call well-rounded people, able to meet others by the standard Jesus introduced of loving the neighbor as oneself. Instead they are usual selfish humans. If you can find a population of people (besides Jesus) who are not selfish the atheists are ruined.

These two default positions, “1. believe until it's disproven,” and “2. disbelieve until it's proven,” presume belief to be a significant power in the human, and also presume the human body to be a secure platform for either belief or disbelief. If belief is not a significant power then it matters little what anyone believes, at least to God if not to men. Importantly, advanced proofs of God’s existence (and that of the soul) were not given in religion for this reason. If humans believe they aren’t accomplishing the task set for them.

You’re right about agnosticism being the most rational position of anyone today, but perhaps you’d admit a hopeful agnosticism, wanting the things of God to be true, such as eternal life for the souls. This is not something anyone can know today because the religions were cast off intentionally misleading and vague. One of the obvious proofs of this is that Jesus only spoke in parables, though writing implements had been available for hundreds of years. The proofs can come, but I think they can only come on the shoulders of the virtuous. Like Jesus also said, pearls should not be cast before swine.