Burden of Proof
Options
oliverlang
Members Posts: 593
Who has it? The believer making the claim that something exists, or the non-believer making the claim that it doesn't? Or, is there a burden at all?
Personally, I think if I make the original claim that Santa Claus exists and someone questions me about it, it's up to me to prove he exists. Afterall, I did make the original claim. But then again, after I provide my supporting arguments I don't care if you believe me or not. The presents just don't appear under my tree because of nature. Santa HAD to put them there.
Personally, I think if I make the original claim that Santa Claus exists and someone questions me about it, it's up to me to prove he exists. Afterall, I did make the original claim. But then again, after I provide my supporting arguments I don't care if you believe me or not. The presents just don't appear under my tree because of nature. Santa HAD to put them there.
Comments
-
The burden of proof is on those who advocate for the existence of something, not those who don't.
If someone makes a claim that there's a green man standing outside the door, it'd be up to that person to prove it. If not...then, you know the rest.
The "claims" of the non-believer are backed up by the fact that there's no evidence to the contrary. And plus, non-believers do not make a positive claim. The only thing that can be proven is a positive claim. Thus, the burden of proof is on the BELIEVER. -
Religious people only want you to pull out proof he doesnt exist and the books are wrong because they have nothing else, what can they say "Your just not listening for him, he calling you, do you hear him?". Lol if someone claims there is something they need to be the ones to present the proof, the other side has repeatedly brought great theories and sometimes acual facts that religious books are fugazee at least. You could never prove a ? isnt real unless we find a way to die and record what happens and then come back to the real world with the evidence.
-
Proof exist that ? exist. That is not even really questionable. Everything is brought into existence by a force greater than itself.
What needs to be proven is what or how said Creator/Force/? makes itself manifest.
That is what needs to be proven. -
That is not even really questionable.
If it wasn't questionable, there wouldn't be a debate. -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Religious people only want you to pull out proof he doesnt exist and the books are wrong because they have nothing else, what can they say "Your just not listening for him, he calling you, do you hear him?". Lol if someone claims there is something they need to be the ones to present the proof, the other side has repeatedly brought great theories and sometimes acual facts that religious books are fugazee at least. You could never prove a ? isnt real unless we find a way to die and record what happens and then come back to the real world with the evidence.
Much truth in this post.
And the bolded statements are negatives. And you can't prove a negative, regardless.
The only types of claims that have the basis to be proven are positive claims. And saying "there is a ? " is making a positive claim. And thus, it'd be up to that person who's making that claim to prove ? 's existence. -
oliverlang wrote: »If it wasn't questionable, there wouldn't be a debate.
Well there are always fools. -
Apparently there isn't proof...only people convincing themselves that there is.
-
I think both would have to prove it but the burden depends on what is at stake for the person. Those who don't believe ? exist don't feel as if their existence is dependent on ? existing so why prove it. And if they are the ones to make the claims of ? 's non-existence, their confidence in science and mere observation makes it that much easier.
-
Proof is everywhere, but some people make the mistake of denying any proof they don't want to accept
-
solid analysis wrote: »Proof is everywhere, but some people make the mistake of denying any proof they don't want to accept
That "proof" has other, more creditable explanations. Who's is right? -
oliverlang wrote: »That "proof" has other, more creditable explanations. Who's is right?
More creditable explanations.
Such as, hearing aid by design, the human ear by random chance? -
solid analysis wrote: »Proof is everywhere, but some people make the mistake of denying any proof they don't want to accept
What "proof"?
Simply saying "goddidit" isn't proof... -
Can you prove that?solid analysis wrote: »Proof is everywhere, but some people make the mistake of denying any proof they don't want to accept -
It's not about whether the facts exist or not, it's about what a person believes as being behind those facts.
-
solid analysis wrote: »It's not about whether the facts exist or not, it's about what a person believes as being behind those facts.
Interesting.
c h a r a c t e r s. -
What proof could be brought to prove something doesn't exist? I'd think the burden rests on the one saying it does exist, they might have something to bring to the table.
-
Your answer to all questions religion: Ras Kass Nature of the Threat..
Google it, close this whole Race & Religion subforum..
