ARCHIVE: Burden of Proof

[Spenser 2]

The Theists have satisfied the burden of proofs over 4 thousand years over (Starting with Aristotle.) It is the Atheists who have the burden of proof when attacking that which has been used to support the original premise, theism.

I am pretty sure they have attacked every argument ever put forward. Whether you agree with them is besides the point. The point being when starting a debate, where does the burden reside. In almost all cases outside of discussing God it is with the existence claim. Some theists feel otherwise when God is brought into the equation...

 

[Spenser 2]

Why would the burden be more on the theist than the atheist?

After all the atheist asserts that matter and energy created themselves from nothing, which is something that clearly flies in the face of science.

The atheist asserts no such thing. Some individuals might and then it is contingent upon them to argue their case...

 

[Apologist]

I am pretty sure they have attacked every argument ever put forward. Whether you agree with them is besides the point. The point being when starting a debate, where does the burden reside. In almost all cases outside of discussing God it is with the existence claim. Some theists feel otherwise when God is brought into the equation...

Well, in any argument of the sort, what it generally comes down to is First Cause as opposed to Infinate Regression.

Is infinate regression impossible? I would presume.

Do atheists? Apparently not.

But if you use occam's razor, First Cause requires less assumption than infinate regression; therefore the burden of proof lies upon Atheists (Infinate regression).

 

[fool]

Why would the burden be more on the theist than the atheist?

After all the atheist asserts that matter and energy created themselves from nothing, which is something that clearly flies in the face of science.

Atheism posits no such thing.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Once you see it, belief is no longer at issue.

Belief in basic principles, yes. Entrenched unbelief would exclude any argument to the contrary, no matter how compelling.

Entrenched unbelief? I like that.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Atheism posits no such thing.

Really?

Then how did matter and energy come to be?

Have they existed eternally?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The atheist asserts no such thing.

Really?

Then how did matter and energy come to be?

Have they existed eternally?

 

[fool]

Well, in any argument of the sort, what it generally comes down to is First Cause as opposed to Infinate Regression.

Is infinate regression impossible? I would presume.

Do atheists? Apparently not.

But if you use occam's razor, First Cause requires less assumption than infinate regression; therefore the burden of proof lies upon Atheists (Infinate regression).

An Atheist bears no burden to even answer the question.
An Atheist can simply say they don't know (which in addition to being an unassailable position may also be the truth)

 

[allsmiles]

Really?

Then how did matter and energy come to be?

Have they existed eternally?

maybe and why not?

not saying that's what i believe.

 

[SUTG]

The atheist asserts no such thing. Some individuals might and then it is contingent upon them to argue their case...

Exactly.

Oh, and Apologist; Aristotle wasn't 4000 years ago.

 

[fool]

Really?

Then how did matter and energy come to be?

Have they existed eternally?

I don't know. (see how easy that was)

 

[Caledvwlch]

The Theists have satisfied the burden of proofs over 4 thousand years over (Starting with Aristotle.) It is the Atheists who have the burden of proof when attacking that which has been used to support the original premise, theism.

4 thousand years starting with Aristotle? Um... Are you from the future, or something? I may not remember my Greek philosopher birthdays just perfectly, but I don't think he's quite that old.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I don't know. (see how easy that was)

Fair enough.

But doesn't it make you wonder????

 

[kmoney]

That is why I said "to provide compelling reasons or arguments for" instead of proof. Look at the other example I gave where Allsmiles claimed that it was not the case that Spenser was wearing a black shirt right now. Would you believe Allsmiles' claim?

No, I wouldn't. And now would allsmiles go about proving that?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

maybe and why not?

not saying that's what i believe.

Well if its not what you are saying why should I bother with the follow up?

 

[fool]

Fair enough.

But doesn't it make you wonder????

Sure, I wonder about it all the time.

 

[Vaquero45]

Did the universe always exist?

Did the universe create itself?

Was there a supernatural cause?

These are the only options I know of. Any others?

 

[Apologist]

An Atheist bears no burden to even answer the question.
An Atheist can simply say they don't know (which in addition to being an unassailable position may also be the truth)

Which would force the Atheist to Agnosticism. :thumb:

 

[Apologist]

4 thousand years starting with Aristotle? Um... Are you from the future, or something? I may not remember my Greek philosopher birthdays just perfectly, but I don't think he's quite that old.

A) I could be wrong
B) You get my point.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Sure, I wonder about it all the time.

OK, so forget about you for a second. What do you think is the standard or accepted theory of the creation of matter and energy from the atheist or the non-supernatural materialistic mind-set?