RE: The nature of evidence
May 5, 2016 at 6:21 pm
(This post was last modified: May 5, 2016 at 6:31 pm by GUBU.)
(May 4, 2016 at 12:22 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(May 4, 2016 at 12:03 pm)Stimbo Wrote: No, that's your projection. Think of it in a courtroom situation - the only position held by the attorney for the defence is "the prosecution has not provided sufficient evidence against my client to meet the burden of proof". Sure, if Joe Blow didn't do it someone else must have,but that's neither the purview of the defence nor the issue under discussion.
Theists have a burden of proof, since they are the ones with something to prove. Atheists, in matters pertaining to atheism, do not.
I really can't make it any simpler without using crayons.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If you are claiming that something is false, then you have the burden to show the reasons/evidence for that claim. I have run into a fair number of people who didn't understand this. Atheist do have the burden of proof, as soon as they make any claim which is not agnostic.
Actually the claim is that god exists, for one simple reason we don't, with our current level of knowledge, have sufficient evidence to think he exists, is the positive one here. Thus anybody who says that he does is making the claim, not those who are taking the position of disbelief. It doesn't matter how many believe or how fervently they believe, the known facts currently support their claims to be truthful.
That is why you have the burden of proof, not I.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Home