Illustrating the burden of proof - pay me!

[Anomalocaris]

Only the person making the claim needs evidence to support the claim.
But I just thought of another example. What if I am known to police and a crime happens in my area. The cops show up to my house and ask where I was at 11:00pm last night?

Why should the burden of proof be on me?

That’s a very good example. No one is required to (or expected to) prove their innocence.

Boru

That is actually an minority judicial philosophy across the world.     In most of the world, the prosecutor doesn’t need to prove beyond a doubt you are guilty.  They just need to show there is considerable evidence to indicate you are probable guilt .   Then it is up to the accused to show why he/she is actually innocent despite these evidence.

[Belacqua]

I've always been curious about that... so it's not the case that you see Aquinas' arguments for instance, for the necessity of God, as sufficient reasons in the sense of the PSR, for the actual existence of God (in the why sense, if not the how sense)? That's how I assumed you might be squaring that circle, but looks like I was wrong on that, ie that there is still a question there for you as to how God exists, if not why?

 
I wonder if here you've unintentionally done a slight side-step between two meanings of the word "reason."

It sounds as if you're using it (as I did earlier) to mean "the justification we have in our minds for believing that something is true."

But I'm pretty sure that the Principle of Sufficient Reason doesn't require such a mental concept. It holds that for any contingent event or object, there must be some reason for it to happen or exist. However, this reason may be unknown to people, or even be unknowable by us. It might be clearer to think of "reason" here as the full set of the things' causes and history. 

There's a reason why I found somebody's gold tooth in my garden, but I have no idea what it is. I don't doubt that the tooth got there in some non-magical way, with a full set of real-world events leading up to it being there. But I'm stumped as to what they are. (I dug a little deeper thinking I might find all the rest of my landlady's late husband, but was not rewarded.)

So we wouldn't say that Thomas's concepts constitute sufficient reasons in the sense that the Principle uses that term, although an individual might or might not think they are reasons (mental concepts justifying belief) to believe in God. In fact Thomas would argue that there is no reason for God's existence, because God is not contingent. 

In other words, I don't think a Christian is invoking the Principle of Sufficient Reason when he claims he has enough reason to believe in God. He might, however, claim that because everything that is contingent requires a sufficient reason for its existence, that this is a justification for believing in God.

[Neo-Scholastic]

And an atheist critic will say, that inserting the contingent/non-contingent qualifier up front allows the theist to conclude that there is at least one non-contingent cause. Maybe. What is the alterative? Everything is contingent on everyting else in a circular reference? Or nothing at all is contingent? Those who object to that distinction seem not to object to the notion that some things supervene on an ultimate physical ground that is fundamental. Sound the same conceptually.

[Anomalocaris]

Do you think this dialogue would be an interesting way to illustrate the burden of proof?

To me it seems like an example of both sides avoiding real discussion.

"Burden of proof" is a legal term and is seldom useful in talking about metaphysics. Thinking adults who want an honest discussion should have reasons for their positions, and be willing to state these reasons. This applies to religious people and atheists alike.

For example, if your friendly neighborhood Christian asserts "God loves you!" You might respond "Ha! prove it! That's on you! Can't do it, can you!?" I suppose this might feel good if your goal is to "win" somehow.

But it makes a better, more productive discussion if you explain to him the reasons why you find his claim unpersuasive. As a thinking adult, you will surely have reasons.

This is assuming you want to have a good-faith discussion, which I realize often isn't the case on the Internet.

The search for the truth is not a mere matter of persuasion.   it is mostly importantly a matter of shared intellectual honesty.   he who posits something and then lay burden of proof upon someone else without acknowledging his ow proposition is therefore worthless because no one, least of all him had yet troubled to support it, is being intellectual dishonest.

but of course Belaqua is always supernaturally sensitive to any hint that the scrutinizing spotlight of any discussion may be meander  habitual almost invariable intellectual dishonesty of christianity,  and jump to obfuscate well in advance lest actually reaching there and christianity be seen yet again in less than pleasing light.

---

[LadyForCamus]

And an atheist critic will say, that inserting the contingent/non-contingent qualifier up front allows the theist to conclude that there is at least one non-contingent cause. Maybe. What is the alterative? Everything is contingent on everyting else in a circular reference? Or nothing at all is contingent? Those who object to that distinction seem not to object to the notion that some things supervene on an ultimate physical ground that is fundamental. Sound the same conceptually.

What I’m mostly interested in is the rational justification for the proposition that physical reality itself must be contingent, and for what reasons a God’s existence has to be necessary where reality itself cannot be.

[emjay]

And an atheist critic will say, that inserting the contingent/non-contingent qualifier up front allows the theist to conclude that there is at least one non-contingent cause. Maybe. What is the alterative? Everything is contingent on everyting else in a circular reference? Or nothing at all is contingent? Those who object to that distinction seem not to object to the notion that some things supervene on an ultimate physical ground that is fundamental. Sound the same conceptually.

They are similar conceptually, but my issue is that though both propose a fundamental ground, theism makes much more speculative assumptions to do so, and seems to end up proposing a much more complicated fundamental ground than that which it is attempting to replace in the known universe. Ie in a nutshell, theism seems to look at the circular contigency evident in the universe, unable to accept that any part of it could be fundamental, even in principle, and instead asks 'how did any of this come to be, from nothing?', then with complicated logic (eg the Five Ways etc) it proposes a solution that by the nature of parts of its definition, entails that the solution is exempt from those sorts of questions (ie via the concepts of necessary/non-contingent), but does so at the expense of proposing a new fundamental thing of the universe/reality... a complex/multi-faceted all-powerful being... that is far more complicated than that which it was invoked to explain, and thus far less likely to just happen to exist for all eternity 'just because' or as Belacqua said Aquinas would put it '[for] no reason'.

So from my point of view, all it does is replace one (or many) plausible and scientifically addressable fundamentals, as yet discovered or not, in the known universe, with one speculative and unfalsifiable centralised fundamental, at the gain of some mental reassurance/i's dotted and t's crossed in the form of the theological logic, but without ultimately addressing the underlying question of how something rather than nothing exists or comes to be, because it cannot answer the question as pertaining to itself. And to the extent that it is claimed that it doesn't need to (ie by definition of necessary/non-contigent) that's ultimately what I was asking you about... whether a) that truly closes the book for you on that question, in the case that you accept that the definition is a complete answer to God's existence requiring no further explanation, or to put it as boldly as Aquinas would (to again quote Belacqua surmising Aquinas) 'there is no reason for God's existence, because God is not contingent', or b) that you still have such questions but out of necessity/practicality accept you can't answer them. But in either case seemingly accepting God as a brute fact/fundamental. I'm not asking for an answer again if you don't want to give it... I appreciate your answer from before, which seemed to be neither of these... but just restating/clarifying my thinking around this in the context of this new post of yours.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Hello everyone, sorry I've been away. I hope all of you are doing well. And happy belated New Year lol.

1. The first question to ask is what kinds of discussions merit the burden of proof? And, it seems to me, only those in which an accusation is being made. The burden of proof derives it's utility solely from positioning the accused in such away that they are protected against doubt and other incriminations.

2. Why is the burden of proof useless in the absence of an accusation? First, because there is no need to protect yourself against the free exchange of ideas. And second, because proof is open to interpretation. It always points in multiple directions beyond the single thing you want it to prove. (Hence why scientists seek to falsify rather than prove propositions.)

3. Lastly, people think they are persuaded by evidence but they are persuaded by arguments. Arguments are the best, and perhaps only, way to arrive at any conclusion. Therefore, instead of asking for evidence ask for the arguments. (Note that proof itself is an argument; hence why it's possible to convict an innocent person and acquit a guilty one.)

[vulcanlogician]

Hello everyone, sorry I've been away. I hope all of you are doing well. And happy belated New Year lol.

Yo! Breezy! So nice to see you back. I really missed your input on things, man. I hope you're doing well too.

[Belacqua]

a complex/multi-faceted all-powerful being... that is far more complicated than that which it was invoked to explain

Just because I have to maintain my reputation as someone who's picky about details....

All the theology we've been talking about here -- the Ontological Argument, the 5 Ways, etc. -- posit a God who is absolutely simple, with no parts, divisions, or complications. 

Their argument is that to explain the (apparent) complexity of the world requires an absolutely non-complex ground.

(This changed with Jacob Boehme, so there are people after him who don't hold to Divine Simplicity: Blake, Schelling, Hegel, etc. But they're a different kettle of fish.)

---

Hello everyone, sorry I've been away. I hope all of you are doing well. And happy belated New Year lol.

1. The first question to ask is what kinds of discussions merit the burden of proof? And, it seems to me, only those in which an accusation is being made. The burden of proof derives it's utility solely from positioning the accused in such away that they are protected against doubt and other incriminations.

2. Why is the burden of proof useless in the absence of an accusation? First, because there is no need to protect yourself against the free exchange of ideas. And second, because proof is open to interpretation. It always points in multiple directions beyond the single thing you want it to prove. (Hence why scientists seek to falsify rather than prove propositions.)

3. Lastly, people think they are persuaded by evidence but they are persuaded by arguments. Arguments are the best, and perhaps only, way to arrive at any conclusion. Therefore, instead of asking for evidence ask for the arguments. (Note that proof itself is an argument; hence why it's possible to convict an innocent person and acquit a guilty one.)

Nice to see you! I hope you and yours are doing well.

[Belacqua]

@John 6IX Breezy

in which an accusation is being made

This makes a lot of sense to me. We assume that when an accusation is being made, the accused person has something to lose from the situation. There may be punishment, a loss of reputation, etc. Therefore it would be unjust to accept the accusation without sufficient evidence. That's why it's courtroom procedure.

I suppose it's true that some people on these forums approach discussion in an accusatory manner, so that sort of mindset would be involved. Again, if the goal is to WIN something on the Internet, or punish an opponent, then these legal rules come into play.

The opposite extreme, I was thinking, would be in the arts -- the claims made in poetry, for example. These are offered without any attempt to persuade in a debate-style format. When Blake says his thing about the Doors of Perception, or Baudelaire assures us that nature is a temple, it would be crazy to treat this like a legal claim. These are provocations and lures, and the more they prompt us to investigate the more we benefit.

Not that claims we make on the Internet rise to the level of poetry, much.