Where does the "Burden of Proof" lie?

Question

I've seen it stated many times that the "Burden of Proof" lies with the person who makes the claim.
But, a "claim" is capable of being both positive and negative. "God does exist" being a positive claim, and "God does not exist" being a negative claim. A "claim" is just to state something as a fact. "This is how it is."

With that being said, would the burden lie on the person who is only making a positive claim?
Tom: "This cup doesn't have any blue spots."
Jeff: "Yes, it does."
Burden of Proof lying with Jeff.
Or is it whoever makes the first claim? Burden of Proof lying with Tom.

In most situations it's naturally easier to prove a positive claim than a negative claim. But what if Tom and Jeff are both blind and neither can provide solid evidence of what color the cup is? Would the Burden of Proof shift? And if Jeff can't provide evidence for his positive claim, would that make Tom's negative claim correct or would that just be an "appeal to ignorance"? Consulting a third party to tell them what color the cup is would mean they'd just simply have to trust them, since they can't see it, themselves.
So, where does the burden of proof lie in this situation, and would there be any way to confirm either claim to each other?

Answer 1

In (almost) all instances, the burden of proof lies with the party making the assertion, whatever that assertion is.

Claim "there is a God," and you can be asked to support that belief. The reason is because you'd need proof evidence God exists does itself exist.

Claim, "there is no God," and you can be asked to support that belief. The reason is because you'd need omniscience to be able to prove no evidence exists. Then some Smart Alec might come along an provide evidence for God, and prove the statement there is no God wrong.

Claim, "we cannot know if there is a God or not, because there is no evidence either way," and you can be asked to support that belief. The reason is because you'd need omniscience to be able to prove no evidence exists. The alternative is you lack the ability to recognize evidence for God's existence, or lack the ability to make a decision based on the evidence.



In your "cup with/without spots" example, BOTH people bear the burden of proof, for BOTH are stating or asserting a reality. Tom and Jeff both need to define "cup," "blue" and "spots." Then they need to settle on what constitutes evidence.



There is some confusion over proving a negative. It is claimed that you can't prove a negative. This assertion is false. People prove a negative in a court of law quite frequently, or better yet prove the negative before they have to do it in a court of law. Example: a district attorney claims, "John killed Tom on Thursday with a knife in his own home." Tom replies, "No. I didn't." He can prove this several ways, including, "I could not have killed Tom because Tom was killed at his house here in town on Thursday, but I was out of town on Thursday." This is called an 'alibi' and is considered evidence that proves a negative, by proving something else: John was somewhere else at the time of the killing of Tom. John could also prove he didn't kill Tom by producing evidence of Tom being alive AFTER Thursday when the DA says the crime took place, or of Tom being dead BEFORE Thursday, both of which could serve to eliminate John as a suspect.

Likewise with, "there is no God." If a person can come along and produce evidence of God now, after it is claimed God has ceased to exist, or that God never did exist, then that would refute the claim there is no God. Such evidence exists.

I know of NO evidence that would support the notion that God does not exist now, or that God has ceased to exist, or that God never has existed. Claims to the contrary are wishful thinking or purely articles of FAITH. Faith is defined as taking a position without or even against the available evidence.

[eta]

"Its not a lie… its just make believe, a fairy taile…."

Prime examples of statements that need supporting evidence. You say so, so prove it.

Answer 2

>"In most situations it's naturally easier to prove a positive claim than a negative claim."

Yes. This is because to prove a negative claim "this cup doesn't have any blue spots" requires complete knowledge of the cup. You'd have to search the entire surface of the cup and see there is no blue spots. But what about INSIDE the walls of the cup? Maybe there's a blue spot in there! And even if you could examine everything, how can you be sure you didn't miss something? You can see why this becomes ever increasingly difficult especially in a case where you'd have to search the ENTIRE UNIVERSE (example: "Unicorns don't exist"). However the positive claim is EASY to prove, just find one blue spot and you're done.



>"But what if Tom and Jeff are both blind and neither can provide solid evidence of what color the cup is?"

You know how we cannot see air but we still know that it exists? Do you know how blind people cannot see money but still can figure out how much money they have? Same thing.



>"Would the Burden of Proof shift?"

No. Its still the person making the positive claim.



>"And if Jeff can't provide evidence for his positive claim, would that make Tom's negative claim correct"

As it is the null hypothesis, yes. Null hypothesis says that the default position is true unless proven otherwise. A cup having blue spots is not the default.



>"Consulting a third party to tell them what color the cup is would mean they'd just simply have to trust them, since they can't see it, themselves."

Wrong. Again we can't see atoms but we trust that they have been discovered and that they exist. And consider the case where a BILLION people tell them that the cup is blue. That's a lot of evidence that the cup is blue.



Hope that clears some stuff up.

Answer 3

The Answer = Nowhere ... The "Burden of Proof" does not lie.

Answer 4

Alright, let's take it easy.



Tom says, this cup has blue spots.

Jeff says, no it doesn't.



What would be the scientific way to go about it? Tom and Jeff disagree, they both have an idea of what the cup looks like. So Tom woud say to Jeff, or Jeff to Tom, come on, let's examine that. It can't be that I see blue spots where you can't. There must be something we've overlooked, something behind it.



And after years of research, it turns out that the whole cup was greenish-yellow all the time.

Answer 5

In the situations you are describing, ***no burden of proof exists***.

Let's go through your question step by step.



1) But, a "claim" is capable of being both positive and negative.



In fact that is irrelevant. Logically and grammatically speaking, almost all positive claims (there are exceptions) can be reworded as a negative claim and vice-versa.



Examples:

- I am 48 years old

- I am not greater than 48 years old and I am not less than 48 years old



- God does not exist

- God's existence is imaginary (or) God's existence is false (or) God's existence is a lie





2) A "claim" is just to state something as a fact. "This is how it is."



A little imprecise (for example: one can claim that something might be true), but in general that is correct, a claim is a statement intended to convey something believed to be true.





3) With that being said, would the burden lie on the person who is only making a positive claim?



No. As mentioned, in practically all cases a positive claim can be reworded as a negative claim and vice-versa. The terms "negative claim" and "positive claim" have no value in logic.





4) Or is it whoever makes the first claim?



No. Making a claim does NOT incur a burden of proof upon the claimant except in **very specific circumstances**. Typically making a claim incurs a burden of proof upon the claimant **only** when a claim is made **in an epistemological argument**, which sort of argument is typically only posed by professors and students in the field of epistemology. In typical situations, in formal debate, and in logic **there is no burden of proof on the claimant** except under very special circumstances.





5) In most situations it's naturally easier to prove a positive claim than a negative claim.



As I've pointed out previously, that **definitely is not true** simply because *nearly always* a positive claim can be reworded as a negative claim and vice versa.





6) But what if Tom and Jeff are both blind and neither can provide solid evidence of what color the cup is? Would the Burden of Proof shift?



No, for the reasons described previously.





7) And if Jeff can't provide evidence for his positive claim, would that make Tom's negative claim correct or would that just be an "appeal to ignorance"?



No, it would not make Tom's claim correct. It is an "appeal to ignorance" if you mean your reasoning is:

- Jeff cannot prove his claim

- Therefore Jeff's claim is false





Now: when does a burden of proof **actually** exist?

case #1 - in the previously-mentioned case of a claim made in an epistemological argument

case #2 - when all parties involved agree that one party has such a burden

case #3 - when some authority assigns a burden of proof on one or more parties that are subject to that authority (e.g. the authority of law assigns a burden of proof on the prosecution in a criminal trial; a debate teacher might require his students to support claims made during a debate; a news journal editor, who has authority over what gets printed in the journal, requires contributing authors to support all submitted articles with some sort of evidence; etc.)



SO: in general and in logic and in formal debate

- someone who makes a positive claim has NO burden of proof

- someone who makes a negative claim has NO burden of proof

- someone who makes a claim or who does not make a claim has NO burden of proof

- typically NO burden of proof exists, period



Remember that a burden of proof **is a burden**. It's not an option of proof. The person who has a burden of proof **must** attempt to produce evidence and/or argument in support of his position or (in some cases) resign from the discussion/debate. There is NO other option when an actual burden of proof exists.



A prosecuting attorney in a criminal trial *must* attempt to fulfill the burden of proof or the case is dismissed.

A student who is instructed by his debate teacher to support his claims during debate *must* attempt to do so or receive a poor grade for failing to shoulder that burden.

Someone submitting an article to a news journal that requires supporting evidence *must* submit the supporting evidence or have the article rejected.

etc.

Answer 6

For starters, saying "God doesn't exist" is saying "God is imaginary". It's self-evident that people think about (.i.e.,imagine) God. That's simply a self-evident statement- people imagine God. "To imagine" means nothing more than to create an image of something in the mind- it means exactly the same thing as to think about something.

If God is anything else than an imagined entity, it's the responsibility of the person making that statement, i.e., "God is not only imagined" to prove it.

In your imaginary scenario, it's likewise self-evident to a person with normal vision whether the cup has blue spots or not. If both parties are blind, then they will have to refer to someone with normal vision for a judgment. If that person lies to them, it's a lie and in no way changes the reality of whether cup does or doesn't have blue spots.

Answer 7

While logic dictates the burden of proof lies on the positive claim, no one actually has to prove anything at all unless they wish other people to believe them.

Let us say it is not god we are talking about, but a fuel additive that doubles your gas mileage. You are not expected to take my word for it, I may not advertise a claim unless it is valid and accurate representation of the product, nor can I force any store to carry my product.

Now let's say you inquire about my product because you wish to purchase it in bulk. you are completely justified in wanting an analysis and an independent review, and you may well want to discuss the matter with your car manufacturer or auto mechanic. It is my burden to provide you with sufficient information that my claim is valid.

Answer 8

Actually "whom" is attempting to sell to you a product, it's services and maintains that you require or desire it? Atheism sells you nothing, makes no claims and offers you nothing accepting the knowledge that "you" and you alone create the who, what and where you find yourself today and in the future. It is the "sales" pitch which requires validation not the default of not requiring the gods to begin with.

Answer 9

The burden of proof lies with the person making the POSITIVE claim.

Answer 10

Damn, I'll make it easier for you. Because you're wasting a lot of thought on this.



My claim is: All objects in the universe are non-god objects.



There.



The contrary claim is: At least one object in the universe is a god object.



100% of the evidence is still on my side.



Now....having no evidence for your claim isn't inherently a problem. We accept many things without evidence (I've never demanded genetic screenings to verify my mother is my biological mother).



BUT, when you demand that public policies be made because of your claim....then people will demand evidence for it.

Answer 11

"Burden of proof" applies to the courtroom. There is no such thing as a "negative claim" or a "positive claim" they are just claims. If I claim the glass is empty, it's just a claim, not a negative claim. I can prove it by turning the glass upside down.



Where does the burden of proof really lie? It lies on whomever wishes to know the truth. I don't have to prove to you that God exists in order to believe it myself. But if you want to know if God exists or not, then you need to find out for yourself.

Answer 12

The "Burden of Proof" now lies on my shoulders. My discovery of pages and pages of scripture that makes up the first five Books of The Bible being based all this time on the germ theory of disease and the modern human body and other advanced fields of science unknown to mankind at that time and some fields of science still unknown to mankind today now proves the existence of a Intelligent Designer named Yahweh who knew these fields of science long before mankind learned of them. My discovery also brings to light mankind's misinterpretation of this scripture and giving them the unscientific religious interpretations we still think they mean today due to our lack of scientific knowledge to properly interpret what is written in this scripture.

Answer 13

The problem especially here on the forum is asserting your opinion as fact w/o support. When you assert a fact of truth, then by your claim you also accept the responsibility and duty to provide support for the integrity of your claim, otherwise your claim fails and you are left with mud on your face and if done repeatedly, a reputation as a loser liar.



The scientific/philosophical reality is that you do not need to present an argument against an assertion (God does not exist) that cannot produce any evidence or logic in its defense! Since it cannot sustain what it brings to the board, not anything need be said in refutation. Its own lack of evidence/logic is sufficient to scuttle the 'argument' before it even begins!



Bottom line, evolution, with or without Common Descent is inconsequential to the question God, or Creation, or a literal interpretation of the Genesis account.



Asserting a universal negative as a fact can only be done one of two ways.



1. One has universal knowledge (omniscience). Which is an absurdity.



2. One has proven an exclusionary affirmative proposition that renders the negative proposition impossible.. Which so far no atheist had done.



Since no atheist is omniscient, and no atheist has proven an exclusionary affirmative proposition that makes all gods an impossibility atheism is a faith based claim.. Nothing more than ones opinion and no more authoritative than theists claims or opinions.



Atheists tend to insist their position is the absolute truth (but based on unfounded opinion -- I have yet to meet an atheist that has confirmed their starting assumptions) and anybody who does not agree with them is an idiot. In this respect they make the most hardcore religious fundamentalist look like a wishy washy liberal.



Their opinions are BS because they hold a presupposition of materialism.. Without that presupposition, what I present is consistent with the evidence. When you or somebody else actually gets around to validating the assumption of materialism, we will start to take you seriously...



Atheism is a culture of denial and deny any source that makes a claim they don't agree with, even prominent scientific journals.



This is just another example why atheism is a self-limiting phenomenon. The neo-atheists are so driven to attack and discredit others, they make ignorant statements that make them look simple minded and naive.



If atheism or evolutionism could stand on its own, why the need to attack and ridicule those with a differing opinion, like Hitler or Stalin or ISIS or atheist/evolutionists, etc., using venomous attacks to eradicate dissenters; just another form of terrorism (truth terrorism).



Seven Evidences for a Young Earth

http://plottingeoe.com/blog/seven-evidences-for-a-young-earth



Evolution or Creationism?

http://plottingeoe.com/blog/evolution-or-creationism



Creationist Christians who deny Darwinian evolution?

http://plottingeoe.com/blog/creationist-christians-who-deny-darwinian-evolution



Do you believe the great flood actually covered the whole earth?

http://plottingeoe.com/blog/do-you-believe-the-great-flood-actually-covered-the-whole-earth



Where do scientists get dates for evolution?

http://plottingeoe.com/blog/where-do-scientists-get-dates-for-evolution



How do creationists arrive at the conclusion that the Earth is 6000 years old?

http://plottingeoe.com/blog/how-do-creationists-believe-the-earth-is-6000-years-old



What percent of creation scientists know deep down that everything they're doing is a lie?

http://plottingeoe.com/blog/what-percent-of-creation-scientists-know-what-they-re-doing-is-a-lie



Big Bang is dead. Cosmology

Why cant we live in a world where people accept facts and theory's like the big bang?

http://plottingeoe.com/blog/big-bang-is-dead



Do Christians deny all science or just the science that shakes their world views?

http://plottingeoe.com/blog/do-christians-deny-all-science-or-just-the-science-that-shakes-their-world-views



What percent of creation scientists know deep down that everything they're doing is a lie?

http://plottingeoe.com/blog/what-percent-of-creation-scientists-know-what-they-re-doing-is-a-lie

Answer 14

The basis of your tirade is "god does not exist" but then ONLY brain dead fundies ever say anyone says that. So your premise and tirade are absurd.

Answer 15

you claim something (a "god" exists)

I say it dont

this aint a claim - its a rejection of your claim



you want to further your claim then provide the proof

Answer 16

Atheists- "there is no God"

Theists- "prove it"

Atheists- "moron, get a dictionary, lack of belief"

Answer 17

Christians don't claim to you God exists, we know God exists and want to tell you the truth.

Answer 18

They are both making positive claims (even claiming the absence of something is a positive claim)



they both have the burden of proof



One is claiming it has spots



One is claiming it does not



Both claims need to be defended

Answer 19

You can't prove a negative. Don't be stupid.