• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Burden of Proof

Status
Not open for further replies.
joG said:
Your sophistry is not very convincing.
Click to expand...

I should have remembered why I generally avoid reading or responding to your posts.....
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Your inability to honesty and/or correctly use the word 'sophistry' is not very convincing.
Click to expand...
...and even if designed to apply in its more modern definition of (for) clever arguments used in order to deceive, in this particular case just shows total incomprehension of the arguments offered.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Your inability to honesty and/or correctly use the word 'sophistry' is not very convincing.
Click to expand...

Chagos said:
...and even if designed to apply in its more modern definition of (for) clever arguments used in order to deceive, in this particular case just shows total incomprehension of the arguments offered.
Click to expand...
The burden of proof lies with you two budinskis.
 
Angel said:
The burden of proof lies with you two budinskis.
Click to expand...
When you've known joG as long as I have, then you can talk.

Provided you've by then also understood the "burden of proof" law better then you've attempted to present it here by your futile efforts of turning logic onto its head and then claiming to have done that by logic.
 
Angel said:
The burden of proof lies with you two budinskis.
Click to expand...

Please lean what actual terms mean before attempting to use them. Someone used 'sophistry' incorrectly and this was pointed out.

That apparently upsets you.

Yawn. Get a new schtick.
 
Chagos said:
When you've known joG as long as I have, then you can talk.

Provided you've by then also understood the "burden of proof" law better then you've attempted to present it here by your futile efforts of turning logic onto its head and then claiming to have done that by logic.
Click to expand...
Oh, I can talk now, I assure you. Support your allegation.
 
Angel said:
Oh, I can talk now, I assure you. Support your allegation.
Click to expand...
Ah, the beauty of c & p
Tanngrisnir said:
Please lean what actual terms mean before attempting to use them. Someone used 'sophistry' incorrectly and this was pointed out.

That apparently upsets you.

Yawn. Get a new schtick.
Click to expand...
Couldn't have said it any better myself so all credit goes to the source.
 
Chagos said:
Ah, the beauty of c & p Couldn't have said it any better myself so all credit goes to the source.
Click to expand...
He's getting the same challenge. Support your allegation.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Please lean what actual terms mean before attempting to use them. Someone used 'sophistry' incorrectly and this was pointed out.

That apparently upsets you.

Yawn. Get a new schtick.
Click to expand...
Support your allegation or go to sleep.
 
devildavid said:
No one has to prove something make believe is make believe. There is no burden of proof for that.
Click to expand...

Yes there is if somebody is being accused. If A challenges a statement made by B, even one B entirely made up, A may have a plausible argument that B is not believable. That no reasonable person would believe B. (That was the argument used in the trial against Santa Claus's claim to be Santa Claus in "Miracle on 34th Street.") But that does not extrapolate to A needing no argument at all to discredit B. A burden of proof is still on the prosecution to make his/her case.
 
Angel said:
The burden of proof lies with you two budinskis.
Click to expand...

The burden of proof lies with the originator of the concept....Everything which follows is dependent upon the original claim...The burden of proof falls on the those who propose god(s) for that reason. There would be no need to even question the concept of god otherwise.
 
Russell797 said:
The burden of proof lies with the originator of the concept....Everything which follows is dependent upon the original claim...The burden of proof falls on the those who propose god(s) for that reason. There would be no need to even question the concept of god otherwise.
Click to expand...
Assuming you're married and love your partner, do you have to prove your love to a stranger who questions it?
But if that stranger alleges that you don't love your partner, who has the burden of proof? You or the stranger?
 
Angel said:
Assuming you're married and love your partner, do you have to prove your love to a stranger who questions it?
But if that stranger alleges that you don't love your partner, who has the burden of proof? You or the stranger?
Click to expand...

If I want them to believe I love my partner then yes I do have to prove it. Otherwise they can surmise anything they conjure up without reason.

If the stranger alleges (surmises) that I don't love my partner in the absence of any evidence to the contrary then they have no basis for their belief.

If I claim there is an elephant sitting on your head must you prove that there is not? I make the claim...I must prove it. You don't have to prove anything.
 
Russell797 said:
The burden of proof lies with the originator of the concept....Everything which follows is dependent upon the original claim...The burden of proof falls on the those who propose god(s) for that reason. There would be no need to even question the concept of god otherwise.
Click to expand...

But if a God claims to be a God, if God IS God, you are not required to believe it. But the burden of proof is on you should you have need to dispute it.

In the trial on 34th street, Santa Claus claimed to be Santa Claus. Even his attorney did not believe it until the evidence itself was so convincing that he had to open his mind to the possibility. But the prosecution still had to present a case to the court why Santa Claus could not possibly be Santa Claus or at least sufficient evidence that Santa Claus had not made a convincing enough case. The 'everybody knows that' argument is fine in casual conversation but won't hold up as evidence to prove a point.

However, if a witness testifies to a fact, the witness has no means to prove that he witnessed it. If only one of many people make the same testimony, the court will usually dismiss it as insufficient evidence, most especially if what the witness saw seems implausible. But if several or many people testify to a fact, the court is obligated to consider the testimony and the burden of proof is on the opposition to discredit that testimony.
 
Russell797 said:
If I want them to believe I love my partner then yes I do have to prove it. Otherwise they can surmise anything they conjure up without reason.

If the stranger alleges (surmises) that I don't love my partner in the absence of any evidence to the contrary then they have no basis for their belief.

If I claim there is an elephant sitting on your head must you prove that there is not? I make the claim...I must prove it. You don't have to prove anything.
Click to expand...

How does one go about proving that he/she loves his/her partner or anything else for that matter? How do you prove that love even exists?
 
Angel said:
Support your allegation or go to sleep.
Click to expand...

That requires that one understands what the word means, how it was used and that one not be intellectual dishonest.

That being the case, I already have to anyone who knows what the word means.

You're simply trolling now, as you always end up doing.
 
Russell797 said:
...
If the stranger alleges (surmises) that I don't love my partner in the absence of any evidence to the contrary then they have no basis for their belief.
Click to expand...
It's precisely the basis of the stranger's allegation that is required here. That is, the burden of proof lies with him, not you.

Russell797 said:
If I claim there is an elephant sitting on your head must you prove that there is not? I make the claim...I must prove it. You don't have to prove anything.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
It's precisely the basis of the stranger's allegation that is required here. That is, the burden of proof lies with him, not you.
Click to expand...

Wrong...he can believe whatever he wants...I don't care...but if I want to prove him wrong I must show evidence that I love my wife. He nor I have any burden of proof to show his negative in the absence of evidence...for one thing it can't be done...as in impossible.

Likewise, believe in god if you wish...I don't care...but if you insist that I must prove god does not exist before you must prove god does exist you are not following the rules of logic....God can not be logically deduced...you should give it up and do what is required...Have faith.

As an atheist I make no claim that god does not exist...I simple do not believe....because I have been given no reason to. There is no burden on me...

Exactly.[/QUOTE]
 
Russell797 said:
Wrong...he can believe whatever he wants...I don't care...but if I want to prove him wrong I must show evidence that I love my wife. He nor I have any burden of proof to show his negative in the absence of evidence...for one thing it can't be done...as in impossible.

Likewise, believe in god if you wish...I don't care...but if you insist that I must prove god does not exist before you must prove god does exist you are not following the rules of logic....God can not be logically deduced...you should give it up and do what is required...Have faith.

As an atheist I make no claim that god does not exist...I simple do not believe....because I have been given no reason to. There is no burden on me...

Exactly.
Click to expand...
In the thought experiment the stranger is alleging, not just believing, and your "in the absence of evidence" begs the question because the question of evidence is what is at issue here.

Your indifference to my belief matches precisely my indifference to your disbelief.
And I don't insist that atheists prove the existence of God. I just want the same from atheists. As you say, the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. So all who demand proof or disproof should just shut up about God already. However, if someone claims that God is a delusion, then the burden is on him to back up his claim.

Unless you disagree with any of the above, then I'd say we have no quarrel.
 
Angel said:
In the thought experiment the stranger is alleging, not just believing, and your "in the absence of evidence" begs the question because the question of evidence is what is at issue here.

Your indifference to my belief matches precisely my indifference to your disbelief.
And I don't insist that atheists prove the existence of God. I just want the same from atheists. As you say, the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. So all who demand proof or disproof should just shut up about God already. However, if someone claims that God is a delusion, then the burden is on him to back up his claim.

Unless you disagree with any of the above, then I'd say we have no quarrel.
Click to expand...

You are describing scientific proof which does not exist for ANYTHING. Asking for such proof is asking for something which does not exist
 
devildavid said:
First you have to establish that I have a belief system.
Click to expand...

Skepticism is a belief system. It is a system on how to approach beliefs.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
That requires that one understands what the word means, how it was used and that one not be intellectual dishonest.

That being the case, I already have to anyone who knows what the word means.

You're simply trolling now, as you always end up doing.
Click to expand...

Which is why I wonder why everyone doesn't have him on ignore. He never has anything intelligent to say, any more than Logicman does. Why pay them the slightest bit of attention? Why feed the trolls?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
That requires that one understands what the word means, how it was used and that one not be intellectual dishonest.

That being the case, I already have to anyone who knows what the word means.

You're simply trolling now, as you always end up doing.
Click to expand...
The last is a laugh coming from you.
Cephus said:
Which is why I wonder why everyone doesn't have him on ignore. He never has anything intelligent to say, any more than Logicman does. Why pay them the slightest bit of attention? Why feed the trolls?
Click to expand...
Calling others trolls is trolling.
This is a thread on the burden of proof. You've both made allegations. Support them.
Or put me on Ignore as you think you threaten. Please. Put me on Ignore. Both of you.
 
Angel said:
The last is a laugh coming from you.

Calling others trolls is trolling.
This is a thread on the burden of proof. You've both made allegations. Support them.
Or put me on Ignore as you think you threaten. Please. Put me on Ignore. Both of you.
Click to expand...
Proof of anything does not exist
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom