Those who make a positive assertion or those who are skeptical of such a claim?
2007-03-21 07:51:30 · 36 answers · asked by ZER0 C00L ••AM••VT•• 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The one who makes the postive assertion, i.e. the one claiming that a given thing is true or exists. It is about who believes "one more thing". If I am a cop and I believe that someone robbed a store, I believe one more thing about that person than other people believe. That is why it's up to me to prove that person guilty, otherwise, he/she is presumed innocent. In legal terminology, this is "burden of proof".
In logic, it is called "burden of evidence". If I state that I have a purple hedgehog tree, I believe in the existence of one more thing than you; therefore, the burden of evidence rests with me, the person making the claim. The other party is justified in rejecting that claim completely out of hand unless the claim is supported by evidence, just as the District Attorney is justified in dismissing a charge against someone for lack of evidence. Either it can be proven, or it cannot. There is no "in-between".
2007-03-21 08:32:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Those who make a positive assertion.
Skeptics are responding to the question inspired by the assertion. The bearer of the initial assertion should bear the burden of proof.
2007-03-21 07:55:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
I've been thinking about this question a lot...
Typically, within a court room, who ever is making the accusation or the claim must prove their case.
In a formal debate, it depends on the specific topic. There's a huge difference between the topics "God is real" and "Is there a God?"
In any ordinary discussion, it seems to be the burden of whoever is attempting to change the other's mind.
So obviously this didn't help answer the question, but it's my 2 cents.
2007-03-21 15:01:56 · answer #3 · answered by Eleventy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The one making the assertation. If the one skeptical had the burden of proof, then anyone could claim anything and we'd all need to believe it or prove them wrong.
2007-03-21 07:56:00 · answer #4 · answered by Jess H 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The positive assertion.
2007-03-21 08:14:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If I sought to prove God's nonexistence to you, I would be attempting the impossible. I can't take you to every plane of existence and say "whoops, he ain't here. Let's keep looking."
I do not seek to persuade others to adopt my nonbelief. It is satisfactory to me. Thus, I bear no responsibility of any kind with regard to religion and proof, even if such proof were possible.
Those who seek to convice ME to change my stance on this issue must provide satisfactory proof. I have seen none to date.
Those who are supercilious about the rightness of their Christian spiritual choices violate the dictates of the religion to which they claim allegiance.
2007-03-21 16:48:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the one person didn't make the positive assertion, the other person wouldn't have anything to make a negative assertion against.
2007-03-21 13:47:00 · answer #7 · answered by S K 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Those who make a positive assertion bear the burden of proof. This goes for both sides (err, all sides).
2007-03-21 07:59:06 · answer #8 · answered by Guvo 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
those who make a positive assertion, whether the assetion is that there is or is not a god
those who remain only skeptical may rest easy
2007-03-21 19:02:15 · answer #9 · answered by kitty is ANGRY!™ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a false dichotomy. It depends on how outrageous the claim.
If I make a positive assertion that this apple will drop if I let go, it's up to someone else to prove me wrong.
If I say that the invisible pink unicorn is next to you but you will never perceive it unless she wishes it so, it's up to ME to prove it.
2007-03-22 02:40:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋