Burden of Proof

3/18/2008.

At many times, people decide whom the burden of proof is on.

An example of this is the religion person and the athiest.

The religous person says to the athiest: "Prove to me that there is no God, then you'll be right." "You can't do that, can you?"

And the athiest would originally say to the religious person: "Prove to me there is a God. Show me the evidence." "You can't do that, can you?"

Now whom should the burden of proof be upon, the religious person or the athiest?

It goes like this:

Religious person: "By default, I believe there is a God, until proven there isn't 1."
Atheist: "By default, I don't believe there is a God, until proven there is a God."

Which of the above view is the most logical?

Well, if you support the religious person, then you would support a court system where a judge would tell the victim "Prove to me you didn't commit the murder. If you can't do that, then I'll sentence you as a murderer."

Or should the victim go "No, if you're accusing me of murder, show me the evidence. There isn't any, is there?"

It's a good thing that that isn't the case with most court systems. What a reluctant world it is that we don't have to prove something we didn't do.

This is the difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "guilty until proven innocent." This is the line I draw between the burden of proof going on the religious person and the burden of proof on the athiest.

So long as you understand that for a person trying to remove a belief you currently hold, their burden of proof is met when and if they show that the burden of proof for the belief you currently hold has not been met.

Purpose of typing this article:

At 1 time, in late 2006, I was falsely accused of doing something. I was accused of making threats to a C.E.O. of a corporation on IRC. Such an incident never happened. The burden of proof was on me. I had to *prove* I did not make such threats. This scam was played by 2 people (not including the C.E.O.). I was told that, there was evidence of me making the threats, and that evidence was in logs, but I was not to see them.

I could go on, but what's the point? There is obviously not a win-win situation. I'm against proving something you didn't do.

11/14/2008.

Regarding theism.

The hardest part about deciding whether or not God exists or not between humans is whom the burden of proof is on - the person believing in God, or the person not believing in God? Humans will never be able to reach a consensus on that.

If the burden of proof is on the person believing in God, then he will have to show God does exist.
If the burden of proof is on the person not believing in God, then he will have to show proof of God's non-existence.

Of course, there is no such thing as negative proof, so of course, those that believe the burden of proof should be on the person disproving God's existence, that has no proof against his existence, could be proof of his existence.

In order for any group of people to argue or debate whether or not God exists, the 1st thing necessary is deciding whom the burden of proof is on - the person proving something, or the person disproving something. And that is the problem that humans will never reach a consensus on.

Every argument any side made, a counter-argument can be made.

For example, the argument.

"You have no proof that God exists."

The counter-argument is.

"You have no proof that God does not exist."

(And then can be used in reverse order.)

Because each and every possible argument on any side has a counter-argument that can be used on the opposing side, it is actually not only relevant, but necessary, for any debating group of both sides on deciding whom the burden of proof is on.