Still More on Burden of Proof

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

In a message dated 4/8/98 6:07:50 AM, you wrote:

<<TILL
Thank you for making my case for me.  If the Presley family would cooperate,
I certainly could prove that Elvis Presley is NOT still alive, because
empirical evidence is available in this matter.  However, even with the
availability of empirical evidence, no rational person really feels any
sense of obligation to go to the trouble to produce the empirical evidence
that Presley is NOT still alive.  How much more, then, should one not sense
any responsibility to prove the nonexistence of those things that cannot be
empirically examined?

PADRO
Because no one ever demands for it.   If I believed Elvis was alive, I would
expect everyone to prove to me that he doesn't live, as much as they would
expect me to prove that he does.   Just because a rational persons doesn't
"feel" any sense of obligation doesn't mean it's not there.   It means they
have grown numb.   If no one demands for it, they will not feel obligated.

TILL
Just try to argue your case for the existence of this god of yours, and I
think that I will be able to demonstrate that your evidence is unreasonable.
Hence, if your evidence is unreasonable, then there will be no good reason
for you to believe in this god.  But I would still have no obligation to
prove to you that your god does NOT exist.  See how it works.

PADRO
Alright, let's rephrase a little:
Just try to argue your case for the non-existence of this God of mine, and I
think that I will be able to demonstrate that your evidence is unreasonable.
Hence, if your evidence is unreasonable, then there will be every good reason
for you to believe in God.   But I would still have no obligation to prove to
you that my God DOES exist.   See how it works.
So who wins?

TILL
Then why don't you prove that?  You certainly don't prove it when you simply
demand that others prove that your assertion about "God" is NOT true.  Would
you consider that a Heaven's Gater had proven that all reasoning for the
nonexistence of the Hale-Bopp UFO was unreasonable if all he did was say,
"Well, let's see you prove that this UFO does NOT exist?">>

PADRO
It is more complicated than that.   I would not find him wrong to expect me to
prove that "this UFO does NOT exist".   If he saw it, he saw it.   Just
because my belief is against UFO's existing (in relation to little green men
flying in space), doesn't mean that I am right to assert that what he saw was
not an unidentifiable flying object.   It would take a lot more for him to
convince me that he saw it though, but if he could defeat any argument I had
that said UFO's don't exist, I would consider listening to him.

Padro

• Previous message: Still More on Burden of Proof
• Next message: Still More on Burden of Proof
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]