A sighted person could take two disks differing only by color and hand them both to a blind man. The blind man could then ask another sighted person which one is blue. Even if a blind person can't visualise color (who knows), he can very easily believe it exists since he can witness sighted people using color to affect things which he can check empiricaly.

I have no idea what it's like to be a dog on a scent trail, but I can be sure they exist.

I am familiar with the idea that being born again is like receiving a new spiritual sense (believing is seeing), having believed it myself. What good is it, though, if this sense doesn't let you know anything remotly verifiable, and how can a person possibly know that Satan didn't create the world and Jesus is the Father of Lies?

I can say it's like you're a person who's been blind from birth, and you're telling me that there's no such thing as the color red, or telling me that the burden of proof is on me to prove the existence of the color blue.

A blind person can talk to people who claim to have this sense that he doesn't. He can set things up a certain way in a room, then bring them in & ask them to say where those things are without feeling around. In this way he can confirm that they have some way of sensing things that really exist that he does not. He can confirm the existence of some of the things sighted people talk about by the use of the senses he does have.

Humans have determined the existence of radiation we cannot see directly by their effects on things we can detect with the senses we have. Read about the discoveries of X-rays, radio, neutrinos etc.

The blind person can in principle build instruments to detect light & eventually determine that what sighted people call red & blue correspond to types of light that his instruments can distinguish.

I think your analogy between the non-Christian & the blind man is defective.

Here's my position, which I think is true Christian doctrine: The truth about God is obscured. It's covered up, and can't be seen by empirical evidence. To people who have faith, it gets uncovered (this 'uncovering' is the greek word 'apocalypse'). This faith is faith in Jesus - But the uncovering uncovers all sorts of other spiritual truths - So it's not like the uncovering is useless because it only uncovers what you already believe through your faith.

The obvious question here is: what about former Xians? Certainly, those who have had faith in Jesus would have had all this revealed, so how do you explain those who leave their faith behind?

I can say it's like you're a person who's been blind from birth, and you're telling me that there's no such thing as the color red, or telling me that the burden of proof is on me to prove the existence of the color blue.

If you wish to assert that god exists, the burden of proof is on you to back it up, especially if you wish for anyone else to take you seriously. Otherwise, we should all believe in every god that has ever been posited.

My position is utterly unscientific, since it posits an essential epistemological difference between Christians and non-Christians.

If this difference is at all measureable, then it is something that can be scientifically investigated. Unfortunately for you, no study has ever revealed such a difference.
Of course, in making such a claim, I find the burden of proof is on me: To prove this claim, I would have to show that there exists such a difference between a Christian and a non-Christian. However, this is an interesting kind of claim, because part of the claim is that I cannot under any circumstances prove it to you.
Ah, but we do have ex-Xians here (myself included) who can be used to verify your claim that Xians who have faith in god are somehow different and able to see the truth of god. Owing to the high numbers of atheists on this board who are former Xians who have said (in other threads) that there is no difference and there is no truth to god, I find your claims sorely lacking both in evidence and in credibility. Further, if you can't prove this claim to us, then you'll understand when we don't believe your claim has any validity. I do wonder what proof you think that you have that you are correct. Personal experience perhaps? How can you prove that this was actual contact with god?

Here's my position, which I think is true Christian doctrine: The truth about God is obscured. It's covered up, and can't be seen by empirical evidence. To people who have faith, it gets uncovered (this 'uncovering' is the greek word 'apocalypse'). This faith is faith in Jesus - But the uncovering uncovers all sorts of other spiritual truths - So it's not like the uncovering is useless because it only uncovers what you already believe through your faith. For instance, because of my faith in Jesus, He's given me certain insights into the nature of the Holy Spirit - things that I didn't know before.

Anyway, it's impossible to disprove this position, because I can say about any argument you offer me: "That only seems true to you because for you the truth is still 'covered up'. For me, however, there has been an uncovering of the truth." In essense, I can say that I understand something that you can't understand, and you can't understand how I understand it. I can say it's like you're a person who's been blind from birth, and you're telling me that there's no such thing as the color red, or telling me that the burden of proof is on me to prove the existence of the color blue.

My position is utterly unscientific, since it posits an essential epistemological difference between Christians and non-Christians. Any claim the sighted man makes is 'unfalsifiable' by the blind man - Of course. He can't see, and he can't experience what sight is, so he isn't in a position to either confirm or deny anything concerning colors. For him to be able to see and know about red or blue, there has to be a change made to his physical body. Nobody can prove color to him - The only thing to do is heal him.

Of course, in making such a claim, I find the burden of proof is on me: To prove this claim, I would have to show that there exists such a difference between a Christian and a non-Christian. However, this is an interesting kind of claim, because part of the claim is that I cannot under any circumstances prove it to you. That would be to prove to you the claim that says that I cannot prove anything to you. If I really believe my own claim, I won't even try. I'll just describe my position, and leave it at that.

So... Sorry. (And sorry this post ran so long)

There are a few things which I take to be true without evidence. I reject "Last Thursdayism" and the idea that the universe is a The Matrix-like simulation without any evidence. I do this because they are essentially meaningless. If life is a simulation, I can use "evidence" to find out how this simulation works. Even if I'm not finding "truth", I'm finding out something useful and which I want to find out.

I do not always trust my senses, but I trust them more than any alternative I can think of. What alternatives did you have in mind?

We could imagine... hypothesize, if you will... that God created the universe leaving no trace of himself which can be found empirically, but that he wanted to be known, so he sent the Bible. (If you don't believe the Bible, fill in your own blank here.) The Bible (or Blank) has no benefits which can be demonstrated empirically, but if you follow it, God will restore your mind in an alternate universe, or perhaps let you come visit this one in the future.

(In case this isn't obvious, this is *not* what most believers are suggesting. It also negates the atheist's claim that a god with no empirically detectable effects is good for nothing.)

How could we establish this as truth? I have no idea. We can't rely on any empirical evidence, and any internal evidence should be suspect as well. -- consider the following legend:

"In the beginning was King Lumos, who created many lords to help him. Lumos created the universe and made humanity to enjoy it. By his own willpower the universe continues to exist. One day the lords decided to overthrow king Lumos, lead by the chief Lord Vortamort. Lord Vortamort then revealed himself to humanity claiming to be the creator and spreading the lie that King Lumos was the Angel of Light and author of lies. King Lumos will eventually stop sustaining the universe for all but those who have rejected the claims of Lord Vortamort, who claims to be the Word of God made flesh."

How can we ever confirm that this is blasphemy and not truth?

Evidence is popular because it is so far the most consistent and reliable method of working things out. By which I mean that independently examined evidence leads both parties to the same conclusion. The same cannot be said of faith.

Evidence is the sole link to truth.

That's quite a hefty claim. To make that claim, you have to establish a definition of 'truth', which would probably include a definition of 'mind' and 'reality' (My functional definition of 'truth' is "Whenever something of mind matches up with something of reality" - But that's tricky, because what does 'matches up' mean? I have to go into a lengthly discussion of 'form' to explain it.)

You also have to have a definition of 'evidence', and you would probably also want to establish the trustworthiness of your senses. I haven't ever believed that my senses were trustworthy.

When you make the positive claim that there is only one link to truth, BAM! the burden of proof is on you. I mean, I make that claim too, about Jesus, and when I do it the burden of proof is on me.

I know you didn't say anything against this, but I suddenly feel the need to spell out that I am an atheist and have been one for about 15 years. I mention this because you seem to be putting a lot of energy into specific arguments about whether the Bible is true or not, when what I'm trying to ask is much more general. Surely I will not disagree with your conclusions, but I'm curious about the rules of engagement, if you will.

We're not (at least I think we're not) really talking about court cases, but about real life interactions with our friends, co-workers, and loved ones. If it should happen (as happened just this week) that I should mention in the course of an amusing personal anectote that I am an atheist, and a co-worker should see that detail as a show-stopper worth derailing my story to ask about my belief, should I laugh in his face and tell him that the Burden of Proof is his and to go away? FSM forbid! No, I tell him about my mother who is slowily fading away from Alsheimers. What is mind, soul, or spirit if it can be lost piece by piece? He asks why I'm an atheist, and I answer.

It is very easy to imagine a conversation where a believer might ask if there's no God, where did life come from -- what about the eye. The atheist says that it was designed by natural selection - and bang, there's a claim and the burden has shifted.

I still don't see the difference between just a claim and a "positive claim."

I also must disagree with you about "available evidence." It doesn't matter whether information is "available", only whether it's known or presented. When I ask people how they know the world is round, they often answer that "they have pictures." Sure, "they" have pictures, but do you have pictures, I ask them. How do you know they're not fake if you didn't witness how they were taken? They usually blink and change the subject. People aren't used to thinking and questioning their assumptions. This is good to a point, because otherwise we'd spend all our time reinventing the wheel. Still, if asked to, we should be able to step back and think about what we would need to do to verify something we believe.

If I claimed not to have a heart, and you responded that everybody has one, I could ask you to support that claim. You could mention that hearts are vital (no pun intended) for getting oxygen to the cells, and then ask how I manage this without a heart. You would have shifted the burden of proof back. (Although, perhaps your best move would be to dismiss me as a loonie and move one.) You cannot argue, however that "everybody knows", since "everybody" has been wrong many times in human history.

If (proverbially speaking) your mother asks you why she should give up the beliefs she was raised with, would you tell her that the burden is on her to prove that she shouldn't? Perhaps ultimately, yes, but not until you've had many converations and discussed many claims on both sides - presenting evidence or explaining why other evidence should not be counted. To state categorically that either side (in any debate) has the entire burden of proof is overly simplistic.

The bible is of earthly origins is not needing to be proved, even though as I posted above, it could be. It's not trying to be proved because it holds little bearing on the reality of things; it's merely not a concern. However, the other possibility, that the bible is not of earthly origins, or divinely inspired, is still being posed, and it still lacks any evidence.

In short, the atheist doesn't share the burden of proof because, as far as I've seen the debate go, the atheist never tries to prove the bible is of earthly origins (even though one hypothetically could), merely points out there's no evidence available to suppose it was divinely inspired.

I feel that answers your question a little faster.

Even in court, a good defence will indeed make positive claims and attemt to prove them - for the very purpose of providing "reasonable doubt" about the prosecutions own claims.

A defense will likely involve countering claims and evidence presented by the prosecutor. However, in the case of Bible earthly vs. Not, it would be similiar to two different trials; one in which the prosecution presents no evidence, and one where both prosecution and defense are offering evidence. That's a more adequate analogy.

I think there would be plenty of reasons not to believe me if I said that I did not have a heart, but these reasons (or most of them, anyway) do not hinge on whether "I do not have a heart" is a "positive claim" or not.

The reasons not to believe you have nothing to do with positive claims, but instead available evidence. If one seeks to make a claim about the existance of something, they need evidence. At one point "I have a heart" was a positive claim, and it still is, except now it's backed up by mountains of evidence. A negative claim would be "I do not have a heart", positive and negative in this case merely meaning whether you're talking about the object in terms of existing or not. However, it would need to be supported because of the overwhelming evidence against the possibility; all in all though, it's an easily testable claim.

Evidence is the sole link to truth. If a person makes an extraordinary claim, we don't have to search the whole universe to disprove it - we just have to ask that person how they know that, what facts they have that led them to believe in that way. If they can't produce such facts, then we're justified in concluding that they don't know what they're talking about, and there's no reason to believe them.

This is why the person who makes the positive claim has the burden of proof to support it. Since we're not justified in believing something for which we don't have evidence, a person who claims to be justified in their belief is under the obligation to present their evidence. By contrast, a lack of belief in a given proposition requires no positive justifying evidence, only the absence of evidence to the contrary. Therefore, it is the default position, and does not incur any special burden of proof.

The claim "The bible is of earthly origins" is a positive claim, as is "The bible is not of earthly origins"; "the bible is not of earthly origins" is not simply doubting that claim that it is, it's posing an alternative possibility. Both are making claims as to specific qualities of the book.

Take the claim the bible is of earthly origin. We can even go a step further, claim that books are of earthly origin.

That is the principle of burden of proof: the person who makes a positive claim has an obligation to support it if they wish others to believe them. It is not the responsibility of others to prove that claim false. Closely related to this is the principle of falsifiability - that is, what sorts of claims it is possible to prove or disprove. This post will discuss both of these ideas.

Knowing nothing about the book, one could make the claim it's an earthly book, and others could be free to doubt that claim and believe it's a non-earthly book; others remain agnostic about it, so we start from there.

The claim itself a relatively beign one. By believing that books are of earthly origin, little if any impact is made on one's life. There's plenty of evidence to show books can be created, from the processes of harvesting and processing materials, and then through writing. There's a history of written documents, and it can be seen how it began and evolved from simple cave paintings to modern day printing presses. In no step along the way has anything other than an earthly origin been observed, nor verified through any test. All this is able to be verified through testing that is both repeatable and observable by others. So far we're in good shape.

Now, one claims the bible is of earthly origin. We have evidence of countless different books that share the same themes as parts of the bible; we have evidence of different cultures living under some of the same sets of rules as described in the bible; perhaps not all in one particular place, but overall the bible doesn't offer much new. We could look into the history of other mythic story telling and see parallels in different versions of the same story as it changes through oral tradition. In short, any test we could run on the bible or evidence we could examine from different prospectives all points to there being nothing intrsinically special about the bible, in part or in whole.

Likewise, there has never been a test determined to figure out supposed non-earthly origins of books or inspiration for books. While it's not entirely impossible that some extra-earthly source of books exists, if it can't be tested it's worthless as a claim. So given this large body of available evidence using any book, we can safely assume it is of earthly origins; we have never been able to find a counter-example.