I have traditionally agreed with the Atheistic argument that the burden of proof (of the existence of God) rests on the Theist. This has been based on my understanding of the concept of burden of proof: namely that the burden rests on he who makes a positive assertion and not on he who makes a negative assertion. In summary, anyway.

However sometime ago, when i advanced this notion to my younger brother he contested it fiercely. He stated (i paraphrase) that in view of the improbable complexity of life forms, there exists every reason to suppose by default that an intelligent creator exists, and that the burden to disprove that, (since life forms seem to evince the contrary) should rest on the atheist.

I found this argument compelling because I am aware (in law) that the burden of proof is by no means static. In legal proceedings for example, the burden of proof is said to shift when on the face of the facts presented, the assertion sought to be proved by the person advancing the positive assertion appears more probable than the denial being advanced by the counter-party.

I am wondering if the improbable complexity of living forms (admitted even by the most irrascible atheists, such as Richard Dawkins) is not sufficient to shift the burden of proof over to he who thereon denies the existence of an intelligent creator.

@Deedsight:
I am trying to figure out what is meant by improbable complexity.
Living forms display a progression or evolution of complexity from single cell micro-organisms to complex organs. The same can be said of non-living matter as we see a simple single- electron element like hydrogen combining, when the conditions are right, with carbon and nitrogen to very form complex molecules.
I do not see this mprobable complexity. It all may seem improbable because we are new to the scene and are just looking at a single snapshot of very fast moving processes that have been going on for billions of years.

I think this notion of an Intelligent designer is overated. Where exactly is this intelligent design?
Again, because we are living in and viewing just a snapshot of a much bigger picture, we cannot see the choas that we are enmeshed in. When we see a flower, we say it is beautiful, but when we see a volcanic mountain spewing volcanic ash, where is the beauty and design? where is the beauty and design in the hot scorching desert? We decide what we call beauty, not because things are inherently beautiful. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
We marvel at the complexity of the human eye, but we ignore the time it would have taken nature to progress (or evolve)to its current level of complexity. What about occular diseases? Where does that feature in the intelligent design?
Infact, disease is evidence of non- intelligent design since perfection would have been the ultimate goal of any intelligent deisigner. Evolution is a trial and error mechanism where nothing is guaranteed.The fact that living and non-living matter exist in a state of constant flux allows for instability and error. That is why the earth is not perfectly round, that is why the earth wobbles as it spins even though it took her about 3 billion years just to settle on its present orbit. 3 billion yrs just to get it right,
We are living on this beautiful earth because it has taken 4.7billion yrs of countless trial and error mechanisms and submechanisms to evolve a system capable of supporting life.
If that system changes in the next million yrs or so, and therefore unable to sustain life, then earth would turn desolate just like mars and others in our celestial neighborhood.
There is likely no order, no intelligent design, and no purpose, just the ceaselessly random ,chaotic motions of matter.

The burden of proof is placed who goes beyond a simpler state. Its easier to assume 0 than to admit 1. Coupled with problem of ad infinitum, complexity and purpose; its safe to place the burden of proof he who asserts and transfer the burden to the 'negative' to disprove

Deep Sight:

I have traditionally agreed with the Atheistic argument that the burden of proof (of the existence of God) rests on the Theist. This has been based on my understanding of the concept of burden of proof: namely that the burden rests on he who makes a positive assertion and not on he who makes a negative assertion. In summary, anyway.

However sometime ago, when i advanced this notion to my younger brother he contested it fiercely. He stated (i paraphrase) that in view of the improbable complexity of life forms, there exists every reason to suppose by default that an intelligent creator exists, and that the burden to disprove that, (since life forms seem to evince the contrary) should rest on the atheist.

I found this argument compelling because I am aware (in law) that the burden of proof is by no means static. In legal proceedings for example, the burden of proof is said to shift when on the face of the facts presented, the assertion sought to be proved by the person advancing the positive assertion appears more probable than the denial being advanced by the counter-party.

I am wondering if the improbable complexity of living forms (admitted even by the most irrascible atheists, such as Richard Dawkins) is not sufficient to shift the burden of proof over to he who thereon denies the existence of an intelligent creator.

Even if the burden of proof shifts to the nay sayers, all they have say is very simple:
I do not see god, I cannot detect god through any instrument, I dont know anyone who has seen god, therefore, god does not exist.
That is sufficient repudiation of the theist claims.

The burden of proof lies on anybody who makes any claims with absolute certainty. Positive or negative, a claim remains a claim. Stating that something exists(in this case, GOD) with absolute certainty is a claim that needs to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt by the claimer. And the same goes for the counter-claimer. So, let the two parties provide irrefutable evidence for their claims and counter-claims.

Now, that is a good start, even if it isn't quite irrefutable.

plaetton:

Even if the burden of proof shifts to the nay sayers, all they have say is very simple:
[b]I do not see god, I cannot detect god through any instrument, I dont know anyone who has seen god, therefore, god does not exist.[/b]That is sufficient repudiation of the theist claims.

plaetton:

@Deedsight:
I am trying to figure out what is meant by improbable complexity.

What is meant by improbable complexity? O, that comes straight from your own reverred Richard Dawkins. He wrote -

"We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated - too statistically improbable - to have come into being by sheer chance" ~ Richard Dawkins

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-758572.0.html

I am not here on this thread to argue the existence of God. I am here to discuss where the burden of proof should lie - with due regard to the concept of burden of proof. If something seems improbable, then does the burden not shift to he who asserts that seeming improbability?

As such, if this mere water crystal - prima facie - appears as something which is unlikely to be arrived at by blind chance - then the burden of proving that it actually does arrive in such a blind process then shifts to the man who asserts it to be so.

This Dawkins quote is often used as support for intelligent design while the person using the quote conveniently omits the rest of the paragraph.

[b]We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated - too statistically improbable - to have come into being by sheer chance.How, then, did they come into being? The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. These small steps of chance are caused by genetic mutations, random changes - mistakes really - in the genetic material. They give rise to changes in the existing bodily structure. Most of these changes are deleterious and lead to death. A minority of them turn out to be slight improvements, leading to increased survival and reproduction. By this process of natural selection, those random changes that turn out to be beneficial eventually spread through the species and become the norm. The stage is now set for the next small change in the evolutionary process. After, say, a thousand of these small changes in series, each change providing the basis for the next, the end result has become, by a process of accumulation, far too complex to have come about in a single act of chance[/b]

Mankind doesn't know of any "intelligent designer" yet or if one exists. All we know is that the universe exists and when Astrophysicists know more, then the rest of us will. Until then, every argument in favor of an intelligent designer is nothing but philosophical wishful thinking made up by theistic folks who can't fathom a universe and human life without a ultimate cause.

Deep Sight:

I have traditionally agreed with the Atheistic argument that the burden of proof (of the existence of God) rests on the Theist. This has been based on my understanding of the concept of burden of proof: namely that the burden rests on he who makes a positive assertion and not on he who makes a negative assertion. In summary, anyway.

However sometime ago, when i advanced this notion to my younger brother he contested it fiercely. He stated (i paraphrase) that in view of the improbable complexity of life forms, there exists every reason to suppose by default that an intelligent creator exists, and that the burden to disprove that, (since life forms seem to evince the contrary) should rest on the atheist.

I found this argument compelling because I am aware (in law) that the burden of proof is by no means static. In legal proceedings for example, the burden of proof is said to shift when on the face of the facts presented, the assertion sought to be proved by the person advancing the positive assertion appears more probable than the denial being advanced by the counter-party.

I am wondering if the improbable complexity of living forms (admitted even by the most irrascible atheists, such as Richard Dawkins) is not sufficient to shift the burden of proof over to he who thereon denies the existence of an intelligent creator.

There are several issues that have to be resolved first before the shift of the burden (or in this case, the preponderance of the burden) can occur.

Firstly, what idea of God is being referred to? Even if what we take to be life was designed, this doesn't mean that what we would generally consider to be a God did this designing. e.g if what we know as life here was designed by aliens somewhere else in the galaxy, we wouldn't call such beings Gods.

Secondly, what does he mean by "the improbable complexity of life"? What should be kept in mind is that improbable things occur all the time given a lot of time and space and that what we're looking at right now "life" may be considered a "finished" product in this sense.
To help in illustration, what is the probability that one should exist? Consider the necessary variables such as the presence of one's parents, the timing of their meeting, the number of gametes released, their grand parents and such situations going up 20 generations, then the probabilities of certain technologies being available when they became available etc. One can see that the final probability value is improbable.

Thirdly, has this God done anything else since then?

We don't doubt scientists when they make claims because they end up using the knowledge they gleam from research in practical ways.
In a logical and rational world, when somebody makes a claim, they don't tell other people to disprove them, they present evidence and explain how they came to that conclusion.
The recent neutrino experiment is an example. They made a claim and proceeded to explain how the experiments were done and are currently repeating them.
They didn't say, "neutrinos are faster than light" and then say the burden on proof is on the rest of us while refusing to offer evidence.
If anyone says an intelligent creator exists, then the burden of proof lies with the person.
I can't claim that there are 10 intelligent designers and ask someone else to disprove them. I have to prove that they exist.

Dawkins favoured natural selection not chance. He simply argued against chance, thus laying basis for natural selection.

Deep Sight:

What is meant by improbable complexity? O, that comes straight from your own reverred Richard Dawkins. He wrote - "We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated - too statistically improbable - to have come into being by sheer chance" ~ Richard Dawkins

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-758572.0.html

I am not here on this thread to argue the existence of God. I am here to discuss where the burden of proof should lie - with due regard to the concept of burden of proof. If something seems improbable, then does the burden not shift to he who asserts that seeming improbability?

As such, if this mere water crystal - prima facie - appears as something which is unlikely to be arrived at by blind chance - then the burden of proving that it actually does arrive in such a blind process then shifts to the man who asserts it to be so.

Correction:
I have never ever quoted Dawkins. I held my views long before i heard of the man, I certainly do not draw any kind of inspiration from him or any other.
Any elementary school child should know how snow crystals are formed. that is common and accepted knowledge. If on the other hand, someone makes the claim that Frosty The Snowman created the snow cyrstals, then the burden of proof should rest on the claimant.
Like I pointed out earlier, athiest should not have to waste their energy trying to prove the non-exixtence of god,no. They should simply ask"where is the creator?". That is the athiest's burden of proof.
let me give a personal story to illustrate this point.
I used to tell my child, when he was aged 4, that I could turn into a lion. Naturally, he believed it so much  that he went to school and spread the news to his friends. Everyday, his friends would debate this with him and he would always come home to ask me if I could really turn into a lion . I would say ,yes ofcourse. After a while, he started demanding that I turn into a lion to show him. Poor thing, he needed proof to face his face friends . I told him I could not turn into a lion in his presence because I would  have to swallow him if I did(.LoL), and he would back off. But as time went on ,he demanded for more proof ,and one point ,did not mind the possiblity of being swallowed by a lion. He needed proof from me. He needed to see in order to believe.
Under this scenario, I cannot imagine shifting the burden of proof to him to show that I cannot turn inot a lion. The fact that he has not seen it happen to date is all the proof he needs.
Not so?

Deep Sight:


I found this argument compelling because I am aware (in law) that the burden of proof is by no means static.

You found it compelling as a result of confirmation bias.

plaetton:

Even if the burden of proof shifts to the nay sayers, all they have say is very simple:
I do not see god, I cannot detect god through any instrument, I dont know anyone who has seen god, therefore, god does not exist.
That is sufficient repudiation of the theist claims.

Its simple enough a repudiation, until more credible evidence for the existence of God comes to light.

Jenwitemi:

Now, that is a good start, even if it isn't quite irrefutable.

^^

Martian:

This Dawkins quote is often used as support for intelligent design while the person using the quote conveniently omits the rest of the paragraph.

Deep Sight is fond of doing that. I dont know why. Again, like with your brothers argument, you pick what you want and ignore the rest.

There is this quote from Douglas Adams

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams

Martian:


They didn't say, "neutrinos are faster than light" and then say the burden on proof is on the rest of us while refusing to offer evidence.
If anyone says an intelligent creator exists, then the burden of proof lies with the person.
I can't claim that there are 10 intelligent designers and ask someone else to disprove them. I have to prove that they exist.

Thats the truth.

There has to be more evidence than "look at the world/universe".
He who asserts must prove. Only then does the burden shift. Feelings, no matter how deep they are, do not qualify as proof.

Martian:

This Dawkins quote is often used as support for intelligent design while the person using the quote conveniently omits the rest of the paragraph.

Absolutely not! I provided the link to the full article - and in that thread I extensively laid out my problems with the very obviously shallow write-up.

Besides this, you seem to have missed the core point. I have not set out to debate the existence of God in this thread. I have debated that all too often already. I am strictly and only setting out to revisit the question of Burden of Proof - no more, no less.

Now, with regard to that question the cardinal point is that the burden (and you can research this point if you please) properly should shift where the position being advanced by the denying party prima facie appears improbable. Now indeed, that very improbability is admitted by Dawkins - which is exactly why he then goes ahead to write extensively seeking to rebutt the existence of an intelligent creator.

He would not have to write a single word if indeed there was no burden upon him - and that burden arose from
the improbable complexity of living forms - which he accedes to.

every argument in favor of an intelligent designer is nothing but philosophical wishful thinking made up by theistic folks who can't fathom a universe and human life without a ultimate cause.

. . . .That is because it is only natural to believe that things as we know them generally have causes - - - or does science teach otherwise?

To simplify the premises -

Let's use Richard Dawkins' position to illustrate the point.

Argument One -

Premise One -
~ Burden of Proof properly shifts to the party advancing a notion that appears improbable

Premise Two -
~ Richard Dawkins accedes to the improbability of complex life forms arising from chance

Conclusion --->
Given that Dawkins admits the improbability of the complexity of living forms, the Burden of Proof for showing that they did arise through a non-guided process is thus properly shifted to him.

__________________________________

I realize that it may be said that Dawkins refers to natural selection and not pure chance per se. However, this is a frivolous and thoughless point to make, because -

1. Natural Selection at all events is inchoate as a theory regarding the development of species given that it does not account for the origin of species - here again in the very oirigin of species, chance is relied upon.

2. Dawkins himself argues for chance by speaking of "lucky mutations" (See his comments on the development of the eye)

3. Natural Selection involves many elements of chance

Given the foregoing, the argument from natural selection cannot escape the question of chance. It only attempts to build a scenario within which chance may appear to be more probable.

Thus, when we then consider that Dawkins had himself stated chance to be an improbable factor in light of the complexity of living forms and further given that the burden of proof shifts to he who advances an improbability, then it logically follows that the burden of proof shifts to Dawkings.

This is quite a simple process of thought development.

thehomer:


Firstly, what idea of God is being referred to?

We can only assume the very basic notion of God which ranks as common denominator to virtually all notions: namely - an intelligent creator of all that exists.

Even if what we take to be life was designed, this doesn't mean that what we would generally consider to be a God did this designing. e.g if what we know as life here was designed by aliens somewhere else in the galaxy, we wouldn't call such beings Gods.

It is safe to say that the idea being referred to within the context of theistic / atheistic discourses of this nature is that god or that element considered to be the ultimate cause of ALL existence.

Secondly, what does he mean by "the improbable complexity of life"? What should be kept in mind is that improbable things occur all the time given a lot of time and space and that what we're looking at right now "life" may be considered a "finished" product in this sense.
To help in illustration, what is the probability that one should exist? Consider the necessary variables such as the presence of one's parents, the timing of their meeting, the number of gametes released, their grand parents and such situations going up 20 generations, then the probabilities of certain technologies being available when they became available etc. One can see that the final probability value is improbable.

There are no problems with this. One can set out to prove that an improbable event does actually occur, or actually occured. The simple point being made is that once it is accepted as improbable, then the burden rests with he who asserts it to be the case.

Thirdly, has this God done anything else since then?

This is not relevant to this discussion.

Martian:

We don't doubt scientists when they make claims because they end up using the knowledge they gleam from research in practical ways.
In a logical and rational world, when somebody makes a claim, they don't tell other people to disprove them, they present evidence and explain how they came to that conclusion.
The recent neutrino experiment is an example. They made a claim and proceeded to explain how the experiments were done and are currently repeating them.
They didn't say, "neutrinos are faster than light" and then say the burden on proof is on the rest of us while refusing to offer evidence.
If anyone says an intelligent creator exists, then the burden of proof lies with the person.
I can't claim that there are 10 intelligent designers and ask someone else to disprove them. I have to prove that they exist.

It is actually within the common intuitive and logical sensing of mankind that things as we know them have causes. This is very basic and obvious within the laws of motion. It is also within the common understanding of mankind that startlingly advanced things, such as the human brain (a super computer far exceeding the capabilities of the most advanced purpose built super computers made by man) - do not grow into existence by themselves. They evince hallmarks of delibreate design, and for this reason the default position should indeed be to lean towards the obvious fact that such things are caused and designed.

Leaning in the other direction - namely that such a thing is not caused or designed - would certainly shift the burden of proof unto him who says so.

For by default, it appears designed.

How can i prove something that never existed to begin with?

plaetton:

Correction:
I have never ever quoted Dawkins. I held my views long before i heard of the man, I certainly do not draw any kind of inspiration from him or any other.
Any elementary school child should know how snow crystals are formed. that is common and accepted knowledge. If on the other hand, someone makes the claim that Frosty The Snowman created the snow cyrstals, then the burden of proof should rest on the claimant.
Like I pointed out earlier, athiest should not have to waste their energy trying to prove the non-exixtence of god,no. They should simply ask"where is the creator?". That is the athiest's burden of proof.
let me give a personal story to illustrate this point.
I used to tell my child, when he was aged 4, that I could turn into a lion. Naturally, he believed it so much  that he went to school and spread the news to his friends. Everyday, his friends would debate this with him and he would always come home to ask me if I could really turn into a lion . I would say ,yes ofcourse. After a while, he started demanding that I turn into a lion to show him. Poor thing, he needed proof to face his face friends . I told him I could not turn into a lion in his presence because I would  have to swallow him if I did(.LoL), and he would back off. But as time went on ,he demanded for more proof ,and one point ,did not mind the possiblity of being swallowed by a lion. He needed proof from me. He needed to see in order to believe.
Under this scenario, I cannot imagine shifting the burden of proof to him to show that I cannot turn inot a lion. The fact that he has not seen it happen to date is all the proof he needs.
Not so?

This is a very bad and misleading example because the everyday experience of people does not lend them to see or believe in humans turning into lions.

On the other hand, the everyday exeperience of people does confirm that the things about us have causes. The laws of motion confirm this. Also our everyday exeperience lends us to doubt that startlingly complex things 9such as the human brain) may grow by themselves just unaided. We derive this understanding because we are witnesses ourselves to the painstaking thinking required to develop purpose built mechanisms ourselves. This is why the average common-sensical human being will not believe that something like the brain - which far exceeds anything designed by man - is undesigned.

Thus in summary, your turning into a lion does not lend itself to our common experience, but our common experience does lend us to believe that complex-purpose oriented elements are designed.

Where this is our common collective perception, it falls to the person who asserts the contrary to prove same.

plaetton:

Even if the burden of proof shifts to the nay sayers, all they have say is very simple:
I do not see god, I cannot detect god through any instrument, I dont know anyone who has seen god, therefore, god does not exist.
That is sufficient repudiation of the theist claims.

harakiri:

How can i prove something that never existed to begin with?

Have you seen your brain? if no, should we conclude then that it doesn't exist?

jayriginal:

You found it compelling as a result of confirmation bias.

Perhaps I found it compelling because it is indeed common-sensical to think that a thing displaying very complex elements of design and inter-working features is designed? A person who thinks the contrary should be tasked to prove so - simply because it appears like fantasy or witchcraft, to imagine that such a thing springs into existence by itself, just unaided?

And indeed, as bizzare as that idea is, this thread does not dispute the idea. It simply says that since such an idea prima facie appears improbable, then he who asserts it to be as such should prove same.

Improbable things are proved everyday - so this should not be a problem.

Its simple enough a repudiation, until more credible evidence for the existence of God comes to light.

I think its actually a laughable non-starter. The world is teeming with too many elements evincing such particular and staggering design that it is almost disingenous to state that one has seen no evidence of design or a designer.

^^Deep Sight is fond of doing that. I dont know why. Again, like with your brothers argument, you pick what you want and ignore the rest.

Please let's be fair to each other. I provided the link, and you know very well that in that thread I have already addressed fully all the arguments i regard as absurd in the article - so I DID NOT pick and choose - and certainly did not ignore anything - whether or not you agreed with my conclusions.

Also you should note the context in which i sourced that quote - not to dispute the existence of God - but simply to discuss burden of proof.

He who asserts must prove. Only then does the burden shift. Feelings, no matter how deep they are, do not qualify as proof.

I think that he who asserts the more bizzare thing has a greater burden of proof. And one look at the human anatomy (particularly the brain) is enough to convince me that it is more bizzare to regard it as being undesigned, than it is to regard it as designed.

plaetton:

Any elementary school child should know how snow crystals are formed. that is common and accepted knowledge.

It is important that I repeat to you that which I have told you before: namely that knowing how something is done does not in anyway mean that it was not done by somebody.

Knowledge of how a system works does not translate to knowledge of what brought about the system in the first place. It does not explain why the system exists, and for what purpose. It does not tell us that there is no designer of the system.

Can you tell me what purpose the interesting shapes of snow crystals serves?

Deep Sight:

We can only assume the very basic notion of God which ranks as common denominator to virtually all notions: namely - an intelligent creator of all that exists.

Intelligence as we know it is a property of a brain. Does this God have a brain or is it just some free floating intelligence?

Deep Sight:

It is safe to say that the idea being referred to within the context of theistic / atheistic discourses of this nature is that god or that element considered to be the ultimate cause of ALL existence.

In that case, the presence of life doesn't mean that an intelligent God was behind it. e.g if I make a machine and the machine makes an image, it doesn't mean that I made the image. My point here is that if we assume life to be the end product, it doesn't necessarily point to a God.

Deep Sight:

There are no problems with this. One can set out to prove that an improbable event does actually occur, or actually occured. The simple point being made is that once it is accepted as improbable, then the burden rests with he who asserts it to be the case.

The burden rests on the one who asserts what to be the case? Your last sentence isn't quite clear.

Deep Sight:

This is not relevant to this discussion.

I think it is because how else are we to know that this God is still around? If it is dead, then the atheists are actually right in their non-belief.

Deep Sight:

Perhaps I found it compelling because it is indeed common-sensical to think that a thing displaying very complex elements of design and inter-working features is designed? A person who thinks the contrary should be tasked to prove so - simply because it appears like fantasy or witchcraft, to imagine that such a thing springs into existence by itself, just unaided?

Did you read the puddle analogy by Douglas Adams ? That puddle certainly imagined the hole it found itself in, perfectly designed for it. We know it is not so.
You know, if there indeed was a designer, it/he/she certainly was not intelligent or particularly skilled.
Since we are talking about the burden of proof, how do you ask someone to prove his reasons for rejecting a claim ?
The claim was there in the first place. Then the rejection. So where does the burden of proof lie ? In the claim or in the rejection ?

I think its actually a laughable non-starter. The world is teeming with too many elements evincing such particular and staggering design that it is almost disingenous to state that one has seen no evidence of design or a designer.

No its good enough to dismiss the evidence so far. All the evidence provided by the claimants, sounds like wishful thinking and fantasies. Who/what is God ? Where is he ? And just for the records, Plaettons lion analogy is a very good one. It addresses the issue of indoctrination and reason. To his son, the fact that his father said so is a good reason to believe (remember he is just four). Inspite of this, he kept coming back for more proof, even though he was inclined to believe it, even risking being swallowed. Would you say the burden of proof was on the child to explain why he doesnt believe his father ? As he grew and got wiser, the story seemed improbable but he still asked for proof at risk of personal harm, and the father kept giving one excuse after the other.
This is very like the God issue.

Please let's be fair to each other. I provided the link, and you know very well that in that thread I have already addressed fully all the arguments i regard as absurd in the article - so I DID NOT pick and choose - and certainly did not ignore anything - whether or not you agreed with my conclusions.
Also you should note the context in which i sourced that quote - not to dispute the existence of God - but simply to discuss burden of proof.

Yes you did provide the link, but extracting one line from it is not right. That line was made in a different context than the sentence standing alone suggests. Taken together, the sentence does not say what you make it say. Thats what I was referring to.
You seem to be saying that Dawkins admits the improbabilty of life forms that we find. He doesnt really say that.

I think that he who asserts the more bizzare thing has a greater burden of proof. And one look at the human anatomy (particularly the brain) is enough to convince me that it is more bizzare to regard it as being undesigned, than it is to regard it as designed.

Its enough to convince you, but not others. Thats not a crime is it ?

Anyway the bottom line is that the original claim is that there is a God, and its not correct to ask those who see no evidence (and thus do not believe) to prove so.

@deepsight

The solution God results to further Complexity, as a "designer" he is prima facie implied that he is "designed" to fit his designer role. The simplest assumption is to clear the slate. And start from nothing. "Whoever asserts must prove" rule should still persist

Thanks jayriginal for seeing the point I was trying to make.
@Deepsight.
First, I need a microscope to appreciate the interesting shape of snow crystals. Since my eyes are not designed with such capabilities, I asume the designer did not intend for me to appreciate it. Therefore the design serves no purpose.

A sand dune in the desert may also exihibit complex features of design and complexity if examined critically. I wonder if we can make an argument for design and purpose.

All matter have geometry that adapt to fit funtion. Even with the little that we know so far, no configuration of matter, atoms or molecules seems so improbable in the grander scheme of the universe. Tucked away safely in the boondocks of the milky way galaxy system ,we are only viewing the equivalence of a snapshot of just a microsecond in the evolutionary time scale. Out there , new galaxies are forming, old ones are dying, stars, planets , meteors and comets are colliding with each other in a random, chaotic and purposeless frenzy. In the midst of all that chaos, evidence of a design or designer is manifestedly absent.

Your fascination with the complexities of the human anatomy does not take the factor of time into consideration. You deliberately ignore it. Everything thing in the universe show various degrees of complexity, starting with atoms. Simplicity to complexity seems to be the order of the universe.
The mammalian body and brain have evolved over time to fit its varied functions.
Saying that the human brain compels you to evince a designer is akin to saying that thunderstorms, torrential rain, flood and earthquakes also evince one of an angry diety, because within those seemingly random phenomena, one could also see improbable complexity.
To say that that the brain must have been designed is also to say that it is indeed a finished product.
If so,what would one say of mental diseases like dimentia, alziemers,schitzophrenia, brain atrophy etc. These diseases highlight the trial and error mechanisms of random ,independent development in the evolution of a mechanism or species. The fact the human body is prone to malfunctions and diseases are sure evidence that it is not a finished product but one that is still evolving and seeking pathways to survival and perfection, independently.

We show a biased view of things or mechanism that seem pleasant, beautiful and favourable to us. Thus, in those, we see design and purpose. On the other hand, unfavourable phenomena or mechanisms like volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, floods, desert encroachment, thunders storms , hurricanes etc present us with the same questions.Where exactly is the beauty and purpose of earthquakes. The fact that we have solar storms,meteor showers and loose tectonic plates is evidence of design flaw if there was such a thing.

Therefore , I think it is more bizaar and more fantastic to assert the presence of design and designer rather than to see progressive accumulation of favourable random formations or events.

I believe that the essence of intelligence is an awareness and appreciation of order and function; with the ability to imitate

Deep Sight:

. . . .That is because it is only natural to believe that things as we know them generally have causes - - - or does science teach otherwise?

I should have said "ultimate purpose" not cause. The idea of an intelligent designer is just the evolution of the god idea.  Now that gods have basically been proven to be illogical and borne out of ignorance, people who insist on holding on to the idea of a "higher power" now call it the "intelligent designer".
The arguments haven't changed because your designer sounds just like the monotheistic god you used to believe in so the burden of proof still lies with you.

You seem to think just because the smartest creatures on a small planet (subatomic in cosmic sense) think there is one "Intelligent Designer" it must be true. C'mon man.  We have decided that  1609 meters = 1 mile but that doesn't mean it's the absolute truth for the rest of the universe! If there are similar beings on the other side of this galaxy, do you think their mile equivalent would be equal to 1609 or maybe some other random number like 10000? We make things up in order to make sense of the world but that doesn't make them true.
Using a crystal as an example of intelligent design is not prudent because a crystal might look like fantastic to a human but to another organism it's nothing special.  Your assertion is very anthropocentric and as usual places human knowledge as the end all be all of the universe. The only reason why you insist on an intelligent designer is because you are influenced by a monotheistic culture. If the culture you live is a  polytheistic one then your intelligent designer would be plural not singular and you would still be trying to shift the burden of proof for this baseless assertion.
It's a given fact that nature is a wondrous thing but those who insist on intelligent design usually choose to ignore the "less intelligent" aspects. The sun tries to fry everything on earth but the earth's atmosphere and electromagnetic shield keep us safe. Then the earth tries to kill us with quakes, tsunamis, malaria and distributes water so unevenly that a black kid in Somalia is starving to death as I write this. You can have your intelligent designer, just as long as you admit it/he/she/infinity is insane. If your human knowledge tells you there is an intelligent designer, mine tells me the process is mindless and I don't know why or what started it.

Deep Sight:

It is actually within the common intuitive and logical sensing of mankind that things as we know them have causes. This is very basic and obvious within the laws of motion. It is also within the common understanding of mankind that startlingly advanced things, such as the human brain (a super computer far exceeding the capabilities of the most advanced purpose built super computers made by man) - do not grow into existence by themselves. They evince hallmarks of delibreate design, and for this reason the default position should indeed be to lean towards the obvious fact that such things are caused and designed.

Leaning in the other direction - namely that such a thing is not caused or designed - would certainly shift the burden of proof unto him who says so.

For by default, it appears designed.

Yes the big b@ng happened but nobody know what caused it. Yet. The only way we are going to know about what caused our universe is through the same method that has brought us the knowledge we have and not metaphysical arguments.
Anyway if I agree with your argument, I would ask you who designed your "intelligent designer" afterall you said, "It is also within the common understanding of mankind that startlingly advanced things, do not grow into existence by themselves. They evince hallmarks of delibreate design"

I do think that the cause and effect relationship cant go on infinitely, it would be terminated at a prior point before because it would lack a reason for causality for it would be too basic and simple.

Intelligent designer is not simple enough

I'm not saying I'm 100% right,but as far as I'm concerned,the mere fact that a set of people believe or do not believe in the existence of God is a sure enough proof that they know some people believe in His existence,and for reasons best known to them(Atheists) they prefer to say they believe there is no God
, and to me that's to kinda disprove what they secretly know they can't disprove because His existence is imminent.
I can't say much about the "burden of proof", but I know, or should I say believe,the Atheists know God exists,even though we all can't see Him.

The burden of proof can go either way. Note that a negative statement can always be rephrased as a positive one. It is quite asinine to argue that the burden of proof solely rests on one side. that's my 2 cents on the issue.

jayriginal:

Since we are talking about the burden of proof, how do you ask someone to prove his reasons for rejecting a claim ?
The claim was there in the first place. Then the rejection. So where does the burden of proof lie ? In the claim or in the rejection ?

Actually you have it up side down. The hallmarks of design are there in the first instance. Then the rejection. So where does the burden of proof lie?

You need to understand carefully that I am not herein advancing an argument for the existence of God. In summary, I am advancing an argument that in light of the existence of what appear to be hallmarks of very advanced design, the burden of negation the existence of design should rest with him who states so.

To put it very simply. Even if something is actually a mirage - namely - it only appears to be there, seemingly so - - -my point is that so long as it appears or seems so - the burden of proving the contrary will rest on he who states that that which seems to be the case is in fact not the case.

And just for the records, Plaettons lion analogy is a very good one.

Not at all - Plaeton's analogy is actually an alarmingly bad one - one that fails to grasp the basic precepts of logic at play here - for he gives an example of a thing that is generally not observed as being the case and seeks to use it to disprove a thing that is generally observed to be the case - causation.

Yes you did provide the link, but extracting one line from it is not right.

You herein suggest that I am fraudulent with the extraction of the quote whereas that is not the case - for the purpose that I extracted the quote was not, as some thought, to prove intelligent design - but rather simply to ask the question - on the basis of accepted statistical improbability - does the burden of proof not thereby shift?

I submit that it does - otherwise Dawkins would have had no need to write a single word to address that very thorny point. He obviously had to show that the seeming improability regardless, there remains no proof of design. Thus you really need to understand precisely that I have not said that his statement proves the existence of God - I have only said, and i do say - that his statement shows that he has a burden of proof.

For where there is an improbability - even if a seeming improbability only - then the greater burden must reside with he who advances that seemingly improbable notion.

Let me give you an example. Galileo Galilei. This fellow could have easily stated that the burden of proof that the earth is orbitted by the sun rests with those who say so. In reality, public perception was wrong, and he was right. He nevertheless recognised and executed his burden of proof because from the Unclad eye, and the vantage point of the general observer - it seemed that indeed the sun was orbiting a stagnant earth . . . that seeming reality thus placed the burden of proving the reverse on he who contended so - and Galileo duly discharged his burden of proof.

Anyway the bottom line is that the original claim is that there is a God, and its not correct to ask those who see no evidence (and thus do not believe) to prove so.

I firmly disagree. The original claim is actually that there is no God - because the default belief was that there must be a God. This has been the default belief of mankind from time immemorial, and he who seeks to rebutt a default position bears the burden of doing so - especially when that default position is backed by the commonsensical notion that things as generally known, do have causes.

Heck! - this gives a fresh and stronger spin to my argument - namely that any person attacking a previously held default position must have the burden of proving that default position wrong.