Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Nakosis]

If you are going to come to me and say there is evidence and reasoning than it is by my criteria that I must accept it. I follow the scientific method. So give me this evidence, I keep hearing about, that factually proves god. Don't just talk about this evidence, pull it out. I want to hear your evidence.

Here you go.

Existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have fun...

 

[Nakosis]

To discuss religious matters. Do you think there is any conflict in that?

To take part in a discussion of things for which there is no evidence for is a little odd.

 

[Falvlun]

"Burden of proof" does not mean you have to prove something to others, nor does it kick in when you're wanting to convince someone else of something that you believe. Rather, it is present whenever a posit (a belief) is made about the world.

The (classical) theist posits god and bears that burden. The atheist posits disbelief, unconvincing evidence, unconvincing arguments, etc. and bears that burden. This thread was made in protest of those atheists who say they have no burden.

That is a better way to put it.

 

[Falvlun]

Participation is not mandatory. No one should have to explain why they do not play golf or why they do not participate in religious beliefs. The OP suggests that we are obligated with a burden of proof to explain why we do not participate in a commonly shared belief in God. Well, I don't think the theist ought to concern him/herself with the nonthieist.

I wonder if your tune would be the same if the non-belief were were talking about were "lack of belief in evolution" or "disbelief in heliocentrism".

But regardless, your response that the theist shouldn't concern himself with the non-theist is a non-sequitur, and it doesn't fully address my concerns.

It is a non-sequitur because we are talking about a debate setting. We are talking about theists and atheists having a discussion together in regards to their beliefs, and a specific claim made by atheists to theists about theistic argumentation. Thus, your claim that the theist should essentially mind his own business makes no sense.

It doesn't fully address my concerns because it isn't primarily about theist/non-theist relations anyway. It is about the non-theist's responsibility to himself. Should the non-theist concern himself with himself?

 

[Falvlun]

"that the theists haven't provided sufficient evidence that god exists."

I would be happy to dispute the evidence if they would get some.

Theists have provided evidence, in the forms of logical argumentation and anecdotal evidence.

Just because you don't think it is good evidence, or good enough to convince you, doesn't mean that there isn't any.

 

[Falvlun]

We've been through this before, it's a freedom for atheists, not a burden.

I think you may be taking this too literally.

 

[Falvlun]

Rejecting an insufficiently evidenced, or unevidenced claim is perfectly rational. The burden of proof remains upon the party making the claim.

The point is: How do you know that the claim is insufficiently evidenced?

You have made a claim: You have claimed that the theists' claim is "insufficiently evidenced". According your own reasoning above, you would have a burden of proof, no?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The point is: How do you know that the claim is insufficiently evidenced?

You have made a claim: You have claimed that the theists' claim is "insufficiently evidenced". According your own reasoning above, you would have a burden of proof, no?

Only if you're trying to convince someone else that this is the case. If I listen to a theists claims about god and find them wanting, I have no burden of proof to reject them. The burden of proof only exists in the context of attempting to convince someone else of your positive claim.

You can ask me why I reject a theists claims about god, and I can say because they are insufficiently evidence. Yet, if I don't care about trying to convince you of why this is the case, I have no burden of proof.

 

[LuisDantas]

To take part in a discussion of things for which there is no evidence for is a little odd.

And yet we don't really have a choice.

 

[steeltoes]

Only if you're trying to convince someone else that this is the case. If I listen to a theists claims about god and find them wanting, I have no burden of proof to reject them. The burden of proof only exists in the context of attempting to convince someone else of your positive claim.

You can ask me why I reject a theists claims about god, and I can say because they are insufficiently evidence. Yet, if I don't care about trying to convince you of why this is the case, I have no burden of proof.

True. Personally, I have no interest in convincing anyone that God does not exist. The world consists of billions of people that believe, well, what would be the point?

 

[outhouse]

Theists have provided evidence, in the forms of logical argumentation and anecdotal evidence.

Just because you don't think it is good evidence, or good enough to convince you, doesn't mean that there isn't any.

There is none.

logical arguements provide no evidence. Only opinion.

And anecdotal is just that, unrelaible evidence. Which amounts to opinion.


Scienitifically no god exist, because there is NO evidence to test or evaluate.

 

[Skwim]

"Burden of proof" does not mean you have to prove something to others, nor does it kick in when you're wanting to convince someone else of something that you believe. Rather, it is present whenever a posit (a belief) is made about the world.

The (classical) theist posits god and bears that burden. The atheist posits disbelief, unconvincing evidence, unconvincing arguments, etc. and bears that burden. This thread was made in protest of those atheists who say they have no burden.

All the atheist is saying to the theist is "your 'proof' does not convince me." What kind of burden is subsumed in such a claim? Is the theist going argue, "I don't believe that you are not convinced," which is hardly a point of rational dispute, and the basis of some presumed burden. How would the atheist go about proving that he is unconvinced?

 

[Sir Doom]

Not at all, it is evidential.

Here we go again...

Can you please explain why 'a matter of belief' means 'a matter that one believes in' and DOES NOT mean 'a matter one believes'?

On top of this, if there is a distinction here, please explain why you described the existence of God as 'a belief' and not 'a matter of belief'?

Explaining why the existence of god is not a theory is easy -

Sometimes people are burdened with over-wrought prejudices against assigning specific words to specific ideas. It makes it tough for them to explain without violating their ridiculous hang-ups that are ultimately nothing more than dogmatic hair-splitting nonsense.

But normally, its pretty easy. I agree.

theories are testable, fasifyable explanations drawn from the available evidence.

Very interesting...

Belief in god is a question of faith.

Yeah, but what about God's existence? Since that's what I asked about. Belief in God is another matter entirely.

Every time you actually buckle down and try to explain the difference, you change the terms. Why is that?

Try again. This time with gusto!

 

[Nakosis]

And yet we don't really have a choice.

So you are compelled by God? Or perhaps the lack of freewill?

Sorry the lack of choice?

You are not compelled to show the position of atheism is a legitimate one?

 

[Nakosis]

I think one main argument I keep seeing is that the universe is evidence of God.

Response "No it is not".

Ok... Can you prove it is possible for a universe to exist without God?

 

[Sir Doom]

I think one main argument I keep seeing is that the universe is evidence of God.

Response "No it is not".

Ok... Can you prove it is possible for a universe to exists without God?

I don't think anyone can show how it is possible for a universe to exist at all. With or without God. That's why this question can't be taken seriously. No one has any idea why the universe exists and no speculation about it changes that.

EDIT: To add, we certainly SHOULD speculate anyway. There is nothing wrong with creativity.

 

[steeltoes]

I think one main argument I keep seeing is that the universe is evidence of God.

Response "No it is not".

Ok... Can you prove it is possible for a universe to exist without God?

Can you prove it is possible for a universe to exist without leprechauns?

 

[Nakosis]

Can you prove it is possible for a universe to exist without leprechauns?

If leprechauns created the universe they would be... "God".

 

[Nakosis]

I don't think anyone can show how it is possible for a universe to exist at all. With or without God. That's why this question can't be taken seriously. No one has any idea why the universe exists and no speculation about it changes that.

EDIT: To add, we certainly SHOULD speculate anyway. There is nothing wrong with creativity.

Ok, but in the meantime, believers have an answer to that question and you don't.

Unless you'd like to prove otherwise.

 

[outhouse]

If leprechauns created the universe they would be... "God".

Everyone knows my yellow platic ducky created everything. Because you cannot prove it did not


And thankfully to the OP, I dont have to worry about the burden of proof