Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[The Bullfrog]

Here you go.

Existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have fun...

Your link only contains arguments for the existence of gods. There is no evidence there and I have heard these arguments already.

You can argue and debate the existence of gods as much as you want, however that is not hard evidence. There has been enough debate on the subject of gods, and it is time we move to the next step. Will your god stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific method? If the answer is no, than you do not have solid evidence for the existence of your god.

 

[The Bullfrog]

They don't have to prove anything. They are theists.

I am not sure I understand your post. Could you clarify please.

 

[The Bullfrog]

The atheist position is one of default. Lacking proof of X, the atheist's position is non-X. Either one accepts ghouls as real (you would be a ghoulite) or you don't accept ghouls as real (you be an aghoulite). And, while the agnostic position is available it doesn't correspond to the antithesis of the unqualified claim of X. In any case, the burden of proof wouldn't fall on either the atheist or the agnostic. It belongs squarely with the theist alone.

You've got it a bit backward. In logic validity deals exclusively with the form of an argument regardless of the truth of any premise. So, if the logic is good then the argument has to be valid. If the content of any premise is wrong then the argument is false (even though the conclusion may be correct---see post 275 below)
As D. B Terrell says in Logic: A Modern Introduction to Deductive Reasoning (p. 7) "It is impossible to prove anything by sheer logic alone except the correctness or incorrectness [validity] of arguments." He then goes on to say (p. 11) "An argument can be valid even though its premises and its conclusion are all false or the premise false."

Hope this helps.

I did not get it wrong. Perhaps my usage of the words "valid" and "invalid" was grammatically sloppy and I am sorry about that. If you look you'll see that I am talking about the conclusion, and not the argument itself.

 

[ChristineES]

I am not sure I understand your post. Could you clarify please.

I don't have to prove to YOU that I believe in God. I would only have to prove to you if I told you that you HAD to believe in God.

 

[The Bullfrog]

I think that this point was addressed adequately at an earlier point in the thread. Who judges whether the burden of proof has been met? The atheist or the theist? In order for the argument to carry any persuasive force at all, you have to get the theist to agree. The strategy is supposed to get the theist to start presenting evidence to refute it, but the more typical response is "You're nuts!" OTOH, if you approach it as an argument over whether belief in gods is a reasonable belief to have, you might actually get a discussion. We aren't talking about a scientific or mathematical "proof" here. We are really talking about how one makes sense of nature and reality.


Quite true. It's just that most believers believe that they have sufficient proof of the existence of God (or some other gods), even if they can't make you see it. Are they being unreasonable?

Let me put it this way. Physicist Brian Greene believes that string theory has a reasonably good chance of being true. It isn't a religious faith or dogma, but he thinks it worth committing a considerable portion of his life to that idea. The thing about string theory is that we don't really know whether it a testable idea. The math is compatible with it, but we cannot yet falsify it. So his belief is grounded in little more than intuition--kind of the same thing as religious belief in God (although I wouldn't go so far as to equate it with a religious belief, given that he willingly accepts a "burden of proof" debt). Maybe he isn't being entirely rational about it. I know that very intelligent people can go to extreme lengths to justify their biases. Ultimately, though, one has to admit that his bias is at least reasonable. I believe that a great many theists are similarly committed to their faith in a god--that it is a reasonable belief to hold. Do they need to prove it to skeptics? Maybe ultimately they do, but they still think it a reasonable enough belief to go on believing it for the time being. Not all theists are fanatics, but are they right to maintain that their belief is reasonable? Is it, as Dawkins has argued, a fairly obvious delusion? That's the real question, not whether they can prove the existence of God.

"We aren't talking about a scientific or mathematical "proof" here. We are really talking about how one makes sense of nature and reality."

Science and math are designed for the purpose of making sense of nature and reality. If one is not using them to make sense of nature and reality, than one is not making sense of nature and reality.

 

[The Bullfrog]

I don't have to prove to YOU that I believe in God. I would only have to prove to you if I told you that you HAD to believe in God.

Why would you need to prove to me that you believe in gods? I have no doubt of that. I am talking about the truth of if there is actual gods.

 

[Willamena]

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?

Just what I had said.

Is the theist going argue, "I don't believe that you are not convinced..."

No, but the atheist doesn't assume a burden for the sake of the theist, he assumes it for himself. More accurately, for the truth.

How would the atheist go about proving that he is unconvinced?

If it's a state of affairs, it's demonstrable.

 

[Willamena]

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

Response "No it is not".

But WHY do you respond like that. Just to be contrary? I think not...

That's your burden.

 

[The Bullfrog]

I think some here feel the burden of proof is only about who needs to convince who. I think it is about getting to the truth of the matter and not just convincing someone that I am right.

 

[Breathe]

How I feel about the whole thing, summed up as a picture:

I'm surprised nobody else has used it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How I feel about the whole thing, summed up as a picture:

I'm surprised nobody else has used it.

You do realize that the thing they're arguing over couldn't exist physically, right?

Hmm... maybe that makes the analogy work even better.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

You do realize that the thing they're arguing over couldn't exist physically, right?

Hmm... maybe that makes the analogy work even better.

So what if it doesn't exist physically?

It exists as an abstract concept. So what's your point?

 

[The Bullfrog]

So what if it doesn't exist physically?

It exists as an abstract concept. So what's your point?

I think his point is that it can not exist physically.

 

[LuisDantas]

So what if it doesn't exist physically?

It exists as an abstract concept. So what's your point?

That Breathe may be more right than he realizes, I assume.

I certainly view it that way. If the existence of a deity is that dependent on personal inclinations (and it seems to be), then it makes no sense to expect or demand people to accept it as real; it would instead be always and forever a personal choice that can be challenged just because and offer no proper challenge of its own.

People may propose that there is no need for theists to support their statements of belief, sure. But only at the cost of allowing everyone else (and themselves) to disregard that belief rather uncerimoniously, at a moment's notice, with no need whatsoever for arguments.

To me it seems to make theistic belief somewhat inconsequential, if not altogether difficult to respect.

 

[steeltoes]

You said:

"The concept of God itself is unverifiable and therefore can be thought of as nonsensical until explained in falsifiable terms."

I ask, is it not non-sensical to be definite about what you yourself claim is unverifiable. (BTW, the proposition of God may not be non-sensical to many).

Further, in my understanding, it is double dose of nonsense to assert "I am an atheist, because my neighbour fails to validate his theism". It is like saying "I am anti TOI, since TOI proponents have not convinced me that their evidences are objective".


(Of course, I said earlier that the above may be sensical to you. No argument from my side about that). :yes: What is nonsensical to some may be sensical to others.

I said nothing about opposites and I am not anti anything. I don't know what this God is until it is explained in falsifiable terms. Until then I am not formulating any beliefs about existence or non-existence, I am just waiting.

 

[Willamena]

I think his point is that it can not exist physically.

No, the point is that it does exist.

 

[outhouse]

No, the point is that it does exist.

Until it us proven to exist outside man created mythology and imagination.

It does not exist.


Only magic yellow ducky exist because you cannot prove he doesn't exist.

 

[Copernicus]

Belief, thinking, and bias are just fine, we all operate under such conditions, but these don't rise to the level of surety that the pronouncements of fact, god's existence in this case, do. I can't argue that a belief, thought, or bias is untrue, but I can argue a claim of truth, which, in essence, is what the atheist does. He says: Your failure to convince me you're right leaves with no other alternative than to reject your claim. A small argument to be sure ( actually, more of a conclusion), but a very reasonable one.

Indeed, I can imagine a theist saying exactly the same thing to an atheist. That's the point. A great many think they've met the burden of proof at least to the extent that they are satisfied with their conclusion, and your failure to convince them with your "burden of proof" argument leaves them with a reasonable conclusion. Why? Because you have declared yourself the judge of when the burden of proof is met. You may be right in your judgment, but it isn't going to convince any others than those who already agree with you.

...Not all theists are fanatics, but are they right to maintain that their belief is reasonable? Is it, as Dawkins has argued, a fairly obvious delusion? That's the real question, not whether they can prove the existence of God.

But this is the crux of the issue posed in the thread: where the burden of proof lies. The issue of god's existence is the burden of the theist, and the theist's alone.

I respectfully disagree. The crux of the issue is whether theism is a reasonable belief to hold, not where the burden of proof lies. Anyone can say "You are wrong. Prove to me that you are right." All your "burden of proof" ploy adds to it is something like "...And you are obligated to do so until I accept your proof."

 

[outhouse]

How I feel about the whole thing, summed up as a picture:

I almost agree 100%


Deities are man made illusions, that can be viewed differently as one can imagine.

 

[outhouse]

I respectfully disagree. The crux of the issue is whether theism is a reasonable belief to hold, not where the burden of proof lies. Anyone can say "You are wrong. Prove to me that you are right." All your "burden of proof" ploy adds to it is something like "...And you are obligated to do so until I accept your proof."

Doesn't that analogy fail with this post.

Only magic yellow ducky exist because you cannot prove he doesn't exist.

Is the burden not on me to show why and how I know only the yellow ducky exist.