Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[outhouse]

What I don't get

Is that we have humans creating thousands of mythological deities for thousands of years that are not in question about their mythological nature.



But all of a sudden this one need special gloves to handle it, in a debate.

 

[atanu]

I know Mario and Luigi better than I know most my friends. It doesn't make them real.

Likewise just as many Christians feel as though they "know" Jesus as much as you know your god. However can you bring evidence for your god?

I don't think you know the difference between "understanding" and "verifiable". They do not mean the same thing. I fully realize and trust that you are knowledgeable of your god concept. But how is it that you know it to be true? What are the evidences? What could we do or set up to prove that it exists?

Until that time it is not a verified concept.

That is the problem. I am saying that my God is more evident to me than an apple on my palm, and you say there is no evidence for it. And that is your reason for being an Atheist?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

While it's possible to have reasonable disagreement about how high we should set the bar for the burden of proof, it's demonstrably too low if it's so low that it's cleared by mutually exclusive claims simultaneously. I've never seen a theistic claim that clears even this very low bar.

 

[outhouse]

That is the problem. I am saying that my God is more evident to me than an apple on my palm, and you say there is no evidence for it. And that is your reason for being an Atheist?

My imagination is very evident in my hand, to me. When I view it that way.

 

[outhouse]

While it's possible to have reasonable disagreement about how high we should set the bar for the burden of proof, it's demonstrably too low if it's so low that it's cleared by mutually exclusive claims simultaneously. I've never seen a theistic claim that clears even this very low bar.

Too date.

I have never seen anything outside mythology or imagination.

 

[The Bullfrog]

No, the point is that it does exist.

I imagine it therefor it exist, therefor it is real. That entire line of thought is just semantics.

 

[Breathe]

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

Of course I do; I believe in God, not a caricature of one from a Disney movie.

This is the root of all being, the All-in-all, the absolute, the no-thing and all-thing, all-Consciousness, all-Bliss, all-encompassing; the root, trunk and branch of existence; the stage, the actors, the script, the play, and the audience.
This isn't some kind of physical man sitting on a cloud hurtling thunderbolts at infidels.
The vast majority of God-concepts are non-physical, including Sikh and Islamic ones.

 

[Breathe]

That is the problem. I am saying that my God is more evident to me than an apple on my palm, and you say there is no evidence for it. And that is your reason for being an Atheist?

100% this.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

No, because you start with a premise that a theist would never agree to--that God is equivalent to a "magic yellow ducky". If you treat your opponent like an idiot, don't expect an intelligent argument.

While it's possible to have reasonable disagreement about how high we should set the bar for the burden of proof, it's demonstrably too low if it's so low that it's cleared by mutually exclusive claims simultaneously. I've never seen a theistic claim that clears even this very low bar.

Neither have I, but you are completely missing the point, because you cannot give up your assumption that "burden of proof" is an effective argument. It may be a reasonable argument from your perspective, but the other person must accept your perspective to accept your conclusion. I've never actually seen that to work either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course I do; I believe in God, not a caricature of one from a Disney movie.

This is the root of all being, the All-in-all, the absolute, the no-thing and all-thing, all-Consciousness, all-Bliss, all-encompassing; the root, trunk and branch of existence; the stage, the actors, the script, the play, and the audience.
This isn't some kind of physical man sitting on a cloud hurtling thunderbolts at infidels.
The vast majority of God-concepts are non-physical, including Sikh and Islamic ones.

I think we're operating from different definitions of the word "physical". The way I use the term, I'm not constraining myself to "old man on a cloud"-type god concepts; anything that can itself have real effects on the physical universe that we experience is itself physical... or is close enough to physical that it may as well be.

I don't believe that the majority of theists believe in irrelevant, ineffectual gods.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is the problem. I am saying that my God is more evident to me than an apple on my palm, and you say there is no evidence for it. And that is your reason for being an Atheist?

Isn't that a good enough reason?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Neither have I, but you are completely missing the point, because you cannot give up your assumption that "burden of proof" is an effective argument. It may be a reasonable argument from your perspective, but the other person must accept your perspective to accept your conclusion. I've never actually seen that to work either.

If someone is trying to convince me of a claim through arguments, then by their behaviour they're tacitly acknowleding that a suitably convincing argument is needed to support the claim. The only question left is what we should consider "suitably convincing"... where we should set the bar.

BTW: I think it's worth keeping in mind that what works in practice and what's reasonable aren't necessarily the same thing. There are plenty of unreasonable or illogical people out there (or, to be a bit kinder, there are people who are inconsistent with their use of logic); they're what allow homeopathy companies to still be going concerns. When I'm confronted with a new argument, I'm mainly concerned with satisfying myself that I've given the argument its due consideration... not necessarily with convincing the other person of this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is the problem. I am saying that my God is more evident to me than an apple on my palm, and you say there is no evidence for it. And that is your reason for being an Atheist?

I've touched on this in other threads. I understand that there are people like you who feel this way. I take this to mean that your mental model of how the world works (in which God is central) agrees pretty well with reality: your expectations aren't violated very often, and you see no reason to re-evaluate your original assumption of God.

OTOH, the exact same thing happens with atheists. My god-free mental model of the world agrees pretty well with reality, too. So how do we resolve this apparent conflict? How can our mental models be so different but both work so well?

Here's how: the assumption of God doesn't actually get tested very often. The fact that your mental model of the world functions no better than mine means that the extra thing in your model - God - adds no explanatory value. IOW, God is irrelevant.

 

[steeltoes]

Neither have I, but you are completely missing the point, because you cannot give up your assumption that "burden of proof" is an effective argument. It may be a reasonable argument from your perspective, but the other person must accept your perspective to accept your conclusion. I've never actually seen that to work either.

What is the point of trying to convince someone that their God does not exist? The theist has to justify their own beliefs that they have formulated about invisible gods, it's their burden, it has little to do with this non-believer, far be it from me to convince them of my perspective, they can believe in gods until the cows come home for all I care.

 

[Breathe]

The way I use the term, I'm not constraining myself to "old man on a cloud"-type god concepts; anything that can itself have real effects on the physical universe that we experience is itself physical... or is close enough to physical that it may as well be.

Isn't deciding the rules of the game as a human pretty arrogant?

To even continue the discussion though is a bit of a nuisance, because things have to be defined. Like "universe", "physical", "experience", and even "effects". Not to mention, it's pretty weird for me to make a distinction between the universe and God at the best of times. That distinction simply isn't there.

 

[outhouse]

No, because you start with a premise that a theist would never agree to--that God is equivalent to a "magic yellow ducky". If you treat your opponent like an idiot, don't expect an intelligent argument.


.

Sorry I cannot buy that. They are the ones treating us like idiots requiring us to choke down their imaginations and mythology as real with no credible evidence of any kind.


Given all the known evidence of man creating deities for thousands of years.

My created deity is no different from ancient mens created deity.



Thus, a theist needs to show why his "faith" should be treated any differently.


And it should not. With education on the topic we see clearly that man has compiled previous mythology to create and define his character.

 

[Thief]

Sorry I cannot buy that. They are the ones treating us like idiots requiring us to choke down their imaginations and mythology as real with no credible evidence of any kind.


Given all the known evidence of man creating deities for thousands of years.

My created deity is no different from ancient mens created deity.



Thus, a theist needs to show why his "faith" should be treated any differently.


And it should not. With education on the topic we see clearly that man has compiled previous mythology to create and define his character.

Implying that whatever a person believes shapes his character?

What if you believe in nothing?

(top of the line life form are you?)

 

[CynthiaCypher]

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

But there it is. So the point?

 

[steeltoes]

That is the problem. I am saying that my God is more evident to me than an apple on my palm, and you say there is no evidence for it. And that is your reason for being an Atheist?

This atheist does not care to convince you otherwise, carry on believing for all I care. There are believers and there are non-believers, it is what it is, and that is not a problem for me.

 

[outhouse]

Implying that whatever a person believes shapes his character?

So following reason, knowledge and education makes a person bad in your eyes? :slap:

What if you believe in nothing?

You mean what if I don't believe in mythical creations and ancient men's imagination defining these man made creations?

(top of the line life form are you?)

One who has evolved forward, one who refuses to keep making ancient men's mistakes of falsely attributing mythology into nature. :yes: