Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Falvlun]

You cant prove something that does not exist, really does not exist.

I really don't understand why so many are continually misunderstanding this. It really is a strawman at this point.

I am not saying that the atheist's burden is to prove the claim "God does not exist".

I am saying that the atheist's burden is to prove the claim "Theists have not met the burden of proof."

Do you see the difference?

 

[Falvlun]

I'm certain that most atheists have sufficiently good reason to reject the claims put forth by theists. However, "burden of proof" is something specific, and if the atheist isn't making a claim they are trying to convince others of, then there is no burden of proof. I understand what it is that you're trying to argue. However, I think your point is getting watered-down and lost in your attaching it to the idea of a "burden of proof."

What of the rest of the post? If "burden of proof" is being used as a premise in an argument, isn't it tacitly assumed that you are trying to convince someone that it is true?

And if you aren't, then what's it doing in a debate?

 

[Falvlun]

And in the face of the prevailing belief (90% in America) that god does exist I think almost every atheist has arrived at his position by seriously considering his options. That he just plucked it out of the air as you suggest goes against typical human behavior. Aside from knee-jerk reactions, almost all of what we do is the result of reasoning, no matter how brief it may be.

I have, on more than one occasion, noted that the atheist has indeed seriously considered the matter, and more likely than not, does have reasons to reject the arguments of theists.

The point is that, when asked those reasons, he acts as if there are none or that he needs none, because burden of proof.

The majority of this thread has been various posters claiming that they don't need any reasons for their non-belief. I agree with you: that would go against typical human behavior.

 

[Falvlun]

We do this all the time.


Again, this is something that we do all the time.

Again, I have never claimed that atheists don't have reasons, or never provide them. I have said this throughout the thread.

I am talking about this in the context of the burden of proof debate. You can see evidence of what I am talking about littered throughout this thread: the claim is being made that, because burden of proof hasn't been met, atheists do not need any reason for their disbelief.

Different claims have different burdens of proof. If you told me you had a dog, I would believe your claim even though I only have your word for it, because the claim that you have a dog is not an exceptional claim. If a historian tells me that the battle of the Bulge lasted around 40 days, I would believe their claim at face value because I have reason to believe that they would have sufficient knowledge of that particular battle to make an accurate assessment of it. If someone comes along and tells me that they have a magical, invisible best friend who rides a pony, I'm not going to believe them, and am going to need a lot more evidence to convince me that what they're saying is true beyond just their word.

This statement of yours falls apart as soon as you realize that, while there are lots of things you believe based on anecdotal evidence, there are also countless things you don't believe, despite having just as much reason to. You differentiate between those things all the time, so you must understand that some things are more worth believing based on anecdotal evidence than other things. To assert that all these claims are equal is absurd.

Where did I assert that all anecdotal claims are equal?

I didn't. I simply pointed out that we don't, and shouldn't, dismiss evidence simply by virtue of being anecdotal.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What of the rest of the post? If "burden of proof" is being used as a premise in an argument, isn't it tacitly assumed that you are trying to convince someone that it is true?

No. If I say "Bob's claim hasn't met the burden of proof that there's an invisible purple dragon on his head," it isn't implied that I'm trying to convince anyone else of that. It simply means that I don't find Bob's claim convincing.

Now, what exactly would my "burden of proof" entail and look like if I said Bob hasn't met his burden of proof? What's my "burden of proof" for rejecting the existence of Bob's invisible purple dragon?

 

[Falvlun]

No. If I say "Bob's claim hasn't met the burden of proof that there's an invisible purple dragon on his head," it isn't implied that I'm trying to convince anyone else of that. It simply means that I don't find Bob's claim convincing.

Now, what exactly would my "burden of proof" entail and look like if I said Bob hasn't met his burden of proof? What's my "burden of proof" for rejecting the existence of Bob's invisible purple dragon?

No one has answered this question yet, and I've asked it so many times that I'm irritating myself, but here goes again:

What if the reason you were not convinced of Bob's claim is because the banana told you he was wrong?

Is this fair to Bob, that you can have literally any reason (or no reason at all) to find his argument unconvincing?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No one has answered this question yet, and I've asked it so many times that I'm irritating myself, but here goes again:

What if the reason you were not convinced of Bob's claim is because the banana told you he was wrong?

Is this fair to Bob, that you can have literally any reason (or no reason at all) to find his argument unconvincing?

So, if that were my reason, then you'd have a burden of proof for not thinking it was an acceptable reason. And, this would go on ad infinitum.

Likewise, you haven't answered my question about Bob's invisible purple dragon. What would my burden of proof entail for not accepting his claim? If you were rejecting Bob's claim, exactly what would fulfilling your burden of proof for rejecting his claim look like?

 

[Nakosis]

I have, on more than one occasion, noted that the atheist has indeed seriously considered the matter, and more likely than not, does have reasons to reject the arguments of theists.

The point is that, when asked those reasons, he acts as if there are none or that he needs none, because burden of proof.

The majority of this thread has been various posters claiming that they don't need any reasons for their non-belief. I agree with you: that would go against typical human behavior.

I think obviously they have reasons for not believing in a God. It's a lot different asking them to disprove your or my belief.

Can I disprove the Christian concept of God? No, not really. I'd just rather the Christian didn't exist because I don't approve of his morals.

I can't provide proof for my idea of God. I have my reasons. A Atheist doesn't believe in a God. They have their reasons. I don't know if asking for proof makes any sense.

For religious arguments, perhaps "Burden of Proof" doesn't apply.

Some silly folks want to go about attempting to prove God. Maybe just accept that as silly and move on...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Anyway, I think this whole thread is kind of missing the root of the use of "burden of proof" when it comes to claims about god. This comes from the theists response "well, can you prove there isn't a god?" in response to atheist claims that "you can't prove there is a god." In this context, the atheists' claim that the burden of proof is on theists is correct, as the theists are the ones making a positive claim (that god exists). Unless, of course, you're talking about atheists who claim that god doesn't exist. Then they would also have a burden of proof for their positive claim. Regardless, I think this thread isn't really connected to the core of this issue, and how/why the "burden of proof" argument came up.

 

[Falvlun]

Anyway, I think this whole thread is kind of missing the root of the use of "burden of proof" when it comes to claims about god. This comes from the theists response "well, can you prove there isn't a god?" in response to atheist claims that "you can't prove there is a god." In this context, the atheists' claim that the burden of proof is on theists is correct, as the theists are the ones making a positive claim (that god exists). Unless, of course, you're talking about atheists who claim that god doesn't exist. Then they would also have a burden of proof for their positive claim. Regardless, I think this thread isn't really connected to the core of this issue, and how/why the "burden of proof" argument came up.

You stopped before the part that this thread addresses.

So we have this:
Atheist: You can't prove that god exists!
Theist: Prove that god doesn't exist!
Atheist: You have the burden of proof!

This is the argument you described in your post. But, the debate doesn't just end there. My question is "What about what comes next?"

Theist: God exists because argument X, reason Y, and evidence Z.
(This is the theist's attempt at fulfilling her burden of proof.)

Atheist: You have not convinced me, therefore, you have failed to meet the burden of proof.
(This is the atheist rejecting the proof offered by the theist.)

I am not arguing about the part of the debate you described in your post. I am talking about the next step. The theist has offered proof and the atheist has rejected it.

Does the atheist need any reason to reject the arguments offered by the theists?

Is she allowed to reject them "just because"?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You stopped before the part that this thread addresses.

So we have this:
Atheist: You can't prove that god exists!
Theist: Prove that god doesn't exist!
Atheist: You have the burden of proof!

This is the argument you described in your post. But, the debate doesn't just end there. My question is "What about what comes next?"

Theist: God exists because argument X, reason Y, and evidence Z.
(This is the theist's attempt at fulfilling her burden of proof.)

Atheist: You have not convinced me, therefore, you have failed to meet the burden of proof.
(This is the atheist rejecting the proof offered by the theist.)

I am not arguing about the part of the debate you described in your post. I am talking about the next step. The theist has offered proof and the atheist has rejected it.

Does the atheist need any reason to reject the arguments offered by the theists?

Is she allowed to reject them "just because"?

Do you have a burden of proof for rejecting Bob's claim that an invisible purple dragon is sitting on his head? If so, what does that burden of proof entail, and what would it look like?

 

[Falvlun]

So, if that were my reason, then you'd have a burden of proof for not thinking it was an acceptable reason. And, this would go on ad infinitum.

Yup.

Likewise, you haven't answered my question about Bob's invisible purple dragon. What would my burden of proof entail for not accepting his claim? If you were rejecting Bob's claim, exactly what would fulfilling your burden of proof for rejecting his claim look like?

What are your reasons for rejecting his claim? You aren't just rejecting it "just because", after all.

Some of my reasons would be: There is no way to detect invisible purple dragons. I personally am not sensing the presence of an invisible purple dragon. An invisible purple dragon is an impossibility because invisible things can't have color, by definition. Presumably only Bob believes that the IPD exists. I have not seen the IPD act upon the world, or do something that could only be explained by an IPD.

But also note: This isn't quite what I'm talking about. You are asking me to provide reasons for rejecting Bob's claim. What I am talking about is asking you to provide reasons for rejecting the arguments made for Bob's claim.

 

[Copernicus]

There seems to be a strong unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that theists just don't find "burden of proof" to be a credible argument in defense of atheism. It's a bit like claiming that one had "no belief" in Santa Claus because of lack of evidence, and that people who believed in his existence needed to come up with some credible evidence. It's not that that is a wrong position to take. It is true that the evidence one can marshal in favor of Santa's existence is lacking, but that is hardly going to convince the person who claims to believe merely on the basis of faith. The truth is that there are plenty of good reasons to reject belief in Santa that don't involve convincing a believer to accept a burden of proof. I honestly wonder if anyone has tried to convince a child of Santa's mythical character by asserting BoP.

Now there is a somewhat hackneyed atheist meme out there: "God is Santa Claus for adults." I once used this in a debate forum and was surprised by the vehement response from one theist. He was insulted when I told him that the evidence he had for God was no better than for Santa Claus. He then pointed out exactly how easy it was to debunk Santa Claus with strong evidence and asked me to produce equally strong evidence for the implausibility of God. I proceeded to give him a number of arguments, but God has rather stronger defensive shields around him in the minds of adult believers. The fact is that BoP applies to both God and Santa, but it is a terrible way to argue the case against either with someone who is strongly committed to the belief and also feels that faith is a justifiable defense of it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yup.


What are your reasons for rejecting his claim? You aren't just rejecting it "just because", after all.

Some of my reasons would be: There is no way to detect invisible purple dragons. I personally am not sensing the presence of an invisible purple dragon. An invisible purple dragon is an impossibility because invisible things can't have color, by definition. Presumably only Bob believes that the IPD exists. I have not seen the IPD act upon the world, or do something that could only be explained by an IPD.

But also note: This isn't quite what I'm talking about. You are asking me to provide reasons for rejecting Bob's claim. What I am talking about is asking you to provide reasons for rejecting the arguments made for Bob's claim.

Indeed, and, in my experience, atheists do this on a regular basis. I've only seen the "burden of proof" thing used as a device for pointing out the false-equivalency used by theists when the retort, "well, prove there isn't a god."

I routinely see atheists on RF provide all manner of reasons for why they reject arguments made by theists for why their god exists. It seems to me that you've somewhat invented a caricature of an atheist to have a problem with that doesn't really represent how actual atheists argue or debate.

If you're making the claim that atheists have rejected theists claims without giving any reason why, then the burden of proof is on you to provide examples.

 

[Skwim]

I have, on more than one occasion, noted that the atheist has indeed seriously considered the matter, and more likely than not, does have reasons to reject the arguments of theists.

The point is that, when asked those reasons, he acts as if there are none or that he needs none, because burden of proof.

From what I've seen here and elsewhere it's never because the atheist has no reason, but rather that the reasons given by theists have failed to convince, which is ample reason for rejection.

The majority of this thread has been various posters claiming that they don't need any reasons for their non-belief.

I don't recall any posters here who has said they don't have a reason for their non-belief, but rather they feel no burden to prove it. In fact, I think they have plenty of reason; primarily that theists have not proven their case, which is quite sufficient. Why shouldn't I believe that marshmallows lack brains if you can't prove to me that they do? I feel absolutely no responsibility/burden to prove my disbelief. Would you, if someone said that marshmallows have brains, but failed to provide you proof? That's where the atheist sits.

 

[Sir Doom]

Bob might say something like, "He speaks to me."

And I could ask, "Prove it."

And that conversation is over.

Or, if I'm interested in what Bob has to say for some other reason (likely leading me to talk to Bob in the first place), I might say something like, "What does IPD say to you, Bob?"

Because ultimately what I'd rather know is what IPD's effect on Bob is going to be, as that will in turn have an effect on reality (means I'll be forced to deal with Bob's IPD regardless of how according-to-Webster-real it is). It is unlikely that forcing Bob to prove IPD exists is going to get him to abandon IPD so sooner or later I'll be dealing with those consequences without even knowing them ahead of time.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Let's see.....bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced.
Cannot be pushed aside, circumvented, subdued, tricked or cheated.

Having the power of creation......Creator.

Stacked decked and regarded as the Almighty.

Would that be sufficient for a bent knee?

Why would you assume that the force that created the universe would have any innate qualities or even continues to exist?

Some forms of: Buddhism and Taoism.
Jainism.
Raelianism (creationist ancient alien atheists free loving cloning people).
LaVeyan Satanism, Dudeism
Non-theist Quakers, non-theist Judaism
Scientology...

According to some interpretations, the personality cults of Marxism, Maoism, Leninism, etc, would also count. The cult of personality around the Kim family of North Korea, too.

And so on.

To my understanding religion generally requires some degree of theism or at least belief in higher power. Marxism isn't a cult actually and isn't anything like a religion. Comparable doesn't mean they are the same.

Which isn't me saying atheists do this.


"Don't act like you know everything about the universe to say what is not possible, you're just a human too."


Yes. Completely.

Then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

[LuisDantas]

It means that those who claim the existence of God need to give everyone else a reason to bother with the notion.

It creates the burden of proof and it creates it on the lap of the claimants, aka Theists.

No one is disputing that.

I must have misunderstood the purpose of this thread then.

But what happens next? That is what this thread is about, and what I am interested in.

Nothing much. Those who want to believe in God's existence believe. Those who do not want, do not.

Theists have offered various reasons, arguments, and evidences to support their claim that god exists.

But the atheists say that this evidence is not sufficient, that the burden of proof has not been met.

That is why there are atheists at all.

Do atheists need to support that claim?

No, of course not. Not at all.

They (we) may even decide arbitrarily that they are not convinced and call it a day.

And if you argue that they do not, then doesn't that make the claim arbitrary and meaningless?

Yes!

Why would it have any meaning? It is, after all, just a refusal to support a claim that is itself of at best arguable meaning and evidence.

Theism means very little. And atheism can't mean any more than theism.

If anyone can reject arguments for any reason or no reason, then that makes the whole "burden of proof" argument a rational dead end.

More exactly, it would make the effort of proving God's existence a dead end. Which it does.

It seems to me that you are a bit perplexed by what are essentially direct consequences of the deeply arbitrary nature of theism.

 

[LuisDantas]

There seems to be a strong unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that theists just don't find "burden of proof" to be a credible argument in defense of atheism.

For what it is worth, I readily accept that they don't. I doubt there would be so many theists otherwise.

It's a bit like claiming that one had "no belief" in Santa Claus because of lack of evidence, and that people who believed in his existence needed to come up with some credible evidence.

It is a pretty good parallel. The only difference is that belief in God is socially well-accepted.

It's not that that is a wrong position to take. It is true that the evidence one can marshal in favor of Santa's existence is lacking, but that is hardly going to convince the person who claims to believe merely on the basis of faith. The truth is that there are plenty of good reasons to reject belief in Santa that don't involve convincing a believer to accept a burden of proof. I honestly wonder if anyone has tried to convince a child of Santa's mythical character by asserting BoP.

Not sure what is your point here.

Now there is a somewhat hackneyed atheist meme out there: "God is Santa Claus for adults." I once used this in a debate forum and was surprised by the vehement response from one theist. He was insulted when I told him that the evidence he had for God was no better than for Santa Claus. He then pointed out exactly how easy it was to debunk Santa Claus with strong evidence and asked me to produce equally strong evidence for the implausibility of God. I proceeded to give him a number of arguments, but God has rather stronger defensive shields around him in the minds of adult believers. The fact is that BoP applies to both God and Santa, but it is a terrible way to argue the case against either with someone who is strongly committed to the belief and also feels that faith is a justifiable defense of it.

I agree. But that only means that theists are unlikely to accept their BoP, not that it isn't really theirs.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Again, I have never claimed that atheists don't have reasons, or never provide them. I have said this throughout the thread.

I am talking about this in the context of the burden of proof debate. You can see evidence of what I am talking about littered throughout this thread: the claim is being made that, because burden of proof hasn't been met, atheists do not need any reason for their disbelief.

But not meeting the burden of proof is the reason being given for disbelief. "There isn't a good enough reason for me to accept your claim" is a perfectly valid reason to disbelieve the claim.

Where did I assert that all anecdotal claims are equal?

I didn't. I simply pointed out that we don't, and shouldn't, dismiss evidence simply by virtue of being anecdotal.

And I pointed out that "it simply being anecdotal" isn't the issue. The nature of the claim itself makes anecdotal evidence dismissable, not the fact that the evidence is anecdotal in and of itself. My point is that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.