Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Nakosis]

There is no universal standard even with God. That's because a moral standard must exist in the form of human words.

So two questions:

1) What, exactly, are those words, and how do we know they come from God?

Usually proof of divine authority is provided in the form of some miraculous event. Like resurrection from the dead.

2) Who is the final judge of how those words are to be interpreted regarding particular instances of human behavior?

Each religious group have their experts which diligently study the words of prophets to provide a reasoned interpretation.

In secular matters, the answers are pretty clear. The words are those statutes, currently in force, as created and voted upon by the political authority under which one lives. They are interpreted, as regards any particular case, by a judge or jury duly authorized by the political authority.

Sure, pretty much the same. You can either accept the religious/political authority or reject it and face the consequences.

Something like that.

The problem with moral law is that we have thousands of prophets, each one proclaiming the actual law of God. And they don't even do it with any detail. Sometimes just a curt ten Shalt-Nots on a stone tablet. And then, a million preachers, priests, rabbis, etc., to give their opinions as to whether a particular behavior violates or doesn't violate the supposed law.

Moral law is a morass. Moral law means 'personal opinion of morality.'

I'm trying to get the idea of ethics and moral separate.

God's laws would be ethics since it is an external law (one that is imposed by an external force) vs morals which is an internal feeling of what is right and wrong.

So basically without God there is no authority that is superior to man to provide a standard for ethical behavior that all men would be expected to adhere to.

I think without that we are left with "might makes right".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, well maybe the word universal is confusing the point.

If there is a God and God provides the standards of right and wrong for man, that is the only way man could have a standard for right and wrong that is absolute.

I fail to see how the whim of a god, which it could countermand at will whenever it wanted, could ever be considered "absolute".

And without an independent standard of morality, a God-provided standard wouldn't be a standard of right and wrong; it would just be a standard of God's likes and dislikes. What would make such a standard necessarily moral?

 

[LuisDantas]

This is an all too common scenario for me to witness or be part of. Depressingly so.

But why? What is wrong with it? Why do you and Falvlun talk of a strawman?

 

[Nakosis]

I fail to see how the whim of a god, which it could countermand at will whenever it wanted, could ever be considered "absolute".

And without an independent standard of morality, a God-provided standard wouldn't be a standard of right and wrong; it would just be a standard of God's likes and dislikes. What would make such a standard necessarily moral?

It'd be moral to God. Not necessarily to you or me.

You nailed it. It would be God's likes and dislikes. It would be a standard only if God could enforce it or if man could be made to believe God could enforce it.

 

[Nakosis]

But why? What is wrong with it? Why do you and Falvlun talk of a strawman?

I think the strawman is the believer who has accepted the existence of God based on no evidence.

Most people who accept the existence of God also believe they have credible evidence.

That you question the credibility of that evidence doesn't mean they don't have evidence that they find credible.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

As I said, it's more important, epistemically, that they justify it to themselves. That they see and understand the burden.

Some can't even do that much.

Regardless of whether they do or do not, that is something different and distinct from what is referred to as "burden of proof" in argumentation.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Fine, but if you can't support the argument against that particular God why would anyone take stock in your position?

I don't need to argue against any god. I simply need to understand that people invent and promulgate gods which suit their purposes, and reflect their own ideas and biases.

And, to be clear, it's not that you'd need to prove your position with certainty just that is is a reasonable position.

And, to be even clearer, there are no reasonable arugments which support the notion that homosexuality is immoral in any way.

 

[Breathe]

But why? What is wrong with it? Why do you and Falvlun talk of a strawman?

Nakosis is spot on.
I'm not a theist because of a "clutch", "fear", or other things, as so many people would like to imagine. I'm a believer because I have reason to be.

And the idea that asking for credible evidence being bad if asked of a believer is really insulting and is not the case. It's a strawman, that simple.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't need to argue against any god. I simply need to understand that people invent and promulgate gods which suit their purposes, and reflect their own ideas and biases.

Some do. I'm not sure that all do.

And, to be even clearer, there are no reasonable arugments which support the notion that homosexuality is immoral in any way.

I think those that do are guilty of your first statement.

Just for the heck of it I'll supply my understanding.

The real issue is sex. Not who you have sex with but just sex. Heterosexuality is the same degree of sin as Homosexuality. Sex is only "immoral" in the sense that desire for sex keeps us separated from God.

Separation from God is not necessarily a bad thing either except you may be staying separate because of enslavement to sin. The enslavement part is bad. It may cause us to act in harmful ways, either to our self or to others.

Heterosexuals are just as guilty of enslavement as homosexuals. It is just easier to criticize the sinful desire of others than actually deal with your own.

Everyone deserves a chance to be loved in this life. It's only a problem if you allow your carnal desires rule your spirit.

 

[johnhanks]

Well what I'm trying to say is that without God there is no universal standard for good or evil.

So unless one first postulates the existence of God there is I suppose little basis for a discussion about good and evil or absolute morals.

No God, no universal standard.

That's right, there is no universal standard for good or evil. Historically, whole civilisations have flourished around moral standards modern westerners would regard as abhorrent (though they, of course, regarded them as absolutely proper and in many cases god-given).

 

[Willamena]

Regardless of whether they do or do not, that is something different and distinct from what is referred to as "burden of proof" in argumentation.

Not to me.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think the strawman is the believer who has accepted the existence of God based on no evidence.

Most people who accept the existence of God also believe they have credible evidence.

That you question the credibility of that evidence doesn't mean they don't have evidence that they find credible.

Maybe so. But it does by definition mean that they have not reached our burden of proof. Therefore, I don't see how one can claim a strawman.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Not to me.

And we're all certainly free to define or redefine words or phrases as we wish for our personal use. Of course, when we want to effectively communicate with others, we should stick with common, standardized definitions.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nakosis is spot on.
I'm not a theist because of a "clutch", "fear", or other things, as so many people would like to imagine. I'm a believer because I have reason to be.

And the idea that asking for credible evidence being bad if asked of a believer is really insulting and is not the case. It's a strawman, that simple.

I guess I would agree if it is established that we are attempting to argue someone out of belief.

Otherwise, I don't think so.

 

[Nakosis]

That's right, there is no universal standard for good or evil. Historically, whole civilisations have flourished around moral standards modern westerners would regard as abhorrent (though they, of course, regarded them as absolutely proper and in many cases god-given).

Ok, however people who share a common goal should be able to determine a standard of "good" behavior to obtain that goal.

A common goal usually involves survival of the group. For the Judeans, their God was part of their identity. To ensure their survival as a group would almost necessitate they ensure the survival of the concept of their God. Looks like they did a pretty good job so far.

 

[Breathe]

I guess I would agree if it is established that we are attempting to argue someone out of belief.

Otherwise, I don't think so.

But there's still misrepresentation of the theist's and religionist's arguments, a condecending behaviour. It may as well be patting each other on the back for being atheists.

 

[LuisDantas]

But there's still misrepresentation of the theist's and religionist's arguments, a condecending behaviour. It may as well be patting each other on the back for being atheists.

It is often condescending, no point in arguing against the obvious. And it does look a lot like patting each other in the back for that reason. No argument from me on that.

I readily admit that it may be infuriating and it is not particularly respectful.

I don't know that it can be helped except by avoiding the matter of how convincing arguments for the existence of God are for atheists.

And I don't know how it could be a misrepresentation. It is a honest and fairly objective stance, albeit perhaps an unpleasant one.

 

[Thief]

I thought you said you have "good reason". Unsubstantiated claims of seemingly nonsensical things are not "good reason".

Science offers cause and effect.
I like it.

So the universe is the effect....God is the Cause.
I like it.

Sounds like good reasoning to me.

 

[LuisDantas]

Science offers cause and effect.
I like it.

So the universe is the effect....God is the Cause.
I like it.

Sounds like good reasoning to me.

Trouble is, it simply isn't for many others, including most atheists.

Nor has it anything to do with science, although you seem set on claiming otherwise.

 

[Thief]

Trouble is, it simply isn't for many others, including most atheists.

Nor has it anything to do with science, although you seem set on claiming otherwise.

Experimentation relies on that simple relationship.