Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Nakosis]

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.

Yes but that wasn't really what was being implied. What was being implied was that there was no evidence.

Saying you haven't been supplied with evidence you find convincing is different than saying no evidence has been supplied at all.

The Bible is evidence. There are thousands of individual testimony. That is all evidence.

Really what, except for personal experience, can be accepted as evidence?

 

[Breathe]

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.

And that is the problem.

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.

But evne those who don't try get dragged into it. And there are some atheists who have no problem coming into a discussion (online or offline) ******** it up and side-tracking it like this.

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

It's a misrepresentation because it isn't actually true. No amount of wishing that it was changes the fact it's not true.

 

[LuisDantas]

Experimentation relies on that simple relationship.

Theology does not.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's a misrepresentation because it isn't actually true. No amount of wishing that it was changes the fact it's not true.

It is true that theists haven't met the burden of proof for convincing atheists.

I don't know what else you want us to do or say about that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes but that wasn't really what was being implied. What was being implied was that there was no evidence.

And that is the truth, far as atheists are concerned.

Saying you haven't been supplied with evidence you find convincing is different than saying no evidence has been supplied at all.

Not really, not when it is evidence for the existence of God.

The Bible is evidence. There are thousands of individual testimony. That is all evidence.

Really what, except for personal experience, can be accepted as evidence?

Perhaps nothing. But that does not really matter here.

 

[Thief]

Theology does not.

I don't exclude the line of logic when I think of the Creator.

The universe is the effect....God is the Cause.

Will stand by that at length.

 

[Breathe]

It is true that theists haven't met the burden of proof for convincing atheists.

That doesn't bother me. It's not up to me to convince someone, as nothing I can say or do will convince the person. It is the person who will convince themselves, and/or God who will convince them, depending on belief and/or interpretation.

Suffice to say, many of us have been given reason to believe that is difficult to convey to another.

I don't know what else you want us to do or say about that.

All I'd like is courteousness, politeness, not being deliberate dicks by insulting or strawmanning, no patting each other on the back, no talking to each other in threads about how silly something is and acting all smug about it. Civilized, polite, and respectful behaviour.

It ain't much, and it's the same as I expect from any theist.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

How would science handle it?

Experimentation? Repeatable results?

There are those who claim to have succeeded in discovering God. From the authority of their success they coach others on the process necessary to achieve repeatable results.

There hasn't been 100% success rate so obviously some or many variables haven't been clearly defined or understood. However it's been successful enough that sufficient numbers are convinced there is something to the posit of God. At least enough to continue to experiment with the process.

And fair enough, you are free to sit on the side until someone hands you a sure-fire process of finding God. though Christians think they've actually already done this

I think the motivation to find God requires some degree of desperation. If you are happy with your current situation, not much motivation there.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't exclude the line of logic when I think of the Creator.

The universe is the effect....God is the Cause.

Will stand by that at length.

Believe that if you will.

It is still not science, and it is not altogether reasonable to expect others to be convinced by claims that it is.

 

[LuisDantas]

How would science handle it?

My personal take is that science shouldn't attempt to handle the concept of God at all, except by way of Anthropology and related fields.

Experimentation? Repeatable results?

Usually. Not a very useful take for handling the existence of God, though.

There are those who claim to have succeeded in discovering God. From the authority of their success they coach others on the process necessary to achieve repeatable results.

Are you implying that it is done in circunstances that qualify as scientific evidence?

I don't think so.

There hasn't been 100% success rate so obviously some or many variables haven't been clearly defined or understood. However it's been successful enough that sufficient numbers are convinced there is something to the posit of God. At least enough to continue to experiment with the process.

If anything, the actual results imply that God probably does not exist, or at least does not much care for being understood and accepted. Just look at how wild that belief runs and how often it becomes destructive.

And fair enough, you are free to sit on the side until someone hands you a sure-fire process of finding God. though Christians think they've actually already done this

Good for them, I suppose. I don't mind it one way or the other.

I think the motivation to find God requires some degree of desperation. If you are happy with your current situation, not much motivation there.

This is an interesting statement, with perhaps unfortunate implications.

 

[Nakosis]

And that is the truth, far as atheists are concerned.

Not really, not when it is evidence for the existence of God.

Perhaps nothing. But that does not really matter here.

All of which might seem bigoted to some.

My only interest was in trying to understand the apparent offense.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That doesn't bother me. It's not up to me to convince someone, as nothing I can say or do will convince the person. It is the person who will convince themselves, and/or God who will convince them, depending on belief and/or interpretation.

This is something of an unfounded assumption on your part. Assuming you can't convince someone of a position is either indication that you believe you're incapable of justifying your position (or, at the very least, putting a convincing case forward for your position), or that the people who you would otherwise convince are somehow incapable of seeing the validity of your position. In the first case, it's an indication that you're insecure in your own reasoning. In the second, it's an indication that you have a very low opinion of people who don't already agree with you. Neither position seems healthy, to me.

I never start with the assumption that I cannot convince someone of something - that's not a good starting point for any debate or conversation about anything - but I instead start with the position that my opinions have valid reasons behind them, and that the person I am talking to can be made aware of those reasons and is honest, reasonable and intelligent enough to be able to change their mind if they disagree, or else present a convincing argument of their own if they don't.

It's important to note, however, that both of these assumptions are only tentative. I never assume that I am absolutely, authoritatively right about anything, only that I have good reasons to believe that I am right. If, in conversation with an individual, I come to realize - through their response - that my reasons are flawed or insufficient, then I change my mind. It does no good whatsoever to assume that anyone who doesn't already agree with you is incapable of being convinced, especially if you feel you have good reasons for believing the things you believe.

This doesn't mean that, even if you have good reasons for something, any remotely reasonable person will automatically agree with you. People aren't always reasonable, of course. But the point is that you shouldn't start with the assumption that nobody can be convinced to agree with you if you have a good case to put forward. I've seen people change their minds about a great many things, and I like to think that I've been able to change minds, just as I am certain that I have had my mind changed in the past purely by a convincing argument.

Suffice to say, many of us have been given reason to believe that is difficult to convey to another.

All I'd like is courteousness, politeness, not being deliberate dicks by insulting or strawmanning, no patting each other on the back, no talking to each other in threads about how silly something is and acting all smug about it. Civilized, polite, and respectful behaviour.

It ain't much, and it's the same as I expect from any theist.

Then why do you only seem to be addressing atheists? In my experience, atheists are certainly no more guilty of these attitudes than theists. Definitely not on these forums.

 

[LuisDantas]

All of which might seem bigoted to some.

Of course.

Then again, theists themselves are at such odds with each other for both minor and major disagreements that I doubt anyone at all might appear not bigoted to everyone.

My only interest was in trying to understand the apparent offense.

Which offense?

 

[Nakosis]

My personal take is that science shouldn't attempt to handle the concept of God at all, except by way of Anthropology and related fields.

Everyone is a scientist and capable of employing science. To varying degrees of credibility.

Usually. Not a very useful take for handling the existence of God, though.

Unfortunately I think that a propagated misconception. I think people who try to employ science in the realm of spirituality get discredited because of personal bias.

Are you implying that it is done in circunstances that qualify as scientific evidence?

Well, what circumstances are necessary that you think would qualify them?

If anything, the actual results imply that God probably does not exist, or at least does not much care for being understood and accepted. Just look at how wild that belief runs and how often it becomes destructive.

How often does science come up with destructive results?

Good for them, I suppose. I don't mind it one way or the other.
{/quote]

Personally I think they need some work on their delivery.

This is an interesting statement, with perhaps unfortunate implications.

I think some degree of desperation was needed for those individuals who took on the task of proving the man could fly. They were laughed at. Many were killed. They believed it was possible and were desperate to prove it. They kept at it despite people who told them it wasn't possible. Many were content to stay on he ground. Why risk being laughed at?

 

[Breathe]

Then why do you only seem to be addressing atheists?

But I don't. It's only that you notice this because you're an atheist.

In my experience, atheists are certainly no more guilty of these attitudes than theists. Definitely not on these forums.

Not my experience on here, unfortunately. Sadly, my experience says it's frequently quite the opposite.
This doesn't mean I blame all atheists or tar them with the same brush.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nakosis, I will just state that I don't find your take at all convincing.

 

[Willamena]

I never start with the assumption that I cannot convince someone of something - that's not a good starting point for any debate or conversation about anything - but I instead start with the position that my opinions have valid reasons behind them, and that the person I am talking to can be made aware of those reasons and is honest, reasonable and intelligent enough to be able to change their mind if they disagree, or else present a convincing argument of their own if they don't.

Sadly, I suspect it's more a case of having beaten one's head against a brick wall enough times, one learns not to beat one's head against a brick wall.

 

[Nakosis]

Which offense?

supporting the marginalizing of believers to a strawman.

 

[Nakosis]

Nakosis, I will just state that I don't find your take at all convincing.

Which take is that?

That of employing scientific ideas towards spiritual pursuits?

There are those that have so I'm happy to support them.

 

[Nakosis]

Sadly, I suspect it's more a case of having beaten one's head against a brick wall enough times, one learns not to beat one's head against a brick wall.

The has to be a willingness to be convinced. Especially on forums I think there's no way to guarantee this to be the case. But it's good practice in case you come across someone who is willing.

If I don't really want to be convinced of something it's pretty easy to set the bar high enough that for all purposes, it's unreachable.