Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Willamena]

I’m sorry but I’ve got no idea what it is you’re saying. Your statements (above and below) appear self-contradictory.

The burden of proof is an obligation to provide sufficient warrant for a posit in an epistemic dispute ("I know...", "I believe..." and their negations). What part is contradictory?

Having an obligation for proving is not a demand for proof.

 

[Falvlun]

With respect I think the OP is rather misconceived. Nobody needs to give a reason or offer an explanation for disbelieving in supernatural beings that are held to exist from faith, when even the advocates cannot prove such things to themselves. But if you’re asking whether adamant disbelievers are obliged to defend that view against a given argument, then that is a different question; and the answer to that is a firm ‘yes, of course!’, in my view.

But given the nature of the faith-based subject matter, proof of the supposed entity can only be given by the advocate. The doubters can never disprove the entity’s existence, not even if they successfully lambast and destroy every argument made by the advocates. So let’s make sure the term ‘proof’ is kept in its proper context, which is to lay it at the feet of those that make the faith-based assertion and not expect reasonable doubt to have prove a disproof against proof (which, again, given the subject matter, is impossible).

I'm sorry, cottage, but this is the strawman I've been addressing this entire thread.

I am not asking atheists to disprove the existence of gods.

I am asking atheists to support their claim that theists have not met their burden of proof. In other words, atheists have a responsibility to explain why they reject the arguments. If such a responsibility is not in place, then these arguments can be rejected for any reason, or for no reason at all, which makes it arbitrary. It also makes it meaningless to ask for proof in the first place.

 

[Falvlun]

I couldn't take on a burden of proof in order to justify my non-belief for the existence of an invisible God if I wanted to.

Does this mean you can give no reasons for your disbelief? If you can't justify your non-belief, then how is it a rational position to hold?

I disbelieve in the existence of gods for reasons. Those reasons are the justification for my disbelief. My ability to justify my disbelief is my burden of proof.

I'm really not seeing what is so impossible, or unreasonable, about this. I really think it's simply a hang up on the idea of "burden of proof".

I don't believe things to exist because I can't disprove them,
I believe things that can be proven to exist, that's how it works for me.

So you are not completely without reasons after all. Do you not realize that you just provided a piece of justification for your non-belief, the very thing that you just claim that you can't justify?

 

[Falvlun]

Kilgore, you wanted evidence as to how this provides a stumbling block for atheist argumentation. See the above exchange. An atheist believes that he can't justify his atheism even if he wanted to. I'm just trying to empower atheists here. We do have the ability to justify our beliefs.

 

[cottage]

The burden of proof is an obligation to provide sufficient warrant for a posit in an epistemic dispute ("I know...", "I believe..." and their negations).

Then look again at what I wrote:

With respect I think the OP is rather misconceived. Nobody needs to give a reason or offer an explanation for disbelieving in supernatural beings that are held to exist from faith, when even the advocates cannot prove such things to themselves. But if you’re asking whether adamant disbelievers are obliged to defend that view against a given argument, then that is a different question; and the answer to that is a firm ‘yes, of course!’, in my view.

But given the nature of the faith-based subject matter, proof of the supposed entity can only be given by the advocate. The doubters can never disprove the entity’s existence, not even if they successfully lambast and destroy every argument made by the advocates. So let’s make sure the term ‘proof’ is kept in its proper context, which is to lay it at the feet of those that make the faith-based assertion and not expect reasonable doubt to have prove a disproof against proof (which, again, given the subject matter, is impossible).

What part is contradictory?

This: ‘…denial of any burden for the atheist just because of atheism..’

And this: ‘No one's asking atheists to prove anything (hopefully). The topic is the burden of proof.’

Having an obligation for proving is not a demand for proof.

What? Well of course it is! It’s a demand for disproof to justify the position held, i.e. the disbelief. If someone says ‘God exists’ because argument X demonstrates its truth then it is for me to prove the argument false or invalid.

 

[Willamena]

What? Well of course it is! It’s a demand for disproof to justify the position held, i.e. the disbelief. If someone says ‘God exists’ because argument X demonstrates its truth then it is for me to prove the argument false or invalid.

No. You acquire the burden when you make a posit, nothing more.

I have the burden now, but I'm not obligated to do anything about it.

 

[cottage]

No. You acquire the burden when you make a posit, nothing more.

I have the burden now, but I'm not obligated to do anything about it.

And isn’t that a rather facile stance to take if you’re supposed to be making a case for something?

 

[cottage]

I'm sorry, cottage, but this is the strawman I've been addressing this entire thread.

I am not asking atheists to disprove the existence of gods.

With respect, yes you are! That is what it amounts to if you’re saying the doubter also bears a burden of proof in order to justify his/her disbelief! I’m sorry but it is clear to me that you’re misusing the term Burden of Proof to mean something quite different. And while it is entirely reasonable to expect the adamant disbeliever to justify their stance against specific arguments, the initial assertion for the existence of supernatural beings puts the burden of proof solely upon the advocate’s shoulders to demonstrate what is claimed. And as I’ve said previously, even if the doubter’s arguments are weak or unconvincing it wouldn’t prove the advocate’s case by default and he or she would still bear the burden of proof.

I am asking atheists to support their claim that theists have not met their burden of proof. In other words, atheists have a responsibility to explain why they reject the arguments. If such a responsibility is not in place, then these arguments can be rejected for any reason, or for no reason at all, which makes it arbitrary. It also makes it meaningless to ask for proof in the first place.

Theists do not meet their burden of proof if they deflect that burden onto the disbeliever. And I have made it abundantly clear that atheists are obliged to defend a view against a given argument – especially if they’ve demanded proof.

 

[McBell]

I am asking atheists to support their claim that theists have not met their burden of proof. In other words, atheists have a responsibility to explain why they reject the arguments. If such a responsibility is not in place, then these arguments can be rejected for any reason, or for no reason at all, which makes it arbitrary. It also makes it meaningless to ask for proof in the first place.

Why is "not enough evidence" not a good enough answer?

I mean, unless you have some sort of "evidence gauge"....

 

[Falvlun]

With respect, yes you are! That is what it amounts to if you’re saying the doubter also bears a burden of proof in order to justify his/her disbelief!

There is a difference between proving that god doesn't exist, and justifying disbelief in the existence of god. While (I believe) the former to be impossible, I find the latter to be reasonable, and necessary, for a rational worldview.

I’m sorry but it is clear to me that you’re misusing the term Burden of Proof to mean something quite different.

I am taking the burden of proof to indicate the responsibility of someone who has made a claim in a debate to support that claim with evidence.

From the Wiki:

The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.

Explain to me how the claim "Theists have not met their burden of proof" (or some synonymous statement as to the inadequacy of the evidence) is exempt from a burden of proof.

And while it is entirely reasonable to expect the adamant disbeliever to justify their stance against specific arguments, the initial assertion for the existence of supernatural beings puts the burden of proof solely upon the advocate’s shoulders to demonstrate what is claimed. And as I’ve said previously, even if the doubter’s arguments are weak or unconvincing it wouldn’t prove the advocate’s case by default and he or she would still bear the burden of proof.Theists do not meet their burden of proof if they deflect that burden onto the disbeliever. And I have made it abundantly clear that atheists are obliged to defend a view against a given argument – especially if they’ve demanded proof.

Then you and I agree.

EDIT:
It seems like you think there can only be one burden of proof within an argument. The fact that atheists have a burden of proof for their own claims does not negate the burden of proof that theists have for theirs.

 

[Falvlun]

Why is "not enough evidence" not a good enough answer?

I mean, unless you have some sort of "evidence gauge"....

I think you answer it within your post. Where is your "evidence gauge" when you offer that criticism of theistic argumentation? Without supporting, or followup, reasons, it simply is an arbitrary assessment.

After all, creationists could claim that there's "Not enough evidence" for evolution.

 

[Willamena]

And isn’t that a rather facile stance to take if you’re supposed to be making a case for something?

The necessity to make a case creates its own burden. I'm just defending burden of proof.

 

[Copernicus]

I think you answer it within your post. Where is your "evidence gauge" when you offer that criticism of theistic argumentation? Without supporting, or followup, reasons, it simply is an arbitrary assessment.

After all, creationists could claim that there's "Not enough evidence" for evolution.

I like your last analogy, because that is exactly what many creationists do. They obstinately insist that the evidence provided just does not measure up to their standards for one reason or another. The same is true for global warming deniers and Holocaust deniers. It is the position of all skeptics that the burden of proof lies with those who support what they deny. And the fact is that they are right. The burden of proof does lie with those who support what they deny. What is really at issue is whether that burden of proof has been met, and the mere claim that it has not been met is insufficient to justify their skepticism. The deniers still need to provide a credible reason to believe that the burden has not been met. Their own personal judgment is insufficient to support their claim.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You'd shrug off the effort to prove, but the burden of proof rests with you because of your posit, not by your doing.

What is my posit?

And you're saying that we all have posits -- whether we made them or not -- and that we therefore all have the BoP... all the time?

 

[Nakosis]

What is my posit?

And you're saying that we all have posits -- whether we made them or not -- and that we therefore all have the BoP... all the time?

I think what they are saying is that in a discussion of opposing view points the burden to support their individual positions should be equally shared.

Trying to shift the burden of proof to the other side it not a legitimate argument.

A theist saying they believe in God because an atheist can't prove there isn't one is the same as an atheist saying they don't believe in God because an theist can't prove there is.

It is an argument from ignorance. Which by itself does not justify one's position.

 

[cottage]

There is a difference between proving that god doesn't exist, and justifying disbelief in the existence of god. While (I believe) the former to be impossible, I find the latter to be reasonable, and necessary, for a rational worldview.

It seems to me that you’re misusing or misapplying the term ‘burden of proof’, when you simply mean ‘justification’ for one’s views.

I am taking the burden of proof to indicate the responsibility of someone who has made a claim in a debate to support that claim with evidence.

You are urging a requirement of responsibility for someone that has made a claim in a debate to support that claim with evidence. And that is a perfectly reasonable and considered position to adopt. But the burden of proof lies only with the advocate that introduced the proposition; the disbeliever doesn’t have to prove anything.

Explain to me how the claim "Theists have not met their burden of proof" (or some synonymous statement as to the inadequacy of the evidence) is exempt from a burden of proof.

As far as I can see there is only one situation where the theist does not meet their burden of proof and that is when the advocate attempts to deflect the burden onto the doubter.

Then you and I agree.

I’m not so sure we do, judging by what you say below.:no:

EDIT:
It seems like you think there can only be one burden of proof within an argument. The fact that atheists have a burden of proof for their own claims does not negate the burden of proof that theists have for theirs.

Once again you are confusing what is considered to be a proper course of debate, where the onus is on an individual to defend an argument, with a proposition antecedently asserted. It is for the one asserting the proposition to provide the proof for what is stated. There is no burden of proof placed upon the sceptic who is not required to prove anything, and which might in any case be an impossible task.

 

[steeltoes]

A theist saying they believe in God because an atheist can't prove there isn't one is the same as an atheist saying they don't believe in God because an theist can't prove there is.

It's not even remotely the same. There is not enough time and space in the universe to disprove an unfalsifiable claim, the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the claimant.

 

[Sunstone]

How can burden of proof be a bad argument? That makes no sense whatsoever! I mean, has burden of proof ever been caught speeding? What about convicted of murder? Has it ever cheated on its taxes? Just what, I demand to know, has burden of proof done that's so bad?*










*Since this is RF, I figure a totally clueless post is in order here.

 

[Sunstone]

There is not enough time and space in the universe to disprove an unfalsifiable claim, the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the claimant.

Actually, that makes sense to me. Frubals!

 

[Falvlun]

It seems to me that you’re misusing or misapplying the term ‘burden of proof’, when you simply mean ‘justification’ for one’s views.

Yes, that is what I think a burden of proof is. It is the body of evidence you use to justify your claim. What else would it be?

EDIT: Or, perhaps more accurately, it is the responsibility to justify your claim.

You are urging a requirement of responsibility for someone that has made a claim in a debate to support that claim with evidence. And that is a perfectly reasonable and considered position to adopt. But the burden of proof lies only with the advocate that introduced the proposition; the disbeliever doesn’t have to prove anything.

As far as I can see there is only one situation where the theist does not meet their burden of proof and that is when the advocate attempts to deflect the burden onto the doubter.

I’m not so sure we do, judging by what you say below.:no:


Once again you are confusing what is considered to be a proper course of debate, where the onus is on an individual to defend an argument, with a proposition antecedently asserted. It is for the one asserting the proposition to provide the proof for what is stated. There is no burden of proof placed upon the sceptic who is not required to prove anything, and which might in any case be an impossible task.

I haven't read anything in regards to "burden of proof" which indicates that only the initial party who makes an assertion has it. I have consistently read that "whoever makes a claim" has the burden of proof [for that claim]. Do you have anything to support your position? I posted the wiki which states that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

It doesn't make sense otherwise. Debates would completely devolve into ridiculous parodies if only the original party had any responsibility to support their claims made within the debate.