Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Willamena]

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.

It seems simple enough.

 

[Willamena]

What is my posit?

It's whatever it is.

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'm saying we have the burden of proof whenever we make a posit.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

I agree and the simple fact that most atheists demand evidence of God from a theist and when they get none, they claim victory, is being very dishonest, considering even they realize that ones relationship with God is personal and there simply is no over whelming evidence that they "desire"

Sort of like this:
"What do you think of the new pizza place?"
"I had pizza the other day from there and it wasn't very good, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone"
"Prove what you said is true"
"I cant, I didn't keep the receipt"
"Then you are delusional and never ate there"
Yes this is a vague example, but its the same thing.

Personally, if one wishes to not believe in God, so be it, but that is where it should end.
But many begin to make assertions, such as "you're delusional" "religion is the cause of all the evil in the world" "people only give to charity because God makes them" "all priests are molesters" and the one of biggest ones of all
"Jesus was made up and never existed"
None of which a non believer can prove, but they surely assert them as true.

A lack of belief seems to be a crutch for many to then make assertions they simply can not prove true, so they then fall back to playing victim.
"You're goal post switching, you have to prove God exists"

Actually, even Jesus asserts the complete opposite.
Paraphrasing him "If your voice falls on deaf ears, wipe the dusk off your sandals and go find those willing to listen" :run:
We have nothing to prove to anyone and frankly, it would seem that the unbeliever puts that upon the believer, when it's not our walk, it is theirs.
They know that, but still think they are right, odd.

My favorite "ploy" of a non believer is the "Jesus was made up" assertion.
We have over whelming evidence that Jesus did exist and was crucified on the cross and the Christian Church exploded into existence soon after.
Once that is said, the non-believer will then goal post it, "doesn't prove God"
That's not the point.
The fact is, many big shot atheists such as Richard Dawkins claims that Jesus was a fairy tale and didn't exist and when he is proven wrong, he claims "I dont care"
If he didn't care, why did he make up lies in the first place?
And if he really doesn't care, why does he then demand proof of Gods existence?


In my experiences, more and more atheists are behaving like that...
Demand evidence, then ignore what was given to them and go back to demanding evidence again and claiming the want to know the truth and are open to Gods existence.
Again, it is ones own walk with God, no one else can do it for them, but many still demand otherwise and feel they are right to do so and it "proves" God doesn't exist to them, because they didn't get the evidence they "desire"

Seems to me, many atheists set the deck in their favor, by putting the burden of proof on others.
The only one they are fooling with such circular arguments, is themselves.

Its sort of like demanding ones parents prove without a doubt to them that their (daughter/son) would made for a good spouse and then blaming them for not providing what they simply can not provide.
The son/daughter is the only one who can provide said things to them and that comes from having an actual relationship with them.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It's whatever it is.

My posit is whatever my posit is?

But can you tell me what the meaning of 'is' is?

I'm saying we have the burden of proof whenever we make a posit.

What if we don't make a posit?

(Whatever a posit is, I mean, of course.)

And who gets to say whether we've made a posit or whether not? The speaker, or the listener?

 

[Willamena]

My posit is whatever my posit is?

Yes.

But can you tell me what the meaning of 'is' is?

Yes.

What if we don't make a posit?

No posit, no burden.

And who gets to say whether we've made a posit or whether not? The speaker, or the listener?

It doesn't matter.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It doesn't matter.

OK. If it doesn't matter whether or not we've actually made a posit, then it cannot matter whether we are willing to shoulder the Burden of Proof.

And so our little thread ends.

 

[cottage]

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.

A ‘burden of proof’ lies with the person that introduces a claim as an obligation to prove the truth of what is claimed.

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.

I’m stating it: I’m arguing that any proposition or assertion that makes a specific claim carries the burden of proof, whether that is ‘God exists’ or ‘There is no God’. ‘Some people can waggle their ears’ might be true or false, but ‘John can waggle his ears’ is an affirmative premise. Now it’s not for the doubters to prove that John cannot waggle his ears; it is for John to prove he can do so. The one that makes the assertion is obligated to prove the assertion. But the one who hears the assertion and disbelieves it is only required to justify and support his/her disbelief, not necessarily to prove the assertion false. Arguments usually revolve around a central premise, whether that concerns God’s existence or John’s ability to waggle his ears but it is only the central premise that must be proved in order for the proposition to be upheld; and failure to unseat the proposition doesn’t shift the burden of proof on to the challengers.

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.

I think I’ve made it as clear as I possibly could that any and every argument must be defended by those making it, but the burden of proof remains with the advocate(s) of the asserted proposition(s). This is of especial significance in the case of God, where certainty is claimed.

 

[Skwim]

I agree and the simple fact that most atheists demand evidence of God from a theist and when they get none, they claim victory, is being very dishonest, considering even they realize that ones relationship with God is personal and there simply is no over whelming evidence that they "desire"

I call "straw man" here. I have never heard "most" or even many atheists make such a demand. At most they've simply said, "Your evidence doesn't convince" or words to that effect.

Personally, if one wishes to not believe in God, so be it, but that is where it should end.

Why? As long as theists keep insisting that their claim is true atheists have good reason to challenge them. Don't like atheists telling you that you're wrong, then stop telling atheists they are. After all, it's the believer who has been motivated to "save" others from their disbelief. I know of no atheist feels such a compulsion.

But many begin to make assertions, such as "you're delusional" "religion is the cause of all the evil in the world" "people only give to charity because God makes them" "all priests are molesters" and the one of biggest ones of all
"Jesus was made up and never existed"
None of which a non believer can prove, but they surely assert them as true.

Boy, you're just full of straw men.

A lack of belief seems to be a crutch for many to then make assertions they simply can not prove true, so they then fall back to playing victim.
"You're goal post switching, you have to prove God exists"

Good grief!!

My favorite "ploy" of a non believer is the "Jesus was made up" assertion.
We have over whelming evidence that Jesus did exist and was crucified on the cross and the Christian Church exploded into existence soon after.
Once that is said, the non-believer will then goal post it, "doesn't prove God"
That's not the point.
The fact is, many big shot atheists such as Richard Dawkins claims that Jesus was a fairy tale and didn't exist and when he is proven wrong, he claims "I dont care"
If he didn't care, why did he make up lies in the first place?
And if he really doesn't care, why does he then demand proof of Gods existence?


In my experiences, more and more atheists are behaving like that...
Demand evidence, then ignore what was given to them and go back to demanding evidence again and claiming the want to know the truth and are open to Gods existence.
Again, it is ones own walk with God, no one else can do it for them, but many still demand otherwise and feel they are right to do so and it "proves" God doesn't exist to them, because they didn't get the evidence they "desire"

Seems to me, many atheists set the deck in their favor, by putting the burden of proof on others.
The only one they are fooling with such circular arguments, is themselves.

Its sort of like demanding ones parents prove without a doubt to them that their (daughter/son) would made for a good spouse and then blaming them for not providing what they simply can not provide.
The son/daughter is the only one who can provide said things to them and that comes from having an actual relationship with them.

​

 

[Willamena]

OK. If it doesn't matter whether or not we've actually made a posit...

Oh! That matters. But that wasn't what you'd asked.

...then it cannot matter whether we are willing to shoulder the Burden of Proof.

And so our little thread ends.

The burden isn't something you can choose to shoulder, if that's what you mean. If you posit, it's there, on your shoulder.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

@Skwim
What an odd way to debate what I said

You need to understand what a stawman actually is and not just use it as empty words to "defeat" my arguments. :sarcastic

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The burden isn't something you can choose to shoulder, if that's what you mean. If you posit, it's there, on your shoulder.

OK, well I hereby declare that I never ever posit. And therefore I never have the burden of proof.

Whew!

 

[Skwim]

@Skwim
What an odd way to debate what I said

Evidently then no one has ever confronted you about your fallacious statements. You didn't present anything to debate.

You need to understand what a stawman actually is and not just use it as empty words to "defeat" my arguments. :sarcastic

Oh, I do understand what a straw man is, which is why you have no argument to defeat, and why I went no further. Try putting up a cogent argument and then perhaps we'll talk. Until then

​

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Evidently then no one has ever confronted you about your fallacious statements. You didn't present anything to debate.

Oh, I do understand what a straw man is, which is why you have no argument to defeat, and why I went no further. Try putting up a cogent argument and then perhaps we'll talk. Until then

​

whatever bro, I said quite alot, if you think cute emots defeats what I said, you can "believe" what you wish.

Back up and actually refute my arguments, or cant you?
Claiming my arguments are not arguments, so you don't have to defeat them, is a child's ploy and you are proving nothing, well to me, you are showing that you cant refute a thing I said with real intellectual discussion. :yes:

 

[Sinful Hypocrite]

Even when proof was shown by Jesus when he raised Lazarus from the dead , the people who were against him did not change their minds.

Proof will not make you have faith.

 

[Willamena]

OK, well I hereby declare that I never ever posit. And therefore I never have the burden of proof.

Whew!

You mean you posit it?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You mean you posit it?

I posit what?

Since I never posit anything, how could I posit something?

 

[Willamena]

I posit what?

Since I never posit anything, how could I posit something?

Just so.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Just so.

I agree.

 

[Skwim]

whatever bro, I said quite alot,

That! I will grant you: there are a lot of words in what you said. Unfortunately . . . . . . . . . . . .

Back up and actually refute my arguments, or cant you?

Sorry, but I can't refute what isn't there. I don't deal in straw men.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

That! I will grant you: there are a lot of words in what you said. Unfortunately . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sorry, but I can't refute what isn't there. I don't deal in straw men.

As once said to me, unproven assertions are empty assertions.
I am done wasting my time on you bro. :yes:
You cant even pick a single thing I said and prove it invalid, considering you are claiming so much about what I said, one would think you should be able to back it up with actual arguments ehhh?

I will just consider my arguments valid and you simply can not refute them. :yes:

BTW, if you dont deal with "strawmen" why did you reply to me in the first place, and where is all this evidence that everything I said is untrue?

good day sir