Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Falvlun]

And?
It is not the atheists fault you disagree with the conclusions they draw from the presented evidences.

Huh? I'm an atheist. I don't find the evidence theists have provided convincing.

If I say as much in a debate, however, I will support that claim, because I have a burden of proof for it.

I mean, it isn't like the atheist is trying real hard to enact laws based on their disbelief in god.

So? What does this have to do with online debates as to the existence of gods? Theists still have a burden of proof for their claim that god exists even if they aren't politically active either.

Yes.
And many do.

That is the point where I stop discussion with them.
Or is doing so not taking the high road?

You do realize that the atheists are the Creationists in this analogy, right?

 

[Willamena]

OK. But I thought you once argued that we can't know something unless that thing is true.

So you are saying that the existence of God is true?

God is true.

 

[Falvlun]

I know what you mean, but it may be a critically-important point to the whole BoP thing.

Who makes the posit?

I know that when I was first arguing about the historical Jesus, the historicalers were always insisting that I had the BoP, since my position was contrary to 'the scholarly consensus'. They were saying that since everyone believed that Jesus was historical, therefore it was my BoP to prove otherwise.

They could just sit there atop their Mountain of Assumption and it was my job to climb up and knock them off.

But in my mind, I'd made no posit at all. I'd just offered my personal opinion about Jesus' historicity. I wanted them to just argue with me.

So I can understand some of your frustration about atheists shrugging off the BoP, but I can also understand their stance toward it.

Anyone who makes a claim has a made a posit. And a claim is just someone saying "this is so" or even "I believe this is so".

Personally, I think 'the burden of proof' should be banned from the language -- or at least given a longish jail term.

Although it's pretty far down my list, so far as linguistic do-badders go.

I think it should be banned too. It is a misused and not particularly useful debate tactic.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

God is true.

Can you name a false thing for me?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Post #444

Also, please note the precise claim that I am making. Inexplicably, there seems to be much confusion. I stated it in that post, and I'll give it here:

Ah, that makes it a lot clearer. However, I don't feel that even a single one of those quotes you made indicate what you are claiming. None of them say that they never have to give reasons for why they don't believe the claim, but that disbelief in and of itself doesn't carry a burden of proof in the way that theism does. Not a single one of them says anything akin to "I don't have to explain why I don't accept a claim", simply "if the claim is presented, the burden is on the person making the claim to convince those who reject it - those who reject it are under no burden to justify their rejection, until evidence is presented for review". Don't confuse this with the statement "we don't ever have to explain why we don't accept the evidence", because until the evidence is presented it is meaningless to try and justify why we reject it. This is true for any meaningful debate about anything.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Anyone who makes a claim has a made a posit. And a claim is just someone saying "this is so" or even "I believe this is so".

Yeah, and in every productive debate, both side are doing that constantly. So if one side begins chanting BoP! BoP! BoP! at the other side, it feels to me like the debate is over and that we've entered the taunting phase.

 

[Willamena]

Can you name a false thing for me?

I cannot.

 

[Falvlun]

Yeah, and in every productive debate, both side are doing that constantly. So if one side begins chanting BoP! BoP! BoP! at the other side, it feels to me like the debate is over and that we've entered the taunting phase.

So much this. :bow:

 

[cottage]

We both agree that the "burden of proof" lies with the person that introduces a claim, and that the "burden of proof" is an obligation to prove the truth of what is claimed.

The difference is that you are making distinctions between claims: You are saying "this claim has a burden of proof" but "that claim does not". Your above definition does not indicate how or why such a distinction is made. It merely states that "a person who introduces a claim" has such an obligation known as "burden of proof".

“The central claim here is that a supernatural being exists and cannot fail to exist. That is the definition of God and it is held from faith to be a truth. On that proposition alone no person is be expected, and certainly not obligated, to have to justify their lack of belief in that faith-based claim to the supernatural. It is entirely the responsibility of the advocate to explain to those without that faith-based belief why they ought to believe that the proposition is true; and that can only be done by argument. Now if/when the advocate gives an argument, such as one of the classic proofs, or insists that God intervenes in the world then the person without the belief has the opportunity to justify his or her lack of belief.“

Is it your position that the atheist makes no claim when he states that the theists have not met their burden of proof/ have not offered sufficient evidence?

Yes, when no supporting argument is given and also when the theist attempts to shift the burden of proof onto the other party. For example 'Why don't you believe in God' does not require an explanation. It is for the theist to explain why the other party ought to believe in God, since it is the advocate who is making the assertion (which carries with it the burden of proof).

And again: Note: Just because an atheist has a burden of proof for his claim (that the evidence is weak), this does not mean that the theist gets to wipe his hands clean of his claim (that god exists).

Oh yes it does actually, on the terms that I gave further up the page, i.e. where it is a baseless claim, a non-argument in other words.

From the get go, I have repeatedly stated that theists have a burden of proof. And from the get go, I have stated that atheists have a responsibility to justify why they reject the arguments offered by theists. That is precisely your position, which you so nicely clarified for me above!

Good! So do we agree that the faith-based belief ‘God exists’ can be rejected without the hearer having to provide reasons for not being in possession of that same faith? That is the point I seem to be having to make repeatedly?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I cannot.

Thanks for answering. Me, I think it's false that I can hover 100 feet in the air by flapping my arms.

I wish it were true, but I am willing to call it false.

 

[Falvlun]

Good! So do we agree that the faith-based belief ‘God exists’ can be rejected without the hearer having to provide reasons for not being in possession of that same faith? That is the point I seem to be having to make repeatedly?

But that wasn't my argument. My argument was about when the theist provides evidence, and the atheist rejects that evidence as insufficient. Now what?

You have indicated that yes, the atheist has a responsibility to defend his claim (that the evidence is insufficient).

I call that responsibility a burden of proof (for the claim that the evidence is insufficient).

You say that it is not a burden of proof.

I ask why, and then you simply start in again with "the theist has the burden of proof for the claim that god exists". But that's not what the argument is about. We agree that the theist has the burden of proof for the claim that gods exist. We are disagreeing as to whether the atheist has the burden of proof for the claim that theists have not adequately met their burden of proof.

We are also disagreeing as to the difference between "an obligation to justify one's position when one makes a claim" and a "burden of proof". I see them as synonymous and you do not, but so far have not explained why.

 

[Willamena]

Thanks for answering. Me, I think it's false that I can hover 100 feet in the air by flapping my arms.

I wish it were true, but I am willing to call it false.

So "false" means doing something you're not doing or being able to do something that you're not able to do. In other words, holding something to a standard of something it's not.

Just do away with that standard, and there's no "false."

 

[Falvlun]

Ah, that makes it a lot clearer.

Thanks for reviewing!

However, I don't feel that even a single one of those quotes you made indicate what you are claiming. None of them say that they never have to give reasons for why they don't believe the claim, but that disbelief in and of itself doesn't carry a burden of proof in the way that theism does.

I have pointed out that atheists often do substantiate their claims. But yes, the majority of those posts clearly indicate that these atheists feel that they have no responsibility to justify their rejection of evidence offered. I can supply the list, if you'd like, of just the quotes that clearly speak to this.

Not a single one of them says anything akin to "I don't have to explain why I don't accept a claim", simply "if the claim is presented, the burden is on the person making the claim to convince those who reject it - those who reject it are under no burden to justify their rejection, until evidence is presented for review".

There is no difference between both statements in this context. "I don't have to explain why I don't accept a claim" is the same thing as saying "those who reject it are under no burden to justify their rejection".

But regardless, the statement I am specifically talking about is not "I don't have to explain why I don't accept a claim". It is "I don't have to explain why I reject the evidence presented for the claim."

Don't confuse this with the statement "we don't ever have to explain why we don't accept the evidence", because until the evidence is presented it is meaningless to try and justify why we reject it. This is true for any meaningful debate about anything.

I haven't confused the two, though many of my opponents in this thread have.

I have consistently been talking about "when the evidence has been presented". And people have rejected the idea that they have a responsibility to justify their rejection of the evidence.

 

[cottage]

But that wasn't my argument. My argument was about when the theist provides evidence, and the atheist rejects that evidence as insufficient. Now what?

You have indicated that yes, the atheist has a responsibility to defend his claim (that the evidence is insufficient).

I call that responsibility a burden of proof (for the claim that the evidence is insufficient).

You say that it is not a burden of proof.

I ask why, and then you simply start in again with "the theist has the burden of proof for the claim that god exists". But that's not what the argument is about. We agree that the theist has the burden of proof for the claim that gods exist. We are disagreeing as to whether the atheist has the burden of proof for the claim that theists have not adequately met their burden of proof.

We are also disagreeing as to the difference between "an obligation to justify one's position when one makes a claim" and a "burden of proof". I see them as synonymous and you do not, but so far have not explained why.

You are not listening! I've made the point over and over again and I've given examples of where the theist has not met the burden of proof (which you've not acknowledged, incidentally). And I've also explained to you the difference between the asserted proposition, upon which the entire dispute rests, which is that a supernatural being exists but which needs to be proven, and reasons for disbelieving that proposition, which doesn't. You admit the theist has the greater part of the burden of proof; I say the theist bears the entire burden, since it is he or she who is making the assertion. No theism, then no atheism.

The responsibility to respond to given arguments is a different question and the answer is 'both parties', as I'm continually saying, but that still does not alter the burden of proof for the subject in question, which remains with the theist. Please tell me you can see the essence of this now?

 

[Falvlun]

You are not listening! I've made the point over and over again and I've given examples of where the theist has not met the burden of proof (which you've not acknowledged, incidentally). And I've also explained to you the difference between the asserted proposition, upon which the entire dispute rests, which is that a supernatural being exists but which needs to be proven, and reasons for disbelieving that proposition, which doesn't. You admit the theist has the greater part of the burden of proof; I say the theist bears the entire burden, since it is he or she who is making the assertion. No theism, then no atheism.

The responsibility to respond to given arguments is a different question and the answer is 'both parties', as I'm continually saying, but that still does not alter the burden of proof for the subject in question, which remains with the theist. Please tell me you can see the essence of this now?

Like I said, the essence comes down to how you define burden of proof, and our disagreement as to whether responsibility to support claims made within an argument fit the bill.

As I mentioned before, I have never seen your version of burden of proof defined so. It is always "whoever makes a claim has the burden of proof".

Any claim. There's nothing in there that states that only the party that makes the initial claim only ever has the burden of proof.

I am still interested as to why you have decided to pick on me when we agree on everything except what to call this responsibility to respond to the arguments made by theists, when there are so many here that deny they have such a responsibility at all.

 

[Falvlun]

If you don't want to call the "responsibility to defend the assertion that theists have not met their burden of proof" a burden of proof, then that's fine with me. (I don't agree with your reasoning, but it really doesn't matter to me what you want to call it.)

As long as we agree that atheists do have a responsibility to justify their claims of "insufficient evidence" then that was the entire purpose of this thread.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have pointed out that atheists often do substantiate their claims. But yes, the majority of those posts clearly indicate that these atheists feel that they have no responsibility to justify their rejection of evidence offered. I can supply the list, if you'd like, of just the quotes that clearly speak to this.

I've read the quotes, and I don't see a single one which states that they don't have to justify their rejection - just ones that explain that rejection in and of itself carries no burden of proof. They never say "If evidence is presented, I would not explain why I don't accept it". As you yourself admit, rejection of claims by atheists is often substantiated - so what are we actually debating about if the "burden of proof" argument isn't being used to avoid doing that, as you said?

There is no difference between both statements in this context. "I don't have to explain why I don't accept a claim" is the same thing as saying "those who reject it are under no burden to justify their rejection".

Because those two statements are the same. You don't have to justify your rejection of the claim - the person making the claim has to justify their belief in it. Once evidence has been presented as jutification of the claim - the onus is now on the people who reject the evidence to explain why they reject it. You're talking exclusively about the claim, and in that sense not needing to provide a reason to reject a claim is exactly right. That's what burden of proof means. When evidence is presented for a claim, the other side then has to respond with reasons why they don't accept the evidence, not reasons why they don't accept the claim. In formal debate, "there is insufficient evidence for me to believe x is true" is always sufficient justification to reject a given claim when no evidence has been presented to debate.

But regardless, the statement I am specifically talking about is not "I don't have to explain why I don't accept a claim". It is "I don't have to explain why I reject the evidence presented for the claim."

And who has made that statement?

I haven't confused the two, though many of my opponents in this thread have.

I have consistently been talking about "when the evidence has been presented". And people have rejected the idea that they have a responsibility to justify their rejection of the evidence.

I've seen not a single such response. Can you show me?

 

[Willamena]

Because those two statements are the same. You don't have to justify your rejection of the claim - the person making the claim has to justify their belief in it.

So you're one of those, too.

 

[atanu]

So you're one of those, too.

As if rejection of a claim is not a claim.

 

[Falvlun]

I've read the quotes, and I don't see a single one which states that they don't have to justify their rejection - just ones that explain that rejection in and of itself carries no burden of proof. They never say "If evidence is presented, I would not explain why I don't accept it".

With all due respect, I don't think you could have actually read them then. Here is the abbreviated list.

In face of total silence. There is no real validation for thiests to go by, nor is there any real platform that would warrant the claims made by thiests. Athiests just reflect the reality of the matter as it stands directly. I think in that light no real need exists to pursue the matter of disapproving thiestic claims which in such a case, the burden of proof is in fact pointless as there is nothing there that can be proven.

It is perfectly reasonable to summarily dismiss without evidence claims that are presented without evidence.

"that the theists haven't provided sufficient evidence that god exists."
I would be happy to dispute the evidence if they would get some.

I included these first three because they indicate that evidence has never been offered, which is manifestly false. We all know multiple arguments that theists have made for the existence of gods. What is meant that they don't consider any of the evidence offered as evidence... with the following assumption that they need not support such a claim.

The rest are quotes claiming that they have no responsibility to defend their rejection of theistic arguments.

Sure, but you can justify atheism simply by recognising that the burden of proof for the existence of god is as yet unmet.
You do not need to disprove the unproven.

No defense needed: All you need to do is recognize that the burden hasn't been met. Hey Presto!

All the atheist need point out is the failure of the theist to make their case. The theist can either accept this or push for explanation, which the atheist is under no obligation to do.

The atheist is under no obligation to explain how the theists failed to make their case.

It is also not possible to prove that you find the evidence lacking and so you would be placing upon atheism a burden thatis impossible to meet.

Here we have the assertion that defending your rejection of the evidence provided is not even possible.

But that doesn' t make sense - you either believe something or you don't. You do not need to prove that you have failed to be convinced,. That you have not been convinced and thus do not hold a given belief is not a claim - it is a statement.

Here we have the claim that you don't need to provide evidence as to why you haven't been convince.

You can ask me why I reject a theist’s claims about god, and I can say because they are insufficiently evidence. Yet, if I don't care about trying to convince you of why this is the case, I have no burden of proof.

Here we have the claim that the atheist has no responsibility to defend his claim of insufficient evidence, as long as he doesn't care whether you are convinced or not.

I wonder if theists know that apathy is an acceptable out from their own burden of proof.

All the atheist is saying to the theist is "your 'proof' does not convince me." What kind of burden is subsumed in such a claim? Is the theist going argue, "I don't believe that you are not convinced," which is hardly a point of rational dispute, and the basis of some presumed burden. How would the atheist go about proving that he is unconvinced?

You only need to claim that the proof doesn't convince you. You don't need to explain why.

But saying that one hasn't met the burden of proof of god's existence is hardly defending the atheist position. It's merely explaining it.

Because it's not a defense, and merely an explanation, the atheist need not support their contention that theists haven't met their burden of proof.

The burden of proof is a valid argument, atheists admit that the proofs for God fail, 2 + 2 still equals four, end of story.

All the atheist needs to do is admit that the proofs for God fail, end of story. No need to explain why they fail.

EDIT:
This one wasn't in my original list as it came after, but it was probably the clearest denial; it actually surprised even me that it was put so bluntly:

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.

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.