Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Aupmanyav]

Did you accidentally quote me? Not sure what your response has to do with my statement.

I am trying to justify my belief in non-existence of any God.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Ahh! How did I become kirkvin in the quotes?

As to the response:

Theist has provided evidence X, reason Y, and argument Z for the existence of God.

Atheist has rejected the evidence as insufficient, maintaining that the theist has not met his burden of proof.

Now. Does the atheist have a responsibility to defend his rejection of the evidence? Does he need to explain why the evidence offered is not good enough?

I see that you say yes, so you and I agree, and you are in the same boat as cottage: Why the heck are you on my case, when there are atheists in this very thread who disagree that they have such a responsibility?

EDIT:
Rereading your post, I have to admit, this part of your post makes me very frustrated:
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

I have consistently laid out my argument as I did above, VERY CLEARLY saying that what I think atheists have a responsibility for is to respond with reasons why they don't accept the evidence.

And yet, here you are, lecturing me that atheists have a responsibility to provide reasons why they don't accept the evidence, and not reasons why they don't accept the claim, as if that hasn't been what I've said for the last 80 pages. That's just sloppy reading, guys.

 

[Sunstone]

It strikes me as extraordinary to suggest that anyone -- theist or atheist -- has a logical burden to disprove claims that are presented without supporting reason or evidence.

If Joshua says, "There are no gods", and that's all he says, then by what logic does any theist have a burden to provide reason or evidence to reject Joshua's statement? Joshua's statement is not even a genuine argument. All that is necessary to reject it is, "That's not my own opinion, Josh".

 

[Monk Of Reason]

As if rejection of a claim is not a claim.

Disbelief in a claim that is not supported by evidence is not a claim. This is simply true. I don't get why this is so hard for people.

 

[Falvlun]

It strikes me as extraordinary to suggest that anyone -- theist or atheist -- has a logical burden to disprove claims that are presented without supporting reason or evidence.

If Joshua says, "There are no gods", and that's all he says, then by what logic does any theist have a burden to provide reason or evidence to reject Joshua's statement? Joshua's statement is not even a genuine argument. All that is necessary to reject it is, "That's not my own opinion, Josh".

As has been pointed out to you, that is not the scenario. In the scenario being discussed, Josh has provided evidence and the atheist has rejected that evidence. The question is whether the atheist has a responsibility to defend their rejection of the evidence or not.

 

[Ingledsva]

This is how you debate?
Make empty claims?

here, since I require proof for you, I will offer proof first, even though its common knowledge in today's worlds on what we know for sure about the existence of Jesus.
source:
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][7][8] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

almost universal assent? :yes:


your turn

Even if Iesous existed, he would have just been a normal man. In the Bible he never claims to be God, or part of a trinity.



*

 

[Willamena]

I am trying to justify my belief in non-existence of any God.

You don't have to "try." If your position is reasonable, you already have justified it.

 

[Thief]

It strikes me as extraordinary to suggest that anyone -- theist or atheist -- has a logical burden to disprove claims that are presented without supporting reason or evidence.

If Joshua says, "There are no gods", and that's all he says, then by what logic does any theist have a burden to provide reason or evidence to reject Joshua's statement? Joshua's statement is not even a genuine argument. All that is necessary to reject it is, "That's not my own opinion, Josh".

So the discussion coming to you might be shallow.
But so too a simple denial.

If you have a cause not to agree.....you could further the discussion.
(or kill it)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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."

I'm sorry. I just cannot figure out any meaning from those words.

It happens.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

No, they do not. They deal specifically with the claim and where the burden lies with it and with regards to meeting the claim. They, on no level, assert that no evidence has ever been offered in favour of theistic claims, nor do they assert that no reason is required to reject that evidence.

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!

That is not the same as saying "when evidence is presented, we don't need good reasons to reject it". It says that a claim which has been seen to not meet its burden of proof does not need to be disproven. That's how the burden of proof works.

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.

How about, by failing to make a case? It doesn't say "they presented evidence and it was rejected", it says the failure to make their case. Not the same thing as rejecting evidence without reason.

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.

Actually, bunyip was specifically responding to your assertion that saying "this claim has not met its burden of proof" carries a burden of proof, and he is right. It is impossible to demonstrate that a specific claim is not believed. They are not saying that defending rejection of evidence, when presented, is impossible, but that demonstrating disbelief is.

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.

That's not even anywhere close to what Bunyip is saying in this quote, just as I pointed out above. Bunyip is saying that "I don't believe your claim" is not a claim that carries a burden of proof, not that rejection of the evidence doesn't require reasons.

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.

Again, this is not what they are saying. They are dealing specifically with the statement that their lack of belief carries with it a burden of proof. They are not asserting that they have no responsibility of supporting their position of rejecting evidence once evidence has been presented. Just as I said before, every single one of those quotes doesn't deal with responses to evidence.

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.

See above. Note that last sentence "How would the atheist go about proving that he is unconvinced?" These statements are all clearly dealing with the claim that a lack of belief carries a burden of proof, not that they don't have to respond to evidence when it is presented.

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.

And he's exactly right. How is that anything like saying "when evidence is presented, we aren't required to refute it"?

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.

This sounds to me more like a tongue-in-cheek post than anything else. It doesn't really make any statement whatsoever.

Every single one of those quotes can clearly be seen, when you go back to read the original post, to be dealing specifically with a completely different subject. It is almost verging on dishonesty that you seem to think that any of them are equal or even indicative of what you are implying they are.

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:

No, of course not. Not at all.

They (we) may even decide arbitrarily that they are not convinced and call it a day.

See above.

 

[Falvlun]

IF, feel free to PM all of those posters and ask them point blank if they believe that they have a responsibility to justify their assertion that theists have not met the burden of proof. I will be very surprised if any of them say that they do. If they do, then great! I have no idea why anyone was debating against me then since that has been what I have advocated from the get go.

(Also, you really can't dismiss Luis' very clear statement with "see above".)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As to the response:

Theist has provided evidence X, reason Y, and argument Z for the existence of God.

Atheist has rejected the evidence as insufficient, maintaining that the theist has not met his burden of proof.

Now. Does the atheist have a responsibility to defend his rejection of the evidence? Does he need to explain why the evidence offered is not good enough?

Yes. That's how debate works. Side A makes a claim and supports it with evidence, Side B rejects the claim and responds to the evidence.

I see that you say yes, so you and I agree, and you are in the same boat as cottage: Why the heck are you on my case, when there are atheists in this very thread who disagree that they have such a responsibility?

Because there aren't. You've clearly misquoted people, claiming that they were talking about one thing when they were actually talking about something else entirely.

EDIT:
Rereading your post, I have to admit, this part of your post makes me very frustrated:
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

I have consistently laid out my argument as I did above, VERY CLEARLY saying that what I think atheists have a responsibility for is to respond with reasons why they don't accept the evidence.

Except throughout most of the beginning of this thread, where you asserted repeatedly that the burden of proof was merely a means of avoiding giving any reasons to reject a claim, which it absolutely isn't, and that in your quotes you repeatedly equate rejection of the claim with rejection of the evidence.

And yet, here you are, lecturing me that atheists have a responsibility to provide reasons why they don't accept the evidence, and not reasons why they don't accept the claim, as if that hasn't been what I've said for the last 80 pages. That's just sloppy reading, guys.

What is "sloppy reading" are all of those quotes you made of other posters, who I believe you now owe apologies to.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

IF, feel free to PM all of those posters and ask them point blank if they believe that they have a responsibility to justify their assertion that theists have not met the burden of proof. I will be very surprised if any of them say that they do. If they do, then great! I have no idea why anyone was debating against me then since that has been what I have advocated from the get go.

Sorry, but no. Anyone can go and read the posts in full themselves and see, quite clearly, that they were not saying what you claimed they were. Not a single one of their posts is talking about the subject of evidence having been presented, but with the notion that a rejection of a belief carries a burden of proof. You can either admit to this, or you can deny it and I can repost all of them so that I can show you exactly how you misrepresented them.

(Also, you really can't dismiss Luis' very clear statement with "see above".)

I'll let him defend this statement, if he likes.

 

[Falvlun]

Because there aren't. You've clearly misquoted people, claiming that they were talking about one thing when they were actually talking about something else entirely.

I don't think I have at all. Your analysis above validates this: Even when the posts are clearly talking about evidence, you dismiss it as not talking about evidence. It's really mind boggling. I suppose that means we are at an impasse.

Except throughout most of the beginning of this thread, where you asserted repeatedly that the burden of proof was merely a means of avoiding giving any reasons to reject a claim, which it absolutely isn't, and that in your quotes you repeatedly equate rejection of the claim with rejection of the evidence.

Can you provide the quotes? Because this was my second post in the thread:

I agree that claims (not just positive claims) have the greater burden of proof, but I have trouble wrapping my mind around the concept that a rejection of a claim has no burden whatsoever.

I agree that if someone came up to you and said "Nargles exist!", this person would have the burden of proof, and you would have no grounds to assess the claim.

But that's not really the situation we are in here. Instead, it's more like someone has come up to you and said "Nargles exist, and this is why I think so" (oh, and not to mention, most of the world also believes that nargles exist), and you have decided that their reasons are not good enough. You have weighed the evidence and have rejected it as being insufficient.

That seems to blow your theory out of the water. I clarified which claim I wasn't talking about it (God exists!), and demonstrated the claim that I was (The evidence for God's existence is insufficient).

What is "sloppy reading" are all of those quotes you made of other posters, who I believe you now owe apologies to.

I doubt any would protest my interpretation that they feel they need not justify the assertion that the evidence offered is insufficient. Luis actually verified it.

Besides, even if I were a sloppy reader, that wouldn't exonerate your own sloppy reading.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Yet another exhausting attempt to justify ones position to not require proof.

"Joe, I seen a UFO last night"
"prove it"
"I cant"
"Then it didn't happen, you are either delusional or lying, or just seen an airplane or something"
"wait, you were not there, how can you make empty claims like that?, it wasn't an airplane bro, I know the difference between a round object and an airplane"
"bull, you didn't see a UFO"
"can you prove it wasn't a UFO?"
"why you goal posting this, you have to prove it was a UFO, and since you cant, it never happened"
"you were not there, you have no idea what I seen, how can you claim to know what I seen?"
"I don't have to prove anything, UFOs don't exist, its that simple, man up bro and admit you are wrong, if they did exist, I would have seen one by now"


How it should go....

"Dude, I seen a UFO last night"
"really? are you sure it wasn't just an airplane?"
"Yes, it was round and airplanes don't go that fast and change direction like that"
"Man, I wish you would have gotten a picture"
"Me too"
"So, you are sure it wasn't an airplane?"
"yep"
"wow, that's crazy, wish I seen it too"..."maybe the Gov has new technology they haven't told us about?
"Maybe so, but mathematically speaking, we cant have anything that goes that fast and stops on dime like that and completely defies gravity"
"true that"

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't think I have at all. Your analysis above validates this: Even when the posts are clearly talking about evidence, you dismiss it as not talking about evidence. It's really mind boggling. I suppose that means we are at an impasse.

You're more than welcome to go and reassess the posts yourself, but it is very clear to me that they are not asserting what you claim they are. In fact, in some it is so clear that I cannot believe how you cannot see it. Even some of the quotes themselves specify that they are dealing with the assertion that the rejection of a claim has a burden of proof. Your denial only calls your honesty into greater question, and I will continue to wait for some form of apology. I'm willing to believe that it was just some form of mistake on your part, as you struggled to find posts that supported your assertion and read a few sentences without identifying the context, and you quoted them. That's understandable, though still not honest.

Can you provide the quotes?

The quotes you gave from the other posters, where you equated the claim "rejecting a claim doesn't have a burden of proof" with "rejecting the evidence doesn't require reasons".

Because this was my second post in the thread:

I agree that claims (not just positive claims) have the greater burden of proof, but I have trouble wrapping my mind around the concept that a rejection of a claim has no burden whatsoever. <- *Hey, look! It's that claim people were responding to!*

I agree that if someone came up to you and said "Nargles exist!", this person would have the burden of proof, and you would have no grounds to assess the claim.

But that's not really the situation we are in here. Instead, it's more like someone has come up to you and said "Nargles exist, and this is why I think so" (oh, and not to mention, most of the world also believes that nargles exist), and you have decided that their reasons are not good enough. You have weighed the evidence and have rejected it as being insufficient.

That seems to blow your theory out of the water. I clarified which claim I wasn't talking about it (God exists!), and demonstrated the claim that I was (The evidence for God's existence is insufficient).

Except in that first part, where you clearly stated exactly what I said that you stated.

 

[Falvlun]

IF, I clarified my position way back on page 45. And yet you still claim that my argument is otherwise. This just doesn't make sense.

But not meeting the burden of proof is the reason being given for disbelief. "There isn't a good enough reason for me to accept your claim" is a perfectly valid reason to disbelieve the claim..

Don't you think the "why" is important?

After all, Creationists don't think that the TOE has good enough reasons for them to support it... because they believe that God hand-created everything.

The reasons you reject the arguments are important. Otherwise, simply stating that theists haven't met the burden of proof is arbitrary.

Of course it is. Where did I ever state or imply that the reasons given for rejecting given evidence isn't important?

You didn't; it's just what the thread is about.

Because that's been what I have been arguing for this entire thread, and it seemed like you were in opposition to that.

 

[Falvlun]

You're more than welcome to go and reassess the posts yourself, but it is very clear to me that they are not asserting what you claim they are. In fact, in some it is so clear that I cannot believe how you cannot see it. Even some of the quotes themselves specify that they are dealing with the assertion that the rejection of a claim has a burden of proof. Your denial only calls your honesty into greater question, and I will continue to wait for some form of apology. I'm willing to believe that it was just some form of mistake on your part, as you struggled to find posts that supported your assertion and read a few sentences without identifying the context, and you quoted them. That's understandable, though still not honest.

Ah, so only I have the responsibility to show that other people have said what I say they have said. Do you see how unfair that is? You can make claims about what I have said all day, and dismiss my request for evidence with "Go find it yourself". Well, that's nice.

The quotes you gave from the other posters, where you equated the claim "rejecting a claim doesn't have a burden of proof" with "rejecting the evidence doesn't require reasons".

That's rather circular. I don't think I did that. You claim I did. You can't use your claim that I did as proof that I did.

Except in that first part, where you clearly stated exactly what I said that you stated.

And the second part where I clarified that "I agree that if someone came up to you and said "Nargles exist!", this person would have the burden of proof, and you would have no grounds to assess the claim" is what? Just not there? Completely meaningless?

For someone who is ranting about context, that's a pretty big context to miss.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

IF, I clarified my position way back on page 45. And yet you still claim that my argument is otherwise.

Where have I done so? My original posts were in response to your claim that the burden of proof is used to avoid justifying the atheist position, and you did clearly state:

"You can see evidence of what I am talking about littered throughout this thread: the claim is being made that, because burden of proof hasn't been met, atheists do not need any reason for their disbelief."

This just doesn't make sense.

What doesn't? What are you even talking about?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ah, so only I have the responsibility to show that other people have said what I say they have said.

Um, no. They have a responsibility themselves and I took the responsibility on myself as well. Responsibility isn't being called into account - honesty is.

Do you see how unfair that is? You can make claims about what I have said all day, and dismiss my request for evidence with "Go find it yourself". Well, that's nice.

Except that's not what I did. Not even remotely. I even explained their positions clearly and, earlier, offered to go and repost their posts and explain to you how you misrepresented them, I just assumed that you were honest enough to go back, see for yourself, and recognize when you made a mistake rather than having to make me do it for you and make you look more dishonest. And now you're being dishonest by misrepresenting me.

That's rather circular. I don't think I did that. You claim I did. You can't use your claim that I did as proof that I did.

No, but you can use the arguments and explanations I made earlier, as well as the entirety of the posts that you were quoting, to do so.

And the second part where I clarified that "I agree that if someone came up to you and said "Nargles exist!", this person would have the burden of proof, and you would have no grounds to assess the claim" is what? Just not there? Completely meaningless?

Nope. Just not the argument I, or those other posters, were responding to.

For someone who is ranting about context, that's a pretty big context to miss.

You mean, this one sentence which doesn't remotely change anything?