Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Ingledsva]

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"

The difference though - is solid objects - and invisible beings.


*

 

[Falvlun]

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."


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

It doesn't make sense that you still insist that your version of my argument is the correct one when I have clarified to you, and others, multiple, multiple times, that it is not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It doesn't make sense that you still insist that your version of my argument is the correct one when I have clarified to you, and others, multiple, multiple times, that it is not.

What version of your argument have I asserted?

 

[Falvlun]

What version of your argument have I asserted?

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.

The green part. You can hardly say that I have "exclusively" talked about the claim, seeing as I have consistently been correcting people as to my main argument: the responsibility to provide the reasons why they don't accept the evidence, and that merely stating that the evidence is insufficient is not enough to prove that it is.

 

[Falvlun]

The difference though - is solid objects - and invisible beings.


*

Meh. Gravity is invisible. Invisibility is not the issue. Maybe "lack of discernible physical effect" is what you are looking for.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The green part. You can hardly say that I have "exclusively" talked about the claim, seeing as I have consistently been correcting people as to my main argument: the responsibility to provide the reasons why they don't accept the evidence, and that merely stating that the evidence is insufficient is not enough to prove that it is.

Except for the fact that that wasn't your main argument: your main argument being that burden of proof is used as means of avoiding providing reasons for rejecting a claim. I didn't make any assertion about your position whatsoever, just responding to a specific point you made.

I really feel like all you're trying to do is distract from the fact that I caught you making inaccurate claims about other people's statements. I really think we ought to be focusing on that.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

The difference though - is solid objects - and invisible beings.


*

Oh yah, I forgot, Jesus was invisible and all the claims of his disciples are also invisible.
So are all the miracle claims of people and the charts and data doctors look at and at simply speechless are also invisible.

Don't care who believes me or not, but I have seen Jesus with my own eyes, and have heard him talk to me, that is fall from being invisible. :yes:

But I will bite, lets assume God is invisible, at what point does anyone have the right...WITHOUT EVIDENCE, to claim he doesn't exist and that billions of people are delusional?

Oh yah, according to many UFO sightings, they claim that UFOs have the ability to become invisible/leave our dimension... etc...

 

[Falvlun]

Except for the fact that that wasn't your main argument: your main argument being that burden of proof is used as means of avoiding providing reasons for rejecting a claim. I didn't make any assertion about your position whatsoever, just responding to a specific point you made.

Except this was always in the context of not providing reasons for the rejection of the evidence provided from theists. I mean, the argument is spelled out in the OP.

I really feel like all you're trying to do is distract from the fact that I caught you making inaccurate claims about other people's statements. I really think we ought to be focusing on that.

There's nothing else that can be said. I do not think that I have made inaccurate claims. You think I have. You've given your reasons, and I've given mine. We are at an impasse.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh yah, I forgot, Jesus was invisible and all the claims of his disciples are also invisible.
So are all the miracle claims of people and the charts and data doctors look at and at simply speechless are also invisible.

Not invisible, just not convincing to everyone. And those people who aren't convinced have good reason to not be convinced.

Don't care who believes me or not, but I have seen Jesus with my own eyes, and have heard him talk to me, that is fall from being invisible. :yes:

Except to anyone other than you, in which case your sighting of Jesus was invisible (to them).

But I will bite, lets assume God is invisible, at what point does anyone have the right...WITHOUT EVIDENCE, to claim he doesn't exist and that billions of people are delusional?

Anybody has the right to say what they believe. That's called freedom of speech. Would I say that their claim was justified? Not really, but not because lots of people would disagree, but because such a claim would require evidence, as you said. Billions of people being delusional is still a more reasonable conclusion than the existence of a magical, all-knowing superbeing.

Oh yah, according to many UFO sightings, they claim that UFOs have the ability to become invisible/leave our dimension... etc...

So do you agree that claims about UFOs are similar to claims about God?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There's nothing else that can be said. I do not think that I have made inaccurate claims. You think I have. You've given your reasons, and I've given mine. We are at an impasse.

Verywell then, let's just drop it. We're both better off just letting the people you quoted speak for themselves anyway, and I'm sure that if they feel personally like they've been misrepresented in some way and that it is worth their time, they may come forward and say so.

 

[Ouroboros]

Don't care who believes me or not, but I have seen Jesus with my own eyes, and have heard him talk to me, that is fall from being invisible. :yes:

I envy you.

For 30 years I was Christian, and I always wanted to see God or Jesus, or just a simple angel, but nothing. I didn't even see any miracle. Too bad. Even when my faith was diminished and I asked God to give me more faith, nothing happened. You're lucky. You're one of the few select, I guess.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Meh. Gravity is invisible. Invisibility is not the issue. Maybe "lack of discernible physical effect" is what you are looking for.

I am still trying to figure out how that makes any difference in the BOP discussion.

Not to derail this thread, but the huge majority of atheists claim they need empirical evidence to believe things and anything unproven to them is not believed by them.
I hate to be that guy here, but one could not live a normal life with that attitude, and I don't know its name off hand, but there are mental illnesses of such ways of life.

Simple example...
When one bites into food, one has no idea if it may contain something that will harm them,...bad food from the factory, some sicko at the store, a friend playing a trick on them, or maybe a bug got in it and left its poo poo behind.

Most of us do not even think about it, desire zero proof it is safe, we just gobble it down and ask for seconds, yummm...

A scientist needs empirical evidence to do his tests and such and so does many other jobs, but not your average Joe, we go through life taking almost everything as face value.

One simply could not life a normal life if they demanded empirical evidence for everything in order to believe in it.
I have seen plenty of popular Atheists use that as a debate tactic and damn, Theists just let that one slide, I would so make them eat their words on that

Once, Lawrence Krauss tried to claim that he doesn't go through life believing in things, and claimed no scientist does, in reply to if he believed in the Big Bang.
Dr Craig gently put hims(Krauss) foot right into hims mouth for that one.

@ImmortalFlame
The point is, you cant make the claim that billions of people are delusional, unless you have some unknown powers and knows the hearts and minds of everyone on this planet, do you?
If that is the case, you deserve your own TV network, you are one remarkable man.
Can you tell me what the lotto numbers will be too?

No one says you have to believe in God, but if you take it to areas such as claiming billions of people are delusional, you have to back that up with actual evidence.
Imagine real debates where both sides can just say what ever they wish
It might as well just go like this...
I am right
No I am
No I am
Nope, me
not you, me

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am still trying to figure out how that makes any difference in the BOP discussion.

Not to derail this thread, but the huge majority of atheists claim they need empirical evidence to believe things and anything unproven to them is not believed by them.
I hate to be that guy here, but one could not live a normal life with that attitude, and I don't know its name off hand, but there are mental illnesses of such ways of life.

What on earth are you talking about? It's called "logical skepticism". Everyone does it every day - including you! Are you seriously suggesting that needing good, logical, empirical reasons to believe things is a mental illness??

Simple example...
When one bites into food, one has no idea if it may contain something that will harm them,...bad food from the factory, some sicko at the store, a friend playing a trick on them, or maybe a bug got in it and left its poo poo behind.

Most of us do not even think about it, desire zero proof it is safe, we just gobble it down and ask for seconds, yummm...

You do realize that the reason we think that certain foods won't harm us is based on empirical observation, right? If you eat a sandwich you have made, you are aware of where all of the ingredients have come from to an extent, and you are aware of what goes into it. If it is a sandwich provided by a restaurant, we trust it because restaurants have standards, and it is in their best interest as a business to monitor their food and make sure it doesn't harm their customers. Our conclusions are based on solid information.

Picking berries out of a bush in the wild, on the other hand, will be approached differently. This is a simple, logical distinction that people make. If you went to a restaurant that had a reputation for healthy, tasty food, you'd have less of an expectation of it harming you than if you picked berries from a bush growing in a bog that you don't know anything about. Your conclusions are still based on empirical observations in both instances.

A scientist needs empirical evidence to do his tests and such and so does many other jobs, but not your average Joe, we go through life taking almost everything as face value.

Because most things don't carry a high burden of proof. If someone tells you they have a dog, we believe them. That's not gullibility or faith. It's reasonable to assume that someone who tells you that they own a dog are not being dishonest. We know dogs exist, we know people own them, and this person would have absolutely nothing to gain from lying to you about such a trivial thing. The fact of the matter is that your acceptance of his claim is still based on prior knowledge.

Once, Lawrence Krauss tried to claim that he doesn't go through life believing in things, and claimed no scientist does, in reply to if he believed in the Big Bang.
Dr Craig gently put hims(Krauss) foot right into hims mouth for that one.

Source, please.

The point is, you cant make the claim that billions of people are delusional, unless you have some unknown powers and knows the hearts and minds of everyone on this planet, do you?

No. You could just explain why you think they're wrong and present a convincing argument. You're basically stating that you cannot assess whether people can be wrong about a claim they're making unless you are some form of psychic, which is clearly absurd.

If that is the case, you deserve your own TV network, you are one remarkable man.
Can you tell me what the lotto numbers will be too?

Sure, I have my own TV network. It's called the I Can Do Without Your Smug Sense Of Superiority That Isn't Remotely Warranted Considering You're Not Refuting Anything I've Said But Just Making A Silly Joke Out Of Insinuations You Have Made Yourself And Being Extremely Rude For No Good Reason Whatsoever Network. Evidently, you have never watched it.

No one says you have to believe in God, but if you take it to areas such as claiming billions of people are delusional, you have to back that up with actual evidence.

Sure, if somebody actually said that they would need to support it.

 

[Ingledsva]

Oh yah, I forgot, Jesus was invisible and all the claims of his disciples are also invisible.



ING - Your God beings are invisible!


Iesous never claimed to be a God, or part of a trinity God.


There is no proof that any of the Biblical texts are actually written by the original disciples, or if some were, that they are in any way truth.



So are all the miracle claims of people and the charts and data doctors look at and at simply speechless are also invisible.


ING - What miracles? It is well know that the body can spontaneously heal itself, etc.


Don't care who believes me or not, but I have seen Jesus with my own eyes, and have heard him talk to me, that is fall from being invisible. :yes:



ING - Good for you. To the rest of us you are imagining things.



But I will bite, lets assume God is invisible, at what point does anyone have the right...WITHOUT EVIDENCE, to claim he doesn't exist and that billions of people are delusional?



ING - There is no evidence for the thousands of invisible Gods people believe in, or the thousands of invisible monsters, and there never will be.

You keep ignoring what people are telling you. We could care less if you believe in invisible beings and monsters - as long as it doesn't become a problem for the rest of us! It is becoming a problem now (or again, actually!) You folks are trying to force your God laws into secular law.


Oh yah, according to many UFO sightings, they claim that UFOs have the ability to become invisible/leave our dimension... etc...

Neither of which would make them actually invisible. I assume you have seen the military's new cloaking cloth, or heard of the B-2 stealth bomber, or YF-23, etc.


*

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Good for you. To the rest of us you are imagining things.

Seriously, if one doesn't wish to accept presented evidence, one does not have to, it does not make the evidence any more invalid.
Plus, what one claims to be true for them, doesn't automatically become true for every one,

What miracles? It is well know that the body can spontaneously heal itself

our bodies can just spontaneously heal itself and baffle doctors ehhh? :sarcastic
Why do we even have doctors then?
again,
what one claims to be true, doesn't automatically become true for every one,

As for your military examples, it has zero to do with the capabilities of the unknown, such as Alien Life.
You might as well compare a child's plastic car to a REAL car as being the same things with the same capabilities.

 

[Ingledsva]

Seriously, if one doesn't wish to accept presented evidence, one does not have to, it does not make the evidence any more invalid.
Plus, what one claims to be true for them, doesn't automatically become true for every one,


ING - Indeed, however you folks have no real evidence to show us, or you would have done so.


our bodies can just spontaneously heal itself and baffle doctors ehhh? :sarcastic
Why do we even have doctors then?


ING - Some animals can regrow limbs, thus it is natural. We are now working on stimulating the regrowth of limbs and spinal connections, etc. People spontaneously recover from diseases, cancer, etc. There is no need for an invisible man to accomplish these things.



again,
what one claims to be true, doesn't automatically become true for every one,


ING - Indeed, however, you will never be able to prove you saw dead Jesus. You expect people to just take your word for it. The reality is that it has no more impact then the person that says they see Kushtaka.



As for your military examples, it has zero to do with the capabilities of the unknown, such as Alien Life.
You might as well compare a child's plastic car to a REAL car as being the same things with the same capabilities.

My examples do their job disproving what you implied. Neither would actually be invisibility.

"Oh yah, according to many UFO sightings, they claim that UFOs have the ability to become invisible/leave our dimension... etc..."


Becoming invisible to the eye (cloaking) is not actual invisibility. It is just science.

Leaving our dimension would also fall under consideration of science, not invisibility. It implies they went somewhere else, - not that they became invisible.



*

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Seriously, if one doesn't wish to accept presented evidence, one does not have to, it does not make the evidence any more invalid.
Plus, what one claims to be true for them, doesn't automatically become true for every one,

ING - Indeed, however you folks have no real evidence to show us, or you would have done so.

Sorry, but I never once spoke for the whole world, only my own personal beliefs, why you keep speaking for everyone else and presenting it as facts for everyone?
=============

our bodies can just spontaneously heal itself and baffle doctors ehhh?
Why do we even have doctors then?

ING - Some animals can regrow limbs, thus it is natural. We are now working on stimulating the regrowth of limbs and spinal connections, etc. People spontaneously recover from diseases, cancer, etc. There is no need for an invisible man to accomplish these things.

Strawmanning, goal posting, red herring, you name it, you are dong it.
Claiming that forsay, star fish can regrow limbs or whatever they are called has zero to do with a HUMAN BEING whose own doctor claims said persons recovery is baffling and unexplainable by what we know about the human body, modern meds, science itself and nature in general.
Plus, "we are working on it" is not the same thing as "we can regrow limbs on human beings now"

About not needing God...that is completely irrelevant to disprove that miracles happen.
Might as well claim that when God said let there be light, we all know we flip a light switch to turn on the light, not pray to a God to do it for us...and claim that disproves Gods existence too.
Plus, even if someday science figures out how to turn non life into actual life, that would not disprove God either.
That wouldn't even prove that is how life jump started in the first place, there is no way to ever 100% prove how it happened.
Might as well claim that because one can make a burger that tastes like a BigMac, that proves that Mcdonalds is unneeded and never invented the BigMac in the first place.

==============
again,
what one claims to be true, doesn't automatically become true for every one,

ING - Indeed, however, you will never be able to prove you saw dead Jesus. You expect people to just take your word for it. The reality is that it has no more impact then the person that says they see Kushtaka.

Show me where I expect everyone to believe me and such?
The fact is, before saying it, I said that it does not matter who believes me or not, and it changes nothing.
I personally don't care if you believe me, I am simply stating what is true to me, you can take it as you wish
Infact, you claimed that "To the rest of us you are imagining things"
Odd, who is all in your idea of "the rest of us?"
Do you actually know what the rest of the world thinks all the time?
To me, to be able to know what billions of others think, its very remarkable.
Considering you know what everyone else thinks, doesn't that make you a mind reader?
Doesn't it also make you able to predict the future, to "pre" state what everyone does and will think, after reading my post about Jesus?

PS, someone replied to me, before you did, and never once said anything about me imagining things...
So much for your ability to read minds and know what everyone thinks about what I said, ehhh?

Odd, I thought atheists only believe in things proven true with empirical evidence
Can one actually have empirical evidence from reading minds of others and predicting the future? :sarcastic
Care to provide evidence to prove your abilities to "know" everything?
=================

As for your military examples, it has zero to do with the capabilities of the unknown, such as Alien Life.
You might as well compare a child's plastic car to a REAL car as being the same things with the same capabilities.

My examples do their job disproving what you implied. Neither would actually be invisibility.

Again, comparing our technology to the unknown technology of Alien life, if it does exist, is not plausible.
If Alien life does exist and has visited our planet, our technology and theirs can never be the same, we can barely even make it to the moon and back, let alone travel to other galaxies.

================

"Oh yah, according to many UFO sightings, they claim that UFOs have the ability to become invisible/leave our dimension... etc..."

Becoming invisible to the eye (cloaking) is not actual invisibility. It is just science.

see my previous reply

Leaving our dimension would also fall under consideration of science, not invisibility. It implies they went somewhere else, - not that they became invisible.

See my previous reply.

So it seems, you know everything about what Alien Life is capable of, ehhh?
You know what they can do, what their technology consists of as well?
Where did you gain such knowledge and why are you not working for NASA? :sarcastic

 

[Thief]

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".)

Proof for believing is not required.....see Webster's.
If this could be held at the onset then the pointless asking for proof would finally stop.

Dismissal's are fine.....saying why might further the discussion.

In religious discussion, asking for proof hinders the forward development.
Asking 'why?' do you believe might be better.

You are likely to get the usual causes....grew up that way.....school....church.....life events.....

There won't be any 'proving'.

 

[McBell]

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

What does that have to do with anything?

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

How do you support the claim "not enough evidence for me"?

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

When did I limit it to creationists?

 

[Falvlun]

How do you support the claim "not enough evidence for me"?

You could demonstrate how the offered evidence falls short of your standards.

I assume that you have reasons for rejecting the evidence. You don't reject it "just because". What are those reasons?

Do you think that you have a responsibility in a debate to support the claim that theists haven't provided sufficient evidence?