Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Nakosis]

You're changing the subject. The question was whether religious beliefs get imposed on people through the laws; they do. In some places, this is done by way of religious people voting for candidates with religious platforms.

On the subject of right and wrong, though, as I touched on earlier, only justifiable laws are compatible with a free society. Even when a law is passed through the democratic process, if it's not justifiable, it's anti-freedom. If you want to argue that it's the voters' right to be anti-freedom if they choose to be, go for it, but it still wouldn't change this fact.

The fact that you have different goals. Yeah they'd be different. Doesn't make one right and the other wrong.

Religious folks have different goals. So what? They feel their goals are justified same as you. They don't need to justify their goals to you (Prove their God). It only matters that they can rally a majority of support for their goals.

 

[Willamena]

There is something to be considered here and that is the concept of God, the Supreme Being, is by definition an entity that has necessary existence, as even the most adamant atheist understands, whether or not any object actually corresponds with that concept in reality. So the conception, that most classical theists have, is that God not only exists but cannot fail to exist.

On the above terms it is essentially a matter of absolute proof. But if the theist concedes that it isn’t possible to provide that proof then why must it be expected of the sceptic to provide reasons for disbelief, when even the theist cannot support his or her own argument.

Theism is, very arguably, a special case and like no other where the term ‘burden of proof’ means exactly what it says and must be borne entirely by the advocate. By comparison, one who argues for evolutionary theory can only justify his/her argument by reference to experience or possible experience, but nothing in experience can ever be necessary or certain and may even be false.

But some theists do offer what they consider ‘proof’ for that is what the a priori ontological arguments attempt to demonstrate, and inferential arguments, such as the Kalam, are taken to assume. And in those cases the atheist has the obligation to respond.

It's the scenario of the thread that the theist has provided reasons, such as the necessary existence of necessary being, as their argument (rather than that any one theist can defend an argument of god). The atheist's skepticism aside, it is their rational counter-arguments that would represent the burden of proof for atheism.

Edit: In the last line, do you mean that the atheist has an obligation to respond because they are atheist? If so, I disagree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The fact that you have different goals. Yeah they'd be different. Doesn't make one right and the other wrong.

Religious folks have different goals. So what? They feel their goals are justified same as you. They don't need to justify their goals to you (Prove their God). It only matters that they can rally a majority of support for their goals.

I agree: there's nothing forcing them to justify their goals to me. They only need to justify their laws if they want to have a free society. There's nothing forcing them to want a free society.

 

[Skwim]

The following is from a Wikipedia article on the "philosophical burden of proof"

"Holder of the burden

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.

While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards."
​

My point being that no burden is created unless one's intent is to convince. Short of this, no one has any obligation to "prove" their position.

 

[Nakosis]

I agree: there's nothing forcing them to justify their goals to me. They only need to justify their laws if they want to have a free society. There's nothing forcing them to want a free society.

So not so bad to talk them out of belief in a God of questionable ethics but you got to be willing to take on the burden of proof. I mean if you feel it's important to support your position.

Maybe easier just to prove to them that they need not promote their religious ethics in civil matters.

 

[cottage]

It's the scenario of the thread that the theist has provided reasons, such as the necessary existence of necessary being, as their argument (rather than that any one theist can defend an argument of god). The atheist's skepticism aside, it is their rational counter-arguments that would represent the burden of proof for atheism.

So what are you saying then, that because someone somewhere has ‘provided reasons’ for faith in God I am therefore obligated to go in search of those reasons and then provide counter arguments? That’s nonsense. It is for the theist who is making the assertion that has the onus of presenting the argument, to which I will then respond.

The burden of proving the assertion is borne by the one making the assertion. And because it is impossible for the hearer to disprove the existence of a supernatural being, the burden of proof, as the positive claim, is always borne by the theist. There is no burden of disproof borne by the hearer, and even if no reason is given by the hearers to explain their doubt that does not award the argument against them by default.

I gave as an example a priori and inferential arguments that are used by some theists to argue what they believe to be proofs. If the arguments can be refuted or found invalid (and they can!), then the burden of proof still remains with the theist. N.B. Theists can give reasons to support their beliefs, to explain their faith, but proving the truth of what they believe is a different matter entirely.

Edit: In the last line, do you mean that the atheist has an obligation to respond because they are atheist? If so, I disagree.

I’m not really sure what it is you’re disagreeing with. I’m saying if I’m in discussion with theists and they give me an argument for the existence of God, then I’m obliged to respond it.

 

[Willamena]

The following is from a Wikipedia article on the "philosophical burden of proof"

"Holder of the burden

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.

While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards."
​

My point being that no burden is created unless one's intent is to convince. Short of this, no one has any obligation to "prove" their position.

Rather, no argument is convincing unless the burden of proof has been met. It's not about the people arguing, it's about the argument.

As an example, a theist says to you, "You have to believe in Jesus because he's the son of God." You are unconvinced because no burden of proof has been met, but there's also the fact that you are unconvinced because counter-arguments immediately speak to you: "Being the son of God is not reason enough to believe in Jesus"; "There is no obligation to believe created by the fact of a son." Etc. Those counter-arguments each have borne a burden of proof for you (you are already convinced of them).

 

[Skwim]

Rather, no argument is convincing unless the burden of proof has been met. It's not about the people arguing, it's about the argument.

Yup. I was simply pointing out the why of a burden.

 

[Willamena]

So what are you saying then, that because someone somewhere has ‘provided reasons’ for faith in God I am therefore obligated to go in search of those reasons and then provide counter arguments?

Nope. You've already done that to your own satisfaction, or you wouldn't be an atheist.

The burden of proving the assertion is borne by the one making the assertion.

I don't believe in a "burden of proving an assertion." If you insist on such, I would ask nicely for you to prove that assertion, but you're not obligated to.

 

[Willamena]

Yup. I was simply pointing out the why of a burden.

But ***-backwards.

 

[Nakosis]

So what are you saying then, that because someone somewhere has ‘provided reasons’ for faith in God I am therefore obligated to go in search of those reasons and then provide counter arguments? That’s nonsense. It is for the theist who is making the assertion that has the onus of presenting the argument, to which I will then respond.

The burden of proving the assertion is borne by the one making the assertion. And because it is impossible for the hearer to disprove the existence of a supernatural being, the burden of proof, as the positive claim, is always borne by the theist. There is no burden of disproof borne by the hearer, and even if no reason is given by the hearers to explain their doubt that does not award the argument against them by default.

No, but it does mean you haven't supported your position.

I gave as an example a priori and inferential arguments that are used by some theists to argue what they believe to be proofs. If the arguments can be refuted or found invalid (and they can!), then the burden of proof still remains with the theist. N.B. Theists can give reasons to support their beliefs, to explain their faith, but proving the truth of what they believe is a different matter entirely.

If you've refuted it, then you've accepted the burden of proving the arguments can be refuted. Believers can then respond by proving your arguments against their arguments are wrong. That's all that is being said. That both parties in an argument have a responsibility of supporting their position. If they want to take part in the discussion.

If a Atheist doesn't want to provide a counter position then there's no need for a Theist to support their position.

 

[Skwim]

But ***-backwards.

You mean .sdrawkcab-*** tuB ? Although I'm at a loss as to what you're referring to.

 

[Bunyip]

And this should circumvent the political authority that currently governs such matters?

No, it should be what informs that authority as it does with estqblishing the science curriculum in most other developed countries.

I'm being childish? You say:



And I took that to mean:


Do you really think that's a big stretch to imply from your words? I'm at a loss for any difference between what I said and what you said. Hence, you need to point it out or I'm sticking with it. Report me if you think it violates the rules to do so. I'm certain it does not.

Yes it is a totallly unrelated claim. My pointing out that I have not suggested any sort of ban is clearly not the same as stating that I would not ban anyone from doing anything.


At this point I can only assume that you are being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

 

[Sir Doom]

No, it should be what informs that authority as it does with estqblishing the science curriculum in most other developed countries.

Then you haven't answered my question:

By what authority do you decide the standard? By what authority do they?

Yes it is a totallly unrelated claim. My pointing out that I have not suggested any sort of ban is clearly not the same as stating that I would not ban anyone from doing anything.

No, they are definitely related as one is implied by the other. In fact, much like the last statement, if you did not mean it the way I took it, then how is it even relevant to the discussion? It removes EVERYTHING meaningful from your statement in relation to the topic at hand.

At this point I can only assume that you are being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

You can assume whatever you'd like, sport. The fact remains that I am asking you questions you can't answer because the answers illustrate the flaws in your statements. Thus, you dodge. I like dodgers. They almost never seem to remember what they've just said.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

To be honest, I think that only people who are trying to convert you to their religion need to provide some good evidence for it. If they're not trying to convert people and just have their own personal belief, I don't see a point in pushing them to "prove" what they believe.

 

[Bunyip]

Then you haven't answered my question:

By what authority do you decide the standard? By what authority do they?



No, they are definitely related as one is implied by the other. In fact, much like the last statement, if you did not mean it the way I took it, then how is it even relevant to the discussion? It removes EVERYTHING meaningful from your statement in relation to the topic at hand.



You can assume whatever you'd like, sport. The fact remains that I am asking you questions you can't answer because the answers illustrate the flaws in your statements. Thus, you dodge. I like dodgers. They almost never seem to remember what they've just said.

Erm.....Buddy, you are pointing out flaws in statement that I did not make. And accusing me of dodging questions that relate to the statements I did not make.

 

[cottage]

No, but it does mean you haven't supported your position.

Yes, but I’m entitled to question whether ‘God exists’ is a true belief without taking any position; it is the theist making the assertion that has a position to support.

If you've refuted it, then you've accepted the burden of proving the arguments can be refuted. Believers can then respond by proving your arguments against their arguments are wrong. That's all that is being said. That both parties in an argument have a responsibility of supporting their position. If they want to take part in the discussion.

If a Atheist doesn't want to provide a counter position then there's no need for a Theist to support their position.

One doesn’t necessarily need to hold a counter position; in fact one doesn’t even need to be an atheist to question god-belief. It’s for the theist to support his/her assertion that ‘God exists’ is true. And since it is impossible to prove non-being the sceptic has no burden and can only examine propositions, which is why the burden of proof remains with the theist who is making the positive existential claim.

 

[Thief]

To be honest, I think that only people who are trying to convert you to their religion need to provide some good evidence for it. If they're not trying to convert people and just have their own personal belief, I don't see a point in pushing them to "prove" what they believe.

Nice....and thank you.

Still, many participants here consider objection and rebuttal as something that must be answered.
And they feel so much better when the 'adversary' as no proof or support.

So when non-believers post with nay saying they would then insist on proof as much as believers insist no proof is needed.

Heaven forbid they find cause to change their minds.
Heaven forbid they have no cause to continue saying....'nay'.
Heaven forbid a pending judgment.

Easier to say there is no heaven.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, but I’m entitled to question whether ‘God exists’ is a true belief without taking any position; it is the theist making the assertion that has a position to support.



One doesn’t necessarily need to hold a counter position; in fact one doesn’t even need to be an atheist to question god-belief. It’s for the theist to support his/her assertion that ‘God exists’ is true. And since it is impossible to prove non-being the sceptic has no burden and can only examine propositions, which is why the burden of proof remains with the theist who is making the positive existential claim.

But why would you question? Whatever your answer to that, that is validly a position taken.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, but I’m entitled to question whether ‘God exists’ is a true belief without taking any position; it is the theist making the assertion that has a position to support.

They feel it's supported. By whatever standard they feel it is necessary to support.

One doesn’t necessarily need to hold a counter position; in fact one doesn’t even need to be an atheist to question god-belief. It’s for the theist to support his/her assertion that ‘God exists’ is true. And since it is impossible to prove non-being the sceptic has no burden and can only examine propositions, which is why the burden of proof remains with the theist who is making the positive existential claim.

A majority, that I talk to anyway, feel that burden has been met.