Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[cottage]

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

That’s a rather arrogant assertion, if I may say so. (An opinion expressed as if it were a fact.)

Seeking information isn’t a ‘position’ or a view that has to be justified; it implies neither censure nor approval.

 

[Nakosis]

That’s a rather arrogant assertion, if I may say so. (An opinion expressed as if it were a fact.)

Seeking information isn’t a ‘position’ or a view that has to be justified; it implies neither censure nor approval.

Your equivocating the word question. In the sense you originally used it, it means to doubt. If you doubt something you are taking a position.

It's fine, doubt is a good thing. I don't know why you wouldn't want to provide an argument for some claim you doubted.

However if you just want to ask questions most religious folks will provide plenty of answers.

 

[cottage]

Your equivocating the word question. In the sense you originally used it, it means to doubt. If you doubt something you are taking a position.

It's fine, doubt is a good thing. I don't know why you wouldn't want to provide an argument for some claim you doubted.

The point is that I don’t have to take a position, e.g. of doubt, to question an asserted belief. See the argument I’ve given below. (I also question things that I’m broadly in agreement with.) But inescapably the onus is on the one making the assertion for supernatural beings to demonstrate the truth of what is claimed.

However if you just want to ask questions most religious folks will provide plenty of answers.

Debate generally is about questions and answers, which elicit a discussion. Religious belief is propositional and, as with any argument, having made the claim the theist must now defend it (the burden of proof).

A theist states: ‘God is love’
.
So the sceptic asks:

‘But how can God be “‘love’” when there is so much pain and suffering in the world?’

Theist: ‘God gave us free will; we have the choice to receive his love or reject it.’

Sceptic: ‘In that case he cannot be a “’God of Love’” but only a God who sometimes loves, sometimes not.’

Theist: ‘God is always loving even when we sin and turn against him’

Sceptic: ‘But he punishes man with pain and suffering’

Theist: ‘Man punishes himself’

Sceptic: ‘But God allows suffering. So how can he be All Loving?

Theist: ‘Trust in God. You must open your heart and believe in order to understand

Sceptic: ‘But with what you’ve said above God cannot exist!’

Theist: ‘And yet you cannot prove that he does not!’

The theist has now passed the burden of proof to the sceptic with an argument from ignorance.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

What about in a debate setting? I think that in a debate setting it is reasonable to expect people to support their claims.

Also, what do you think about your responsibility to yourself?

 

[Nakosis]

The point is that I don’t have to take a position, e.g. of doubt, to question an asserted belief. See the argument I’ve given below. (I also question things that I’m broadly in agreement with.) But inescapably the onus is on the one making the assertion for supernatural beings to demonstrate the truth of what is claimed.




Debate generally is about questions and answers, which elicit a discussion. Religious belief is propositional and, as with any argument, having made the claim the theist must now defend it (the burden of proof).

A theist states: ‘God is love’
.
So the sceptic asks:

‘But how can God be “‘love’” when there is so much pain and suffering in the world?’

Theist: ‘God gave us free will; we have the choice to receive his love or reject it.’

Sceptic: ‘In that case he cannot be a “’God of Love’” but only a God who sometimes loves, sometimes not.’

Theist: ‘God is always loving even when we sin and turn against him’

Sceptic: ‘But he punishes man with pain and suffering’

Theist: ‘Man punishes himself’

Sceptic: ‘But God allows suffering. So how can he be All Loving?

Theist: ‘Trust in God. You must open your heart and believe in order to understand

Sceptic: ‘But with what you’ve said above God cannot exist!’

Theist: ‘And yet you cannot prove that he does not!’

The theist has now passed the burden of proof to the sceptic with an argument from ignorance.

In your strawman argument didn't you just provide proof against what the Theist claimed?

You took the burden to provide a counter argument.

Actually your are showing specifically why the burden of proof is a bad argument. Neither Theist nor Atheist should find it's use acceptable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What about in a debate setting? I think that in a debate setting it is reasonable to expect people to support their claims.

Also, what do you think about your responsibility to yourself?

In a debate setting, are we obliged to get sucked into every Gish Gallop? I've asked you this a few times in different ways, but I haven't gotten a clear answer.

 

[Falvlun]

In a debate setting, are we obliged to get sucked into every Gish Gallop? I've asked you this a few times in different ways, but I haven't gotten a clear answer.

Oh! I'm sorry Peng. I meant to respond to your Gish Gallop question a couple of times but each time the post got buried and I forgot about it.

Here's a couple things that come to mind:

1. A gish gallop is basically like a fallacy of debating, or at least, it's not part of what's considered "polite" debating. In formal debates, it's not allowed. As such, I think it could be treated like any other fallacy, in that you point out the issue, and ask them to limit their arguments to what they find to be the strongest.

2. I don't think instances of bad debating can be used as a reason why we don't have the responsibility to support our claims in general. Just like the use of a strawman in an argument doesn't give us leave to use strawmans ourselves. (Or, even, the possible usage of of logical fallacies doesn't mean that we have no responsibility to present logical arguments.)

3. Often, a single argument can be made to rebut a group of similar arguments. For example, if the gish galloper is giving you 10 different anecdotal stories, you could respond to them all by explaining why anecdotal stories are not convincing enough evidence.

4. And lastly, I do find it a bit strange that the possibility of drowning in theistic evidence is the defense against the responsibility of supporting the claim that "not enough evidence has been given." If there is so much evidence out there that it is too overwhelming to figure out why you reject it all, then I think there might be a problem with the premise that there's not enough evidence.

 

[Willamena]

A theist states: ‘God is love’
.
So the sceptic asks:

‘But how can God be “‘love’” when there is so much pain and suffering in the world?’

This position holds that pain and suffering are contradictory to love. Since a contradiction has arisen in the mind of the questioner, he poses a counter-argument.

Theist: ‘God gave us free will; we have the choice to receive his love or reject it.’

Sceptic: ‘In that case he cannot be a “’God of Love’” but only a God who sometimes loves, sometimes not.’

Not sure what inspired this, it seems a non sequitur: how receiving or rejecting love reflects back on the person allegedly loving I do not know.

Theist: ‘God is always loving even when we sin and turn against him’

Sceptic: ‘But he punishes man with pain and suffering’

Theist: ‘Man punishes himself’

Sceptic: ‘But God allows suffering. So how can he be All Loving?

This position is based soundly on the problem of suffering, an acceptance of its logic.

Theist: ‘Trust in God. You must open your heart and believe in order to understand

Sceptic: ‘But with what you’ve said above God cannot exist!’

This position holds that because of the problem of suffering a loving god cannot exist.

Theist: ‘And yet you cannot prove that he does not!’

The theist has now passed the burden of proof to the sceptic with an argument from ignorance.

Yes, but regardless, the skeptic's burden is clearly shouldered in most of his arguments.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Unless somebody can provide some type of empirically measurable or testable evidence for the existence of the god they claim exists, then they haven't met their burden of proof regarding its existence. This is sufficient justification for an atheist rejecting their claim, without any further "responsibility" on the part of the atheist. Person A claims something exists, yet they have no empirical evidence for this claim: burden of proof hasn't been met on their part.

 

[Sir Doom]

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.

Another dodge.

Answer the question and stop blustering.

 

[Nakosis]

In a debate setting, are we obliged to get sucked into every Gish Gallop? I've asked you this a few times in different ways, but I haven't gotten a clear answer.

Should be easy enough to ask one's opponent not to use this technique in a debate and if they persist then just not engage them.

Obviously there are a number of apologists who do. Personally I don't take their arguments seriously. I think maybe it's more a matter of throwing a lot of stuff against the wall hoping something sticks in the minds of the audience. A lot of the time it works. That's why they do it.

I see your point, however I don't know that necessarily makes the burden of proof a good counter argument.

 

[Falvlun]

Unless somebody can provide some type of empirically measurable or testable evidence for the existence of the god they claim exists, then they haven't met their burden of proof regarding its existence. This is sufficient justification for an atheist rejecting their claim, without any further "responsibility" on the part of the atheist. Person A claims something exists, yet they have no empirical evidence for this claim: burden of proof hasn't been met on their part.

From the Wiki on Philosophic Burden of Proof:

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.[4][5]

There is no objective standard that states that the burden of proof must be satisfied by empirically measurable or testable evidence.

Thus, you would have to clarify that that's the sort of evidence you are looking for.

But note: You provided your rationale for stating why the burden of proof hasn't been met: no empirically measurable and testable evidence. It would also be good to explain why such evidence is preferred, but you still have offered a reason; you've offered something to fulfill the (what I think to be an inherently known and understood) responsibility to justify your claim that the burden of proof hasn't been met.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But note: You provided your rationale for stating why the burden of proof hasn't been met: no empirically measurable and testable evidence. It would also be good to explain why such evidence is preferred, but you still have offered a reason; you've offered something to fulfill the (what I think to be an inherently known and understood) responsibility to justify your claim that the burden of proof hasn't been met.

I'm attempting to surmise the thought processes other atheists actually go through, even though their ability or desire to articulate it in a thread like this might not express.

 

[Falvlun]

I'm attempting to surmise the thought processes other atheists actually go through, even though their ability or desire to articulate it in a thread like this might not express.

Ok. Here's a cookie. (I really did make cookies. They are delicious.)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Ok. Here's a cookie. (I really did make cookies. They are delicious.)

Looks delicious, but smells like internet.

 

[idav]

Burden of proof doesn't work for something not existing. I can say I wasn't at France last weekend, I could provide proof I was in the U.S. I however cannot provide proof I don't exist therefore was not in France or anywhere else in the world or universe. As long as something truly doesn't exist, there will never ever be proof for it. I agree that no evidence, particularly pertaining to the non-existence of things, is sufficient. Of course I can call the universe god and say it's evidence of itself but there is no proof it is anything more than semantics.

 

[Falvlun]

Looks delicious, but smells like internet.

Yeah. They really need to work that out. When are those 3D printers gonna start using foodstuff as the printing matrix?

 

[Falvlun]

Burden of proof doesn't work for something not existing. I can say I wasn't at France last weekend, I could provide proof I was in the U.S. I however cannot provide proof I don't exist therefore was not in France or anywhere else in the world or universe. As long as something truly doesn't exist, there will never ever be proof for it. I agree that no evidence, particularly pertaining to the non-existence of things, is sufficient. Of course I can call the universe god and say it's evidence of itself but there is no proof it is anything more than semantics.

Ok, idav. I say that evolution doesn't exist. Why? Because there's no evidence. What is your response to me?

 

[idav]

Ok, idav. I say that evolution doesn't exist. Why? Because there's no evidence. What is your response to me?

So long as evolution is clearly defined and agreed upon we should have no problem showing evidence for its existence. Same for purple unicorns existing, we can derive a perfectly clear definition of what we should find to show purple unicorns exist or not, as long as evidence isn't found for such clear definitions, it is safe to assume non-existence. Now if we found skeletal remains of a unicorn that might be something but would still be skeptical of it's purpleness.

 

[Falvlun]

So long as evolution is clearly defined and agreed upon we should have no problem showing evidence for its existence. Same for purple unicorns existing, we can derive a perfectly clear definition of what we should find to show purple unicorns exist or not, as long as evidence isn't found for such clear definitions, it is safe to assume non-existence. Now if we found skeletal remains of a unicorn that might be something but would still be skeptical of it's purpleness.

You have provided the evidence for your clearly defined concept of evolution. I still say "I am not convinced that evolution exists. You have not met your burden of proof".

What do you say to me?

Is this a fair response? Do I have any responsibility to explain why the evidence has failed to convince me?