Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[cottage]

The counter argument is rhetorically stated. It's quite obvious.

And if it’s a counter argument then there would be an identifiable assertion or proposition.

Hmm.

You could do me the courtesy of giving me an explanation?

And yet, he's met the burden that you deny exists. Good enough.

If the argument is that a burden is carried by one that makes a positive or negative assertion then theist was the sole individual that brought a burden into the arena and was the author of his own undoing.

 

[cottage]

As far as the Theist goes, "God is love" is also a self-evident conclusion. At least until someone makes a counter assertion.

But 'God is love' isn't logically self-evident, as both the sceptic and theist must agree.

 

[idav]

But 'God is love' isn't logically self-evident, as both the sceptic and theist must agree.

If god is our emotions then it can be just as easily argued that god is hate, that is to stay logically consistent but some say the devil is the hate, devil gets all the bad emotions and god gets all the good emotions in which case we have no free will and are at the mercy of the whims of spiritual puppeteers. I find that "god is love" to be quite problematic.

 

[Lyndale]

God said there is only 1 way to know Him by the free Gift He gave Us.
This same Gift - said, that He is the only Way to know His Father.

~ if so

I find ignorance voice weak, when I hear it struggle for answers,that it never looks in the right place to find them.

 

[Willamena]

And if it’s a counter argument then there would be an identifiable assertion or proposition.

"Pain and suffering are contradictory to love."

You could do me the courtesy of giving me an explanation?

I am unconvinced that one person's acceptance or rejection of another's love equates to conditional love.

If the argument is that a burden is carried by one that makes a positive or negative assertion...

No, a positive assertion, a posit. They state a way the world is. A "way the world is not" is also a posit.

...then theist was the sole individual that brought a burden into the arena and was the author of his own undoing.

It's pretty hard to counter-argue with only unconvincing normative arguments. A posit is the best alternative.

 

[budhabee]

I think the distinction between "rejection" and "failure to accept" is important.

Sure, there are theistic arguments that I've heard or read, carefully considered, and found holes. And I can articulate why I think the holes are actually holes.

However, there are plenty of theistic arguments that I haven't heard or read that I know are out there. I've never read Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ or Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Do I reject their arguments? No - I don't even know what they are. I've heard some Christians claim that both books give compelling arguments for God and Christianity, but I don't trust these assessments.

Not only haven't I read either book, but I don't have any plans to read them. I don't have a whole lot of time for reading, and I'm still trying to work my way through Guns, Germs and Steel and Mark Twain's autobiography. I imagine that I'll find other books that interest me so that Strobel and McDowell will never get to the top of my reading list.

So... I know full well that there are at least two bookfuls of arguments for the existence of God out there, but I have no plans to evaluate these arguments and I think that it's still quite reasonable to call myself an atheist.

Am I being unethical?

Oh my goodness I tried to read Guns, Germs and Steel too and it became an utterly dry, boring, and absolutely and dull piece of literature that I have ever picked up. Wish I could have gotten my money back on that one.

 

[Nakosis]

But 'God is love' isn't logically self-evident, as both the sceptic and theist must agree.

I don't know why they "must" agree on anything.

No reason to assume a Theist's premise is logically derived.
I find often the case is that the premise is experientially derived.

 

[Thief]

I don't know why they "must" agree on anything.

No reason to assume a Theist's premise is logically derived.
I find often the case is that the premise is experientially derived.

Oh now really?.....

You have read some of my postings?.....right?

Experience is good....it can drive a person to seek further.

But there should be reasoning behind the belief.
It makes for a more solid 'foundation'.

 

[cottage]

I don't know why they "must" agree on anything.

No reason to assume a Theist's premise is logically derived.
I find often the case is that the premise is experientially derived.

The psychopath that claims God told him to go out and kill would also say it was self-evident to him.

But in any case the argument from experience defeats itself, for it is a fact that suffering exists in experience.

P1. If God were All Loving there would be no suffering.

P2. There is suffering

Conclusion: Therefore there is no All Loving God.

 

[cottage]

"Pain and suffering are contradictory to love."

It isn’t being said that ‘pain and suffering is contradictory to love’; we can all think of instances in our imperfect existence where it can be necessary. What is being concluded, if the theist’s own statement is followed, is that there is a God who sometimes loves, sometimes not. On those terms, then, self-evidently there is no God of Love.

I am unconvinced that one person's acceptance or rejection of another's love equates to conditional love.

The theist is saying we suffer because we’ve rejected God’s love; in other words his love is conditional upon our accepting him.

No, a positive assertion, a posit. They state a way the world is. A "way the world is not" is also a posit.

The postulate, i.e. what is being positively asserted without proof, is faulted by the theist’s further postulations.

It's pretty hard to counter-argue with only unconvincing normative arguments. A posit is the best alternative.

It really is nothing more than a simple but effective analysis of a propositional belief, similar in a way to the scholastic tradition, but keeping within the bounds of the advocate’s declarations.

 

[Willamena]

It isn’t being said that ‘pain and suffering is contradictory to love’; we can all think of instances in our imperfect existence where it can be necessary. What is being concluded, if the theist’s own statement is followed, is that there is a God who sometimes loves, sometimes not. On those terms, then, self-evidently there is no God of Love.

I am responding to the rhetorical question,

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

Contained in the question is the implication that if there is pain and suffering in the world, there is no love. That is the counter-argument. If there are instances where it can be necessary that there is pain and suffering and love, then the question fails because the simple answer is, "there is pain and suffering and love in the world."

The theist is saying we suffer because we’ve rejected God’s love; in other words his love is conditional upon our accepting him.

Interesting interpretation. I'm still unconvinced that our accepting love is a condition of god loving.

The postulate, i.e. what is being positively asserted without proof, is faulted by the theist’s further postulations.

But that doesn't reflect on the opponent's burden for his posits.

 

[cottage]

I am responding to the rhetorical question,

Then in what way is it rhetorical? I need you to explain exactly what you mean.

Contained in the question is the implication that if there is pain and suffering in the world, there is no love. That is the counter-argument. If there are instances where it can be necessary that there is pain and suffering and love, then the question fails because the simple answer is, "there is pain and suffering and love in the world."

It is not the case that ‘if there is pain and suffering in the world there is no love’, since there evidently is both love and suffering in the world. The reason the theist’s argument fails is because the existence of suffering is inconsistent with his own statement, which is that God is All Loving. Read the argument.

Interesting interpretation. I'm still unconvinced that our accepting love is a condition of god loving.

Well it is, because that is what the terms express.

But that doesn't reflect on the opponent's burden for his posits.

I am on record as arguing that sceptics are very reasonably expected to respond to arguments that they’re given and to defend assertions that they’ve made. However the burden of proof for supernatural beings and their works is borne by the advocates, since non-existence cannot be demonstrated; but failure to disprove what is claimed does not find positively for the claim, or shift the burden to the sceptics. In this particular case the truth of the advocate’s statements failed his own test and he presumed to pass the burden to the questioner with a fallacious argument from ignorance.

 

[Thief]

So no one believes what he sees?
Or shall we cast doubt immediately upon observation.

I see the human body as a learning device.
We can only sense this world exposing our minds and hearts to this 'reality'.

Shall we also cast doubt that reality is not real?

I see 7billion copies of a learning device.
That device is physically terminal.

Shall we cast doubt on all forms of probability?
7billion lives will end in dust?
I doubt that.

7billion possible survivors of the last breath....and all will fail?
I doubt that.

Burden of proof?....for a topic we all know from the beginning to not have such a facet.

No photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment.

Asking for evidence in a theological discussion is unreasonable.

 

[Willamena]

Then in what way is it rhetorical? I need you to explain exactly what you mean.


It is not the case that ‘if there is pain and suffering in the world there is no love’, since there evidently is both love and suffering in the world. The reason the theist’s argument fails is because the existence of suffering is inconsistent with his own statement, which is that God is All Loving. Read the argument.


Well it is, because that is what the terms express.

I'm not going to drag the thread off-topic by explaining rhetoric, and obviously I have no understanding of the argument, so I will drop it.

I am on record as arguing that sceptics are very reasonably expected to respond to arguments that they’re given and to defend assertions that they’ve made. However the burden of proof for supernatural beings and their works is borne by the advocates, since non-existence cannot be demonstrated; but failure to disprove what is claimed does not find positively for the claim, or shift the burden to the sceptics. In this particular case the truth of the advocate’s statements failed his own test and he presumed to pass the burden to the questioner with a fallacious argument from ignorance.

What is being argued in this thread is that the person making a posit carries the burden of proof because the burden is part and parcel of a posit. Whether or not a person advocates for supernatural beings, the topic of the posit doesn't change burden any, and it certainly doesn't alleviate the burden the opponent might bear for any posits he makes in counter-argument.

It's not about the burden the advocate bears, but about those opponents who deny that they have any burden just because they are arguing a certain topic. Your burden hasn't magically appeared or disappeared just because your opponent's argument has failed, it rests with your posits.

 

[McBell]

Asking for evidence in a theological discussion is unreasonable.

How does this idea not set up an anything goes game board?

 

[Thief]

How does this idea not set up an anything goes game board?

Check the threads through out this forum!

 

[McBell]

Check the threads through out this forum!

So you do not know?

Or are you happy with the free for all?

Why is it that it is fine for theology to be a free for all until someone disagrees with you?

Are they not also entitled to the same free for all theology as you?

What is it that makes your free for all theology so special?

And what is it I am allegedly in denial of?

You keep avoiding that last question like the plague.

 

[Thief]

So you do not know?

Or are you happy with the free for all?

Why is it that it is fine for theology to be a free for all until someone disagrees with you?

Are they not also entitled to the same free for all theology as you?

What is it that makes your free for all theology so special?

And what is it I am allegedly in denial of?

You keep avoiding that last question like the plague.

Well gee...don't you have a long standing disbelief?
Nothing Greater than you?

The free for all on faith is global.
Been that way for a long time.

But until you decide that spiritual life is a possibility.....
I doubt anything will come of a discussion with you....other than denial.

 

[cottage]

I'm not going to drag the thread off-topic by explaining rhetoric, and obviously I have no understanding of the argument, so I will drop it.

I’m quite aware of what rhetoric is and it has no bearing on the argument.

What is being argued in this thread is that the person making a posit carries the burden of proof because the burden is part and parcel of a posit. Whether or not a person advocates for supernatural beings, the topic of the posit doesn't change burden any, and it certainly doesn't alleviate the burden the opponent might bear for any posits he makes in counter-argument.

It's not about the burden the advocate bears, but about those opponents who deny that they have any burden just because they are arguing a certain topic. Your burden hasn't magically appeared or disappeared just because your opponent's argument has failed, it rests with your posits.

And I’m saying to you there is a profound distinction to be made between a responsibility to reply to a given argument and the burden of proof that is carried by one that asserts an existential proposition, since it is impossible to demonstrate non-existence. This is the root of the fundamental disagreement that I have with the OP. Even if nobody objected to the assertion that a supernatural being exists the advocate would still bear the responsibility to explain how or why it is true. And questioning such an assertion requires no justification at all.

 

[McBell]

Well gee...don't you have a long standing disbelief?
Nothing Greater than you?

The free for all on faith is global.
Been that way for a long time.

But until you decide that spiritual life is a possibility.....
I doubt anything will come of a discussion with you....other than denial.

Ah.
So you have nothing and are merely using the false accusation of my denial as a diversion tactic.

No worries, mate.
I already knew you have nothing.