Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Thief]

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.

No true.
But just for giggles....show us what you've got.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

They have a responsibility, if asked, to explain why they believe it is true.

I make a statement, "I believe there are little green men on the moon"

You ask a simple question "Why do you believe there are little green men on the moon?"

I reply "Because I read a dairy of Neil Armstrong wherein he reported seeing little green men on the moon."

If I can provide you access for this document, I've provided evidence for my belief. I've fulfilled my burden of proof.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry for not responding sooner - I was away for a while and this was too long to do from my phone:

The atheist's responsibility is to support his claim that insufficient evidence has been presented; it is to explain why he has not been convinced of the theist's claim.

These aren't the same thing, though.

For instance, as I think I touched on earlier, if someone makes an argument to me (about theism or anything else) in Hungarian, I won't be convinced of it because I don't speak Hungarian. Did he present sufficient evidence? I don't know; I don't speak Hungarian. I do know that I haven't been convinced of whatever he argued, though.

Ok. I still don't see why you couldn't ask the theist to pick out his strongest arguments in order for a debate to remain under control.

I try that; it doesn't always work.

If you're curious, have a look at some of the debates between George-Ananda and me about paranormal phenomena. When I try to ask him to give his best case for out-of-body experiences or whatnot, he usually insists that his position is based on the sum total of a lifetime of research and not on any one individual case.

I also don't see how this very specific tactic undermines the idea that in general, an atheist has the responsibility to defend his contention that the theist has not met his burden of proof.

It's one specific example that illustrates a general principle: just because one person presents an argument doesn't necessarily create an obligation for the other person to respond to it or to analyse it in detail.

Sure. And the same is true of the theist. A theist has no obligation to continue a debate if he's just being attacked or if his opponent is arguing in bad faith.

Doesn't change the fact that in general a theist has a responsibility to defend his claim that gods exist.

Actually, I'd say that neither the theist nor the atheist have responsibilities at all. It's more that both of them have consequences: if the theist doesn't defend his claims, then he's not likely to convince the atheist and - depending on the specific claims - potentially lose face and be seen as foolish. If he doesn't care about this, then so be it.

The burden of proof is really just the point where we decide that the evidence is overwhelming enough that a reasonable person ought to be convinced by it... IOW, that a person who isn't convinced once the burden of proof has been met is unreasonable. It's really just about saving or losing face.

Precisely. Which is why I'm puzzled as to why you think it would be such an overwhelming burden for the atheist to respond to.

Because it's also possible to shoot off a bunch of actually valid points rapid fire-style.

I don't dispute this.

But, how do you know they are bad arguments? Just sayin'.

I think you missed my point there. I'm not judging the quality of any particular argument made by any actual person; I'm saying that since bad arguments are a dime a dozen, the fact that someone has put forward a whole bunch of arguments for a position doesn't necessarily suggest that the position is correct.

 

[McBell]

No true.
But just for giggles....show us what you've got.

Doesn't work that way.

But then, you already know that.

Your continued avoidance is duly noted and just as obvious as your blatant nothing.

 

[Thief]

Doesn't work that way.

But then, you already know that.

Your continued avoidance is duly noted and just as obvious as your blatant nothing.

And your continual denial will die the same way.
Good luck with that.

 

[McBell]

And your continual denial will die the same way.
Good luck with that.

Except you have not shown I am denying anything.

In fact, you continuously run away tail tucked whenever you are flat out asked to reveal what it is you claim I am denying.


Again more nothing and avoidance.

 

[cottage]

They have a responsibility, if asked, to explain why they believe it is true.

I make a statement, "I believe there are little green men on the moon"

You ask a simple question "Why do you believe there are little green men on the moon?"

I reply "Because I read a dairy of Neil Armstrong wherein he reported seeing little green men on the moon."

If I can provide you access for this document, I've provided evidence for my belief. I've fulfilled my burden of proof.

Yes! That’s pretty much the gist of what I’m saying. The advocate, quite properly, has replied to the question with evidence for what is believed. And whilst there is no burden to meet in questioning an assertion, there is a responsibility to respond to arguments that are given to support the assertion; that is perfectly fair and reasonable.

But the burden of proof for the asserted existence of a supernatural creator being remains with the advocate throughout. And that takes me onto my next point, which is that this isn’t about the advocate ‘meeting’ the burden of proof but on delivering the truth for that extraordinary claim. An other-worldly being that causes and sustains our own existence isn’t being given putatively as a hypothesis that might equally be false; it is being presented as something that is believed to be unconditionally true, or even certain. Whether it can ever be established in the absolute terms that the proposition assumes is a separate question, but that’s a matter solely for the theist to consider.

 

[Thief]

Except you have not shown I am denying anything.

In fact, you continuously run away tail tucked whenever you are flat out asked to reveal what it is you claim I am denying.


Again more nothing and avoidance.

God is real....I say so...
Go ahead and say otherwise.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is real....I say so...
Go ahead and say otherwise.

Why do you say so? I'm not going to just take your word for it.

 

[Thief]

Why do you say so? I'm not going to just take your word for it.

Well for starters.....science offers cause and effect.
I believe it.
Can't have one without the other.
No experiment could be considered definitive without that relationship.

So then science would also have you believe....all that 'stuff' overhead and underfoot....came from one location.
A singularity.

I don't have a problem with that.

I place the Creator prior to His creation.
He is the Cause.
The universe(one word) is the effect.

Now granted, science cannot do the petri dish routine.
No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no experiment.
The universe won't fit in the dish.

But we should not abandon thoughtful technique.
We should not let go.....Cause and effect.

 

[McBell]

Well for starters.....science offers cause and effect.
I believe it.
Can't have one without the other.
No experiment could be considered definitive without that relationship.

So then science would also have you believe....all that 'stuff' overhead and underfoot....came from one location.
A singularity.

I don't have a problem with that.

I place the Creator prior to His creation.
He is the Cause.
The universe(one word) is the effect.

Now granted, science cannot do the petri dish routine.
No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no experiment.
The universe won't fit in the dish.

But we should not abandon thoughtful technique.
We should not let go.....Cause and effect.

Yet you throw cause and effect and even science out the window when it comes to your god....

 

[Nakosis]

Yes! That’s pretty much the gist of what I’m saying. The advocate, quite properly, has replied to the question with evidence for what is believed. And whilst there is no burden to meet in questioning an assertion, there is a responsibility to respond to arguments that are given to support the assertion; that is perfectly fair and reasonable.

But the burden of proof for the asserted existence of a supernatural creator being remains with the advocate throughout. And that takes me onto my next point, which is that this isn’t about the advocate ‘meeting’ the burden of proof but on delivering the truth for that extraordinary claim. An other-worldly being that causes and sustains our own existence isn’t being given putatively as a hypothesis that might equally be false; it is being presented as something that is believed to be unconditionally true, or even certain. Whether it can ever be established in the absolute terms that the proposition assumes is a separate question, but that’s a matter solely for the theist to consider.

Yes, but the Religious Folks believe they too have met the burden of proof. The only reason you are not accepting the obvious is that Satan has blinded you to the truth.

However I don't think the OP's intent is to establish an absolute. Such is the product of faith and conviction, not logical proof.

Ok, I guess that goes without saying, if I posit an absolute then you'd ask for absolute proof.

I'm thinking in terms of probability and possibility and my reasoning for belief in these possibilities.

I don't think that I run into many that express their truth in terms of absolutes. When I do I write it off as faith and conviction. Logic, rationality and proofs don't apply. It's their truth, not my truth, no need to see eye to eye.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well for starters.....science offers cause and effect.
I believe it.
Can't have one without the other.
No experiment could be considered definitive without that relationship.

So then science would also have you believe....all that 'stuff' overhead and underfoot....came from one location.
A singularity.

I don't have a problem with that.

I place the Creator prior to His creation.
He is the Cause.
The universe(one word) is the effect.

Now granted, science cannot do the petri dish routine.
No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no experiment.
The universe won't fit in the dish.

But we should not abandon thoughtful technique.
We should not let go.....Cause and effect.

Hmm.

Hey, Falvlun: this should work as a case study.

Here we have a real argument for God made by a real theist. I, a real atheist, don't accept it (really), and I don't think that Thief has met his burden of proof.

Exactly what "burden of proof" do I now have? What am I now obligated to do? I'm not sure I can follow the chain of argument well enough to point to a particular mistake of reasoning. In fact, I can't even tell where the reasoning is supposed to start.

So... where does this leave me? Out of all the possible ways I could respond to this, which ones would be "ethical" and which ones would be "unethical"?

 

[Gordian Knot]

I certainly can point to a particular mistake of reasoning.

I place the Creator prior to His creation.
He is the Cause.
The universe(one word) is the effect.

His placement of a Creator in his logic train is inappropriate. We have some evidence to believe that there was a Big Bang; we have information to suggest it started as a singularity.

There is no evidence one can point to when making an arbitrary suggestion that the Creator was prior to creation, then caused it.

One can make a theological statement about a God(s). One can make a scientific statement about origins of the universe. Both work separately. Neither work when put together.

 

[Thief]

I certainly can point to a particular mistake of reasoning.

I place the Creator prior to His creation.
He is the Cause.
The universe(one word) is the effect.

His placement of a Creator in his logic train is inappropriate. We have some evidence to believe that there was a Big Bang; we have information to suggest it started as a singularity.

There is no evidence one can point to when making an arbitrary suggestion that the Creator was prior to creation, then caused it.

One can make a theological statement about a God(s). One can make a scientific statement about origins of the universe. Both work separately. Neither work when put together.

There will be no evidence.
No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, no repeatable experiment.

Spirit first.

Otherwise all is of substance and all things are terminal.
When your chemistry fails so do you.

Unless you find reason to believe in Something Greater.

And of course God created what science endeavors to understand.
Science is chasing after God.

 

[cottage]

Yes, but the Religious Folks believe they too have met the burden of proof. The only reason you are not accepting the obvious is that Satan has blinded you to the truth.

However I don't think the OP's intent is to establish an absolute. Such is the product of faith and conviction, not logical proof.

Ok, I guess that goes without saying, if I posit an absolute then you'd ask for absolute proof.

I'm thinking in terms of probability and possibility and my reasoning for belief in these possibilities.

I don't think that I run into many that express their truth in terms of absolutes. When I do I write it off as faith and conviction. Logic, rationality and proofs don't apply. It's their truth, not my truth, no need to see eye to eye.

If it is being argued that Satan prevents my being privy to the truth then that argument carries the same burden as that which applies to God or any other supernatural existence. And the fact that a religious person believes he or she has met the burden of truth simply as a matter of conviction cannot be presented as a form of argument.

Protagoras’ relativistic theory of knowledge supposed that whatever an individual believed was true for him or her. Socrates had put that idea to bed by pointing out that an individual has to understand what it is to make perceptual mistakes. The key word here is ‘understand’, for not understanding is the same as not knowing, and if we don’t know what it is we’re experiencing then how can we say what it is? ‘True for me’ isn’t a criterion of truth.

And I don’t think it really make sense to speak of theism in terms of possibility or probability; those terms belong to philosophy and perhaps agnosticism but not to committed faith. And very arguably a possible God is no God at all! All religious beliefs are propositional, therefore even if an individual makes a ‘True for me’ argument from faith, i.e. as a belief-in, then it must follow logically from a belief-that, since one cannot believe-in God without believing-that God exists. So if the God of Classical Theism is a true belief then the deity will be necessarily existent and the creator and sustainer of all things, which is about as absolute as you can get, and of course an absolute truth requires absolute proof.

 

[Nakosis]

Socrates had put that idea to bed by pointing out that an individual has to understand what it is to make perceptual mistakes. The key word here is ‘understand’, for not understanding is the same as not knowing, and if we don’t know what it is we’re experiencing then how can we say what it is? ‘True for me’ isn’t a criterion of truth.

(Just FYI. I've no criticisms of the rest of your post)

Yet, Socrates was reported as having heard and listening to divine voices. I do understand we can suffer from perceptual errors but what else can we rely on besides our perception. I allow that I might be wrong in what is apparently real to me and so I am wiling to question these things that seem true to me. However at what point do we accept the reality that is apparent to us.

So then what is the criterion for "truth"?

 

[cottage]

(Just FYI. I've no criticisms of the rest of your post)

Yet, Socrates was reported as having heard and listening to divine voices. I do understand we can suffer from perceptual errors but what else can we rely on besides our perception. I allow that I might be wrong in what is apparently real to me and so I am wiling to question these things that seem true to me. However at what point do we accept the reality that is apparent to us.

So then what is the criterion for "truth"?

It might be argued that if everything we understand about the world comes down to faith then there is no substantive difference between having faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning and faith in a deity. But there is, literally, a world of a difference. To employ the term ‘reality’ is to accept that there is such a state, for by questioning reality we are acknowledging it. But although we cannot without self-contradiction deny reality we accept that it is without certitude. The sun exists and while it needn’t exist it has nevertheless risen every morning in the past, which give cause for us to believe it will continue to do so in the future. So although there is no contradiction in saying the sun will not rise tomorrow morning, for no argument from the past can ever be an argument to the future, we descend into the realms of absurdity if we say there never was any such object. We believe the sun exists and that deciduous trees lose their leaves in winter because that is reality, while faith in deities has no direct correspondence with what is real but only with what is taught and/or imagined. We may not understand the world but we’re all agreed that there is a world, and that is the reality, whereas the existence of a supernatural being is pure speculation or a matter of a doctrinal belief.

 

[Falvlun]

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,

A burden of proof is simply one's responsibility to support the claims one has made.

The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.

Philosophic Burden of Proof, Wiki

since it is impossible to demonstrate non-existence.

It is impossible to prove non-existence, but it is not impossible to provide support for such a position.

Regardless, this is neither here nor there since the responsibility we are talking about is not non-existence, but why various arguments fail to convince.

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.

I don't know how this can be a fundamental disagreement between us when I do not deny this. I agree: theists have a burden of proof to support their claims.

This is in no way diminished by the fact that atheists also have a responsibility to support their rejection of the arguments for the existence of god.

And questioning such an assertion requires no justification at all.

I disagree with this. Yes, in a philosophical debate standpoint, there is no onus upon a person who merely questions a claim to justify his questioning.

However, in the bigger scheme of things, I do think that people should know why they do not accept claims. And regardless of how ridiculous or unsupported you may find god claims to be, I think the fact that it is a widely held belief merits an effort to understand why you reject it. As much as we like to liken god to invisible pink unicorns, the fact remains that there is a big difference between something you can just make up on the spot, and something that billions of people actually do believe exists.

 

[Falvlun]

Hmm.

Hey, Falvlun: this should work as a case study.

Here we have a real argument for God made by a real theist. I, a real atheist, don't accept it (really), and I don't think that Thief has met his burden of proof.

Exactly what "burden of proof" do I now have? What am I now obligated to do? I'm not sure I can follow the chain of argument well enough to point to a particular mistake of reasoning. In fact, I can't even tell where the reasoning is supposed to start.

So... where does this leave me? Out of all the possible ways I could respond to this, which ones would be "ethical" and which ones would be "unethical"?

Your responsibility is to understand why you reject the argument. Clearly, you have reasons to do so. You haven't rejected it "just because".

I think you have explained why you have rejected it in your post: You do not understand it due to clarity issues and a lack of straightforward reasoning.

You could ask for clarification or for rephrasing, and of course, thief could rebut your assessment, but otherwise, I think you have explained why you have rejected the argument.

EDIT: Reading thief's argument, it appears to be a pretty straight-forward first-cause argument. Not really sure what is so perplexing. We demolish first-cause arguments all the time.