Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Falvlun]

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

No worries. Actually, perfect timing... I had just wandered back in here to see how the old thread was doing.

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.

I don't think you could then claim that the theist hasn't met his burden of proof. All you would have is "I don't know".

Also, when have you gotten into a debate about God with a Hungarian who can't speak English? It might be helpful if you'd stick with stuff you'd actually encounter on RF.

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.

Ok Nobody said that debates were clean and neat and perfectly linear. I am saying that, in general, people have a responsibility to support their claims. To claim that someone has failed to support their claim is a claim that requires support in its turn. I think that's a pretty reasonable, general concept to try to adhere to within a debate.

Is it always possible? No, of course not.

But it is a different concept than being able to claim victory simply by claiming that someone else has failed to convince you, or that they have failed to meet their burden of proof, which is what this thread was created to address: The idea that you have no responsibility to back-up such a claim.

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.

If that person rejects the argument, then yes, they have a responsibility to understand why they have rejected it.

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.

I agree with you. And this illustrates why I think the whole burden of proof argument is bit of a farce. Everyone has a responsibility to defend their position. They are free not to, but it won't move the debate along any.

That second paragraph indicates why I find the whole "burden of proof" to be rather arbitrary. We place a burden on people, but there's no standard by which we can know when it has been met. I think having people realize that they need to know why they reject the arguments made is one step towards making it a little less arbitrary.

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


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.

Of course.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Well, here I have to disagree. For many it is more then speculation and doctrinal belief. This is were I think some Atheist make a mistake in generalizing all believers.

People experience the presence of God. Have God speak with them. Numerous people report these events. You need to understand, these "supernatural" experiences is as much a part of reality as the sun rising. To ask them to deny these experience would be the same to them as asking them to deny the existence of the Sun.

To someone who is blind, how could I convince them the Sun exists. It would be easy enough for them to reject belief in the Sun having nothing but the testimony of others as to its existence.

We accept the existence of the Sun because of a common experience. Believers also rely on a common experience to validate their beliefs.

 

[idav]

Well, here I have to disagree. For many it is more then speculation and doctrinal belief. This is were I think some Atheist make a mistake in generalizing all believers.

People experience the presence of God. Have God speak with them. Numerous people report these events. You need to understand, these "supernatural" experiences is as much a part of reality as the sun rising. To ask them to deny these experience would be the same to them as asking them to deny the existence of the Sun.

To someone who is blind, how could I convince them the Sun exists. It would be easy enough for them to reject belief in the Sun having nothing but the testimony of others as to its existence.

We accept the existence of the Sun because of a common experience. Believers also rely on a common experience to validate their beliefs.

People aren't asking to deny experiences but to validate their cause. Like validating what the sun really is and what it is really doing when it "rises". We can interpret that the sun travels around us and be completely wrong even against solid experience.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly what "burden of proof" do I now have? What am I now obligated to do?

As Falvlun said, the burden of proof isn't an obligation to do anything, it's an implicit burden on the person asserting a claim to have a warranted position. That's all.

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ouroboros]

Well, here I have to disagree. For many it is more then speculation and doctrinal belief. This is were I think some Atheist make a mistake in generalizing all believers.

The funny thing here in your sentence is that you're generalizing the atheists...

There are atheists that both respect and find value in the "religious experience" as such. The spiritual part does not have to be denied because of atheism. We do have feelings and experiences. Part of our being is somewhat spiritual, just the part of existing and being in awe of nature and the world. I don't deny that people have experience something that felt was the presence of God. I've done it too, as an atheist. I felt that I was part of the universe, the whole reality, and that's part of why I consider all reality as God. I had those experiences as a Christian as well. I've also been in trance from long lasting prayers, and much more. So the experience is there. What it means is subjective.

In other words, don't generalize the atheists either on your part.

 

[Nakosis]

People aren't asking to deny experiences but to validate their cause. Like validating what the sun really is and what it is really doing when it "rises". We can interpret that the sun travels around us and be completely wrong even against solid experience.

Why? Well no I guess I understand that people feel a need for validation from others for their beliefs. It's cool when you are validated for being right. However it's not like I believe what I believe for the validation. I believe what I believe because it seems a rational thing to do. I don't see that validation or invalidation from others would change that. Some agree with me, cool.

I'm surprise that people seek validation from me. I give it to them because that is what they want. Makes em happy. Not because I think there is anything special about my thinking...

So the Atheist refuses to validate the Theist. I suppose I don't see there is a need for a theist to seek validation from an atheist. Maybe that's their cause. To achieve validation from the non-believer?

 

[idav]

Why? Well no I guess I understand that people feel a need for validation from others for their beliefs. It's cool when you are validated for being right. However it's not like I believe what I believe for the validation. I believe what I believe because it seems a rational thing to do. I don't see that validation or invalidation from others would change that. Some agree with me, cool.

I'm surprise that people seek validation from me. I give it to them because that is what they want. Makes em happy. Not because I think there is anything special about my thinking...

So the Atheist refuses to validate the Theist. I suppose I don't see there is a need for a theist to seek validation from an atheist. Maybe that's their cause. To achieve validation from the non-believer?

It isn't as if we think peoples experiences are invalid. They are completely valid however when a theist says they experience god, it isn't as if atheists don't have the same experience, they merely label it differently, think there is another explanation apart from the theists answer.

 

[Nakosis]

It isn't as if we think peoples experiences are invalid. They are completely valid however when a theist says they experience god, it isn't as if atheists don't have the same experience, they merely label it differently, think there is another explanation apart from the theists answer.

Ok, then they could posit a counter explanation?

Then they might get stuck with the burden of proof?

There are cases where the BOP is a bad argument being made. Cases where it is not. Depends on the particulars of the argument. Kind of wish there were actual examples of the argument being made instead of hypotheticals.

It'd be interesting to try and apply the ideas presented here.

 

[Nakosis]

The funny thing here in your sentence is that you're generalizing the atheists...

There are atheists that both respect and find value in the "religious experience" as such. The spiritual part does not have to be denied because of atheism. We do have feelings and experiences. Part of our being is somewhat spiritual, just the part of existing and being in awe of nature and the world. I don't deny that people have experience something that felt was the presence of God. I've done it too, as an atheist. I felt that I was part of the universe, the whole reality, and that's part of why I consider all reality as God. I had those experiences as a Christian as well. I've also been in trance from long lasting prayers, and much more. So the experience is there. What it means is subjective.

In other words, don't generalize the atheists either on your part.

I did say some...

 

[Ouroboros]

I did say some...

Oh! Sorry. My eyes are getting blurry with age.

 

[cottage]

Well, here I have to disagree. For many it is more then speculation and doctrinal belief. This is were I think some Atheist make a mistake in generalizing all believers.

People experience the presence of God. Have God speak with them. Numerous people report these events. You need to understand, these "supernatural" experiences is as much a part of reality as the sun rising. To ask them to deny these experience would be the same to them as asking them to deny the existence of the Sun.

To someone who is blind, how could I convince them the Sun exists. It would be easy enough for them to reject belief in the Sun having nothing but the testimony of others as to its existence.

We accept the existence of the Sun because of a common experience. Believers also rely on a common experience to validate their beliefs.

But you are speaking of a subjective, ‘True for me’ view that individuals have, and even then they are not experiences that are consistent with all fellow-believers, as we see frequently on this very forum. And even if their experiences are common to them they are not shared in general experience. By ‘general experience’ what is meant is the experience that is shared by all, independent of any mystical beliefs or inclinations. Both believers and unbelievers alike acknowledge the existence of gravity and the rising of the sun with each new day, but only the religious believe in God.

 

[cottage]

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

Yes, of course it is! And I’m saying that burden is carried by the theist that is making the claim. Your insinuation is that disbelief in a supernatural being must be justified, which is, with respect, just nonsense. (See my comments on this down the page).

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.

And do we not see those arguments examined and replied to every day on this forum and elsewhere?

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.

Yes! And I have said at least half-a-dozen times in this thread, and twice that number the last time you and I had this debate, that the sceptic is quite rightly expected to defend his objections to specific arguments.

But the theist has the unique burden of proving the truth of what is claimed, which is the existence of a supposed supernatural being. Fundamentally, people disbelieve in God because there is no such object in general experience and nor is ‘God’ an innate idea, and those two stand-alone elements are so properly basic that it’s not even necessary to state them. It is what is meant by ‘no evidence for God’. And while we all prefer to see arguments, the ‘lack of belief’ on those terms is a wholly sufficient objection.

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.

I’m sorry but that doesn’t appear to make sense – you both disagree and agree?

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.

This matter concerns a specific, extraordinary assertion and because it is extraordinary, other-worldly as it happens, the onus is entirely on the advocate to demonstrate the claim. And let me say, yet again, this has nothing to do with responding to given arguments, which as a sceptic I am very pleased to do. The case you made last time, and it looks to be the same species again, is that because billions believe in God therefore atheists must justify their scepticism or disbelief. That is preposterous.

Numbers, regardless of the weighting, do not imply truth or credibility in the belief, and nor does a majority make a belief more logical or rational. For example, while most people believe they will live healthily to old age, the facts do not support that popular belief. And while it may be true that billions of people throughout the world have religious beliefs involving a deity, it is also true that millions of people throughout the world have never experienced gods, including a great many who believe in them!

 

[Willamena]

But you are speaking of a subjective, ‘True for me’ view that individuals have, and even then they are not experiences that are consistent with all fellow-believers, as we see frequently on this very forum. And even if their experiences are common to them they are not shared in general experience. By ‘general experience’ what is meant is the experience that is shared by all, independent of any mystical beliefs or inclinations. Both believers and unbelievers alike acknowledge the existence of gravity and the rising of the sun with each new day, but only the religious believe in God.

"True for me" is relative, not subjective.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, of course it is! And I’m saying that burden is carried by the theist that is making the claim. Your insinuation is that disbelief in a supernatural being must be justified, which is, with respect, just nonsense. (See my comments on this down the page).



And do we not see those arguments examined and replied to every day on this forum and elsewhere?

It's not being argued that they don't happen. It's being argued that they are irrationally overlooked and regarded as not needed, and that that ("not needed") is used as justification for a counter-position when a particular topic happens to come up.

 

[Falvlun]

Yes, of course it is! And I’m saying that burden is carried by the theist that is making the claim. Your insinuation is that disbelief in a supernatural being must be justified, which is, with respect, just nonsense. (See my comments on this down the page).

Do you not consider "Theists have not met their burden of proof" to be a claim?

If claims have a burden of proof, then why does this claim not have one?

And do we not see those arguments examined and replied to every day on this forum and elsewhere?

We do. When people do so, they are satisfying their burden of proof for their claims that the arguments theists make are insufficient.

Yes! And I have said at least half-a-dozen times in this thread, and twice that number the last time you and I had this debate, that the sceptic is quite rightly expected to defend his objections to specific arguments.

The responsibility to support your claims is what burden of proof is all about. It is perplexing that you would say that the responsibility exists, but that it is not a burden of proof, when they mean exactly the same thing.

But the theist has the unique burden of proving the truth of what is claimed, which is the existence of a supposed supernatural being. Fundamentally, people disbelieve in God because there is no such object in general experience and nor is ‘God’ an innate idea, and those two stand-alone elements are so properly basic that it’s not even necessary to state them. It is what is meant by ‘no evidence for God’.

The uniqueness of the theists' burden in no way negates the need for others to support their own claims.

(By and by, you are making an awful lot of claims up there. The "innate-ness" of the concept of God is certainly debatable, as is its general experience.)

And while we all prefer to see arguments, the ‘lack of belief’ on those terms is a wholly sufficient objection.

On what terms? I do not think that "I don't believe God exists "just because" is a valid objection. At least, not if you want a rational point of view. You need reasons. If your reason is "not enough evidence"-- which as you argue above, I think is the reason given by the vast majority-- then you need to support this by demonstrating why the evidence offered has failed.

I’m sorry but that doesn’t appear to make sense – you both disagree and agree?

I have been talking about personal responsibility and "debate responsibility" from the beginning.

Traditional debate responsibility dictates that you haven't created a responsibility until you have made a claim. Merely questioning a claim is not a claim in itself. If, however, you state "You have not provided enough evidence", then that is a claim, with it's own responsibility. This is what we agree on.

But I don't think that the rules of debate should be considered rules to live by. I think that regardless of any claims you have made out loud or arguments that theists have provided to you, if you have decided that gods don't exist, you should know why you believe such. You have a responsibility to yourself.

This matter concerns a specific, extraordinary assertion and because it is extraordinary, other-worldly as it happens, the onus is entirely on the advocate to demonstrate the claim. And let me say, yet again, this has nothing to do with responding to given arguments, which as a sceptic I am very pleased to do.

We agree. At least, in a debate setting.

Again, in your personal life, the onus is on you to determine what you believe and why. It might mean that you need to do some research yourself.

The case you made last time, and it looks to be the same species again, is that because billions believe in God therefore atheists must justify their scepticism or disbelief. That is preposterous.

I am saying that it is reasonable to examine your disbelief in light of such overwhelming difference in opinion, which is not preposterous in the least.

Numbers, regardless of the weighting, do not imply truth or credibility in the belief, and nor does a majority make a belief more logical or rational. For example, while most people believe they will live healthily to old age, the facts do not support that popular belief. And while it may be true that billions of people throughout the world have religious beliefs involving a deity, it is also true that millions of people throughout the world have never experienced gods, including a great many who believe in them!

Numbers do indeed provide support for a belief's credibility. To say otherwise would undermine the very reason that this is a logical fallacy: it's a fallacy because we are hardwired to believe it because, more often than not, it's going to be true. It's a helpful generality.

Is it the sole reason someone should believe or not believe something? Of course not. It's simply a reason to pause and investigate.

 

[Nakosis]

But you are speaking of a subjective, ‘True for me’ view that individuals have, and even then they are not experiences that are consistent with all fellow-believers, as we see frequently on this very forum. And even if their experiences are common to them they are not shared in general experience. By ‘general experience’ what is meant is the experience that is shared by all, independent of any mystical beliefs or inclinations. Both believers and unbelievers alike acknowledge the existence of gravity and the rising of the sun with each new day, but only the religious believe in God.

What experiences are shared by all? We usually go with a majority or a majority of a small group of experts.

I'm actually surprised by the commonality of these spiritual experiences. Religion is not only about being told what is true it is also about a large majority having experiences that support them being true.

The number of Atheist in the world is pretty small. The view of atheism is the position of a minority.

Not to say that makes it invalid, just that there is probably more to these spiritual experiences then a matter of doctrine and pure faith.

Now I'm with you if belief is being presented as a absolute truth. However it is the same species(humans) who shy away from an objective possibility of the supernatural. In this regard I don't see that there is anything special about the position of atheism in that it is any better or more valid the the position of theism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No worries. Actually, perfect timing... I had just wandered back in here to see how the old thread was doing.


I don't think you could then claim that the theist hasn't met his burden of proof. All you would have is "I don't know".

Also, when have you gotten into a debate about God with a Hungarian who can't speak English? It might be helpful if you'd stick with stuff you'd actually encounter on RF.

Modal logic, then.

Everything I know about modal logic, I learned by reading online on my own. The modal ontological argument contains steps that look to me like jumping to conclusions. If I knew more modal logic, would I see that they're actually valid? I have no idea.

BTW: I should ask the same thing of you. When I read your OP, I tried to think of behaviours I've seen on RF that could be construed to meet your descriptions. Whenever I've asked a question on that basis, you've told us that these things aren't what you're talking about. At this point, I'm not sure exactly where you saw the behaviour you described in the OP. A few examples would be very helpful.

Ok Nobody said that debates were clean and neat and perfectly linear. I am saying that, in general, people have a responsibility to support their claims. To claim that someone has failed to support their claim is a claim that requires support in its turn. I think that's a pretty reasonable, general concept to try to adhere to within a debate.

Is it always possible? No, of course not.

But it is a different concept than being able to claim victory simply by claiming that someone else has failed to convince you, or that they have failed to meet their burden of proof, which is what this thread was created to address: The idea that you have no responsibility to back-up such a claim.

I really don't understand what context you're talking about, but in any context that I can think of, it's not true that everyone has the responsibility to support their claims.

In a formal debate with an established motion and individuals or teams arguing for and against it, the rules establish that one side (usually the opposition) "wins" in the case that the other fails to adequately support their position.

In an informal debate, whatever obligations we have are subject to things like other demands on our time and simply whether we want to continue the debate. Informally, we don't have the any responsibility to back up why we reject an argument, because we don't have responsibilities generally... just consequences, as I said earlier.

If that person rejects the argument, then yes, they have a responsibility to understand why they have rejected it.

It seems that you're conflating two issues... either that or you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm talking about the responsibility to one's debate opponent to present reasons why we don't accept their argument.

Whatever a person's responsibility to themselves to understand why they believe what they believe, there's no particular reason why my responsibility to myself would entail an obligation to explain my thought processes to someone else.

I agree with you. And this illustrates why I think the whole burden of proof argument is bit of a farce. Everyone has a responsibility to defend their position. They are free not to, but it won't move the debate along any.

... but nobody has a responsibility to "move the debate along", especially in an informal setting. If I'm okay with someone not understanding why I reject his argument, I have no obligation whatsoever to explain my reasons to him.

That second paragraph indicates why I find the whole "burden of proof" to be rather arbitrary. We place a burden on people, but there's no standard by which we can know when it has been met. I think having people realize that they need to know why they reject the arguments made is one step towards making it a little less arbitrary.

I don't think that it's really that arbitrary, especially when we're talking about deductive arguments for God (i.e. arguments that are meant to support the conclusion "God MUST exist"). We have a pretty good handle on the rules of logic and can use them to tell whether an argument has mistakes on it. In these cases, "burden of proof" is pretty binary: an argument either works or it doesn't.

Inductive arguments need a bit more of a judgement call as to what's a "reasonable" burden of proof, but we still have objective tools available to us. For instance, as I've touched on before, if we set our burden of proof so low that mutually exclusive claims meet it simultaneously, then it's objectively too low... and I've never seen an argument for God that clears the bar when we set it high enough to address this issue.

IOW, I don't think that we need to be worried about the burden of proof being arbitrary until theistic arguments get much, much better.

 

[Falvlun]

Modal logic, then.

Everything I know about modal logic, I learned by reading online on my own. The modal ontological argument contains steps that look to me like jumping to conclusions. If I knew more modal logic, would I see that they're actually valid? I have no idea.

If you are unable to evaluate an argument, then, as I said before, I think the best you can say is "I don't know". You wouldn't know whether the theist has met his burden of proof or not.

BTW: I should ask the same thing of you. When I read your OP, I tried to think of behaviours I've seen on RF that could be construed to meet your descriptions. Whenever I've asked a question on that basis, you've told us that these things aren't what you're talking about. At this point, I'm not sure exactly where you saw the behaviour you described in the OP. A few examples would be very helpful.

I am talking about the behavior you and nearly every atheist in this thread has demonstrated: A reluctance to accept the responsibility to support the claims one makes within a debate.

Specifically, I am arguing against the concept that merely claiming that theists haven't met their burden of proof is enough, or is all atheists need to do within a debate or in their personal evaluation.

I really don't understand what context you're talking about, but in any context that I can think of, it's not true that everyone has the responsibility to support their claims.

In a formal debate with an established motion and individuals or teams arguing for and against it, the rules establish that one side (usually the opposition) "wins" in the case that the other fails to adequately support their position.

How is it known whether the other side fails to adequately support their position? In your example, I would think that the team would need to demonstrate the insufficiency of the arguments. They would not merely be allowed to state "They are insufficient, therefore, we win." They would need to support that claim.

In an informal debate, whatever obligations we have are subject to things like other demands on our time and simply whether we want to continue the debate. Informally, we don't have the any responsibility to back up why we reject an argument, because we don't have responsibilities generally... just consequences, as I said earlier.

And this is just as true of theist claims as it is of atheist claims. In other words, it's a non-issue. This is common sense.

It seems that you're conflating two issues... either that or you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm talking about the responsibility to one's debate opponent to present reasons why we don't accept their argument.

Whatever a person's responsibility to themselves to understand why they believe what they believe, there's no particular reason why my responsibility to myself would entail an obligation to explain my thought processes to someone else.

That's true. I was agreeing with you that just because someone wants to debate with you, doesn't mean you have to debate with him.

And in the case you have decided to debate someone, and this person has presented an argument, you don't necessarily have to respond to it. I think where you get locked in is when you say "That's not a good argument." or some such thing. That's when you have a debate responsibility to explain why it's not a good argument.

... but nobody has a responsibility to "move the debate along", especially in an informal setting. If I'm okay with someone not understanding why I reject his argument, I have no obligation whatsoever to explain my reasons to him.

Again, this is no different than the theist. This explains away the responsibility a theist has to support his argument just as much as it explains away your responsibility to explain your reasons. In other words, I don't really see how it helps your argument much.

I think it makes more sense to say that you had a responsibility within that debate, but chose not to fulfill it. You are allowed to shirk your responsibilities, obviously. This is all voluntary. But it just means that you haven't met your burden of proof.

I don't think that it's really that arbitrary, especially when we're talking about deductive arguments for God (i.e. arguments that are meant to support the conclusion "God MUST exist"). We have a pretty good handle on the rules of logic and can use them to tell whether an argument has mistakes on it. In these cases, "burden of proof" is pretty binary: an argument either works or it doesn't.

Inductive arguments need a bit more of a judgement call as to what's a "reasonable" burden of proof, but we still have objective tools available to us. For instance, as I've touched on before, if we set our burden of proof so low that mutually exclusive claims meet it simultaneously, then it's objectively too low... and I've never seen an argument for God that clears the bar when we set it high enough to address this issue.

IOW, I don't think that we need to be worried about the burden of proof being arbitrary until theistic arguments get much, much better.

I think what you say here has merit, but I still think that these explanations need to happen so arbitrariness can be ameliorated.

For example, it would be arbitrary if you can claim it hasn't been met simply because you were unable to understand the arguments, as in the Hungarian and modal logic examples. Or if you can claim that it hasn't been met, without giving any reasons at all.

 

[Willamena]

I really don't understand what context you're talking about, but in any context that I can think of, it's not true that everyone has the responsibility to support their claims.

In a formal debate with an established motion and individuals or teams arguing for and against it, the rules establish that one side (usually the opposition) "wins" in the case that the other fails to adequately support their position.

In an informal debate, whatever obligations we have are subject to things like other demands on our time and simply whether we want to continue the debate. Informally, we don't have the any responsibility to back up why we reject an argument, because we don't have responsibilities generally... just consequences, as I said earlier.

The responsibility, though, is shown in that if claims are made that cannot be supported, arguments fail.

 

[Thief]

The responsibility, though, is shown in that if claims are made that cannot be supported, arguments fail.

I claim God as Creator.

How about some assistance?...

Got a notion what you might consider as support?

(nothing physical....other than the universe)