Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Willamena]

I claim God as Creator.

How about some assistance?...

Got a notion what you might consider as support?

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

Sure. God of the gaps.

 

[Thief]

So Cause and effect don't work for you?

 

[Willamena]

So Cause and effect don't work for you?

In so far as the distinction between a cause and an effect is arbitrary, no.

 

[Thief]

Bob slaps Fred. The cause of Bob slapping Fred was something Fred said, but Fred's having said it was simply to get Bob to slap him.

Which is the cause and which the effect?

More like singularity about to 'pop'.

Note the rotation.

I say the 'spin' came from the 'snap' of God's fingers.

Otherwise the bang would have been a simple hollow expansion.
One pulse wave with no rotation.

 

[Ingledsva]

More like singularity about to 'pop'.

Note the rotation.

I say the 'spin' came from the 'snap' of God's fingers.

Otherwise the bang would have been a simple hollow expansion.
One pulse wave with no rotation.

Or there was already spin on one side when the branes touched. Or the way they came together caused spin in the bleedthrough.



*

 

[Thief]

Or there was already spin on one side when the branes touched. Or the way they came together caused spin in the bleedthrough.



*

And the source of all that would be....Who?

 

[Willamena]

It seems to me that if there is a god to be held responsible for all that is, it is responsible for causes and effects, it isn't one of them.

 

[Willamena]

More like singularity about to 'pop'.

Note the rotation.

I say the 'spin' came from the 'snap' of God's fingers.

Otherwise the bang would have been a simple hollow expansion.
One pulse wave with no rotation.

None of that makes any sense to me.

 

[Ouroboros]

I say the 'spin' came from the 'snap' of God's fingers.

But what made God's finger snap?

God's mind?

What made God's mind decide to snap?

God's mind?

What made God's mind decide to decide to snap?

God's mind?

What made God's mind decide to decide to decide to snap?

God's mind?

What ...

 

[Ouroboros]

It seems to me that if there is a god to be held responsible for all that is, it is responsible for causes and effects, it isn't one of them.

Exactly.

God is the cause-and-effect, the causality itself. Not cause, not effect.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly.

God is the cause-and-effect, the causality itself. Not cause, not effect.

I'm not sure how you're distinguishing between causality and cause and effect, but by the same token it's not causality either.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm not sure how you're distinguishing between causality and cause and effect, but by the same token it's not causality either.

The framework for which cause-and-effect can exist within. To say God is just a cause is to limit God to only one side of the equation. God is the whole equation, not just left or right side of it.

In art, they use terms like substrate and format which comes closer to the foundation for existence. Cause is the action within existence, not existence itself.

Something like that. I'm sure I'm not making much sense, but that's okay. Words fail to explain my views.

 

[Falvlun]

But what made God's finger snap?

God's mind?

What made God's mind decide to snap?

God's mind?

What made God's mind decide to decide to snap?

God's mind?

What made God's mind decide to decide to decide to snap?

God's mind?

What ...

This hurt my brain.

 

[Ouroboros]

This hurt my brain.

Sorry!

...

Not!!!

Having one crazy thought a day that hurts our brain keeps it healthy and young... I hppe, or I'm screwed...

 

[Thief]

But what made God's finger snap?

God's mind?

What made God's mind decide to snap?

God's mind?

What made God's mind decide to decide to snap?

God's mind?

What made God's mind decide to decide to decide to snap?

God's mind?

What ...

We get to ask Him when we get there.

And of course....Someone had to First in mind and heart.

 

[cottage]

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?

Disbelief itself is not a claim. ‘There is no God’ is a claim.

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.

I can see you are missing the point of what I’m arguing. Of course, just as with any argument, a proposition carries with it a burden of proof in the general sense of supporting what is asserted. But theism is an existential proposition where the term ‘burden of proof’ means exactly what it says in the most literal sense. In contrast, the sceptic can only examine and object to arguments made by the theist, and cannot prove the non-existence of the asserted entity. If ‘God exists’ is the central premise, the positive assertion, then it is for the theist to prove the truth of what is asserted; there is no burden upon the disbeliever to disprove it. And the supposed truth isn’t carried as a result of a weak or confused challenge.

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

Indeed! I’ve never said otherwise.

(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.)

The concept of God is not innate, meaning it isn’t an idea that we have throughout our species from birth. And ‘general experience’ refers to the experience and the common grasp of facts and reality that we all share. And we certainly do not all share god-belief. God isn’t evident in general experience.

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.

On the terms I explained above. (I’ll expand more on that when I’ve had your response)

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.

Is it honestly being suggested that folk don’t know why they disbelieve in gods? Isn’t that just a tad patronising then! But come on, if gods don’t exist in general experience, and they are not an a priori truth or an innate idea, then disbelief is more than adequately justified without any navel-gazing or self-analysis.

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.

I can see why you might want to propose that from a theist/agnostic viewpoint. But if anything it is the theists that should examine their own position, to see why they believe in the supernatural, miracles & Co. A genuine enquiry would examine the arguments that are made for other-worldly beings rather than expect those that do not share the belief to justify their lack of faith.

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.

That’s a believers’ argument and it is a preposterous presumption.
It’s more a case that believers should examine their own beliefs in the light of their extraordinary and sometimes contradictory or illogical claims. That is more reasonable by far.

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.

Yes, if you’re inclined to god-belief, otherwise it is a poor argument bordering on the fallacious.

That a majority thinks something is credible doesn’t make a thing credible. Majorities aren’t synonymous with credibility. Democracy for example gives people a say in decisions that affect their lives, rightly or wrongly, but here is no implication or presumption that, because of the greater number, any majority decision will be the most correct or worthy political philosophy. Some of the worst regimes in history have had overwhelming support from their people. The term ‘majority’ only refers to a (questionable) statistical truth and is no different from saying ‘Floods made eight out of ten people in a town homeless’ or ‘Eighty out of every hundred women prefer white bread.’ From a true fact that the majority of people believe something, it doesn’t follow that their beliefs can in fact be true.

However a majority believing in supposed mystical truths is significant, due not to their supposed credibility but from the point of view that those in a majority are in a position to affect the lives of the rest of us. And that is a further reason why they, not the minority, must bear the onus of proof.

 

[cottage]

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

General experience is gravity, the rising of the sun, the principle of cause and effect, night following day, the changing seasons, hunger, thirst, cold and heat, love and hate, pain and pleasure, growth and development, death and disease etc. And in addition to general experience there is common knowledge: Paris is in France, the earth revolves around the sun, deciduous trees lose their leaves in winter, a triangle is a three sided concept or object, etc, etc.

Now while there is general, widespread assent to these things among the religious and non-religious only the former believe in gods, and even then we must ask what precisely is it that the ‘religious majority’ believe? If it is being said that belief in gods is the essential criterion, then as a result of that statement the ‘majority’ is immediately and savagely reduced, because a belief in deities isn’t a requirement for Buddhists, Pagans, Taoists, world worshipers, other non-theistic religions, or individuals who hold to speculative otherworldly beliefs. And nor is the term ‘spirituality’ to be automatically conjoined with theism, either. If the appeal to other believers warrants plausibility due to ‘millions’ believing in gods, then there would need to be a unifying and non-contradictory conception of all those gods – and there is not. Self-evidently, ‘God’, the Supreme Being, is not compatible with polytheism, as a direct contradiction is involved, and if one religion believes Jesus was the Son of God, while another denies that fundamental article of faith (Christianity v Islam and Judaism), then straight off there is obvious disparity and disagreement among three of the world’s largest belief systems. And it appears that no two theists have exactly the same idea of a creator God, for even St Thomas suggested that the material world might have always existed.

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 argument from religious experience isn’t really an argument at all because nothing is being offered in the way of evidence for it.

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.

I’m not sure what you mean by not seeing anything special or more valid in atheism than theism. Atheism isn’t a world view; it doesn’t make promises or threats and it doesn’t presume to know the nature of the world, or being itself, in the way that theism does.

The distinction to be made is that theism is a claim to the truth, a claim which throughout history has never been established, whereas atheism by comparison is not a claim to the truth but only a response to theism. Theism presumes to tell us what is, while never demonstrating it, whilst atheism simply observes what there isn’t.

 

[kashmir]

Hey...God exists,
prove he exists,
I cant,
well then he doesn't exist,
prove he doesn't exist,
I cant, you said he exists, YOU prove he exists,
I cant,
well then he doesn't exist,
prove he doesn't exist,
I cant, you're the one who said he exists, SO prove he exists,
I cant,
then he doesn't exist,
prove he doesn't exist........

 

[cottage]

Hey...God exists,
prove he exists,
I cant,
well then he doesn't exist,
prove he doesn't exist,
I cant, you said he exists, YOU prove he exists,
I cant,
well then he doesn't exist,
prove he doesn't exist,
I cant, you're the one who said he exists, SO prove he exists,
I cant,
then he doesn't exist,
prove he doesn't exist........

:clap Very good!

But joking aside though, from a lack of proof for ‘God exists’ it doesn’t follow that God doesn’t exist, but only that the proposition is unproven. And by the same token, that God cannot be disproved does not find for the proposition by default.

 

[Thief]

Except of course....I exist....you exist....and we are not our own handiwork.

I say....God exists.