Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[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........

: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.

The more I think about this, the unbeliever wins, because he almost has to use the most words. :yes:
dawkins needs to get off his high horse and debate craig.
all those who watch those debates are wanting them to debate so bad they would pay anything to see it.
dawkins/craig can just recite my example and add their own creations and puns.
would be epic funny, and the funds can help feed the poor, both would agree to that, I assume.
everyone wins.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

I can imagine a hypothetical individual were these generalities may not necessarily be universally accepted. In this case you are only showing that we have experiences in common that we can agree need no further justification for acceptance. However we can't assume their universal acceptance in all cases. They are good enough for us to accept these as realities between us.

Other individuals have other experiences that between them there is no need to further justify what they accept as fact. Any of the facts you mentioned above, if we were trying to convince someone of their existence that lacked the common experience we would have a difficult time to prove their existence.

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.

Sure, but it is IMO up to me to test all of these ideas before rejecting them. If you are not rejecting them then you are allowing for the possibility of their existence. If you are allowing for their existence then you cannot condemn the believer for their belief.

So the theist Christian has as much justification for their belief as the non-theist Taoist. There is no need for either to further justify their belief. If I can disprove their belief then I can suitably reject whatever "truths" they want to put forward. If I can't disprove their beliefs then what justification do I have to reject their truths?

Sure you need not accept these "truths" personally claiming they have not met their burden of proof. They claim they have and that claim is accept among hundreds of thousands of people not because of it being proven but because of a commonality of experience.

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

Evidence is not need among those that have accepted truth as a result of common experience. It is needed among those who do not share these common experiences,

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.

That's fine, then there is no issue. Theism can happily go about it business without opposition.

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.

It hasn't been established to your satisfaction. It has been established to the satisfaction of others. Without opposition why shouldn't this group go forth promoting its truths among all others who will listen?

 

[Willamena]

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........

The (positive) assertion, "Then he doesn't exist," based on nothing more than someone else's inability to prove he exists is not rational. Unless you really, really like teapots... oh, and I have a bridge to sell you.

But this thread is about rational arguments.

 

[Magic Man]

Evidence is not need among those that have accepted truth as a result of common experience. It is need among those who do not share these common experiences,

The only issue I have with this is that this is about the only thing believers use a lesser standard of evidence for. When you have a debate between a believer and non-believer, the believer provides some level of evidence that satisfies them but not the non-believer. The non-believer just wants the same level of evidence as humans generally require for all new claims. The believer with most claims would require the exact same level of evidence as the non-believer, but in this one instance they ignore that requirement.

For instance, if I told a believer that invisible dragons are flying around the skies of New York right now, they automatically assume the "a-invisible-New-York-Dragons" view and want evidence. If I told them that I heard it from some friends and through a spirit, there's very little chance they'd accept it. If I had others tell them it's true, they probably still wouldn't accept it. They'd most likely require some kind of hard evidence, like scientists testing for the dragons and giving infrared scans or thermal scans or something. Something pretty concrete.

That's all non-believers are asking of believers.

It hasn't been established to your satisfaction. It has been established to the satisfaction of others. Without opposition why shouldn't this group go forth promoting its truths among all others who will listen?

It has every right to do that, but it still bears the burden of evidence in an argument about its veracity.

 

[Magic Man]

The (positive) assertion, "Then he doesn't exist," based on nothing more than someone else's inability to prove he exists is not rational. Unless you really, really like teapots... oh, and I have a bridge to sell you.

But this thread is about rational arguments.

There's nothing irrational about dismissing a positive statement that has no solid evidence.

There are real fire-breathing dragon eggs about to hatch in Antarctica.

It's safe to dismiss that claim until someone shows some real evidence for it.

 

[Willamena]

There's nothing irrational about dismissing a positive statement that has no solid evidence.

It is if your conclusion is a posit.

There are real fire-breathing dragon eggs about to hatch in Antarctica.

It's safe to dismiss that claim until someone shows some real evidence for it.

I cannot say, "Then there are no dragon eggs about to hatch in Antartica," without putting myself on a par with those who would profess that there is a teapot orbiting Mars. This is what the burden of proof is about.

 

[Thief]

It is if your conclusion is a posit.


I cannot say, "Then there are no dragon eggs about to hatch in Antartica," without putting myself on a par with those who would profess that there is a teapot orbiting Mars. This is what the burden of proof is about.

I prefer the realm of likelihood.
Imagination is the problem solving part of the mind.
We can't do any of this without imagination.

But if we must confront every extreme of imagination and subdue it....
we will never get anywhere.

I can say....there is a God.
I believe in God.
I do so because of an axiom of science.
Cause and effect.

 

[Magic Man]

It is if your conclusion is a posit.

No, it's not. It's the rational response. It's just another way of saying "prove it".

I cannot say, "Then there are no dragon eggs about to hatch in Antartica," without putting myself on a par with those who would profess that there is a teapot orbiting Mars. This is what the burden of proof is about.

No, you can say exactly that without being on par with those who claim it. We already know for many reasons the existence of real fire-breathing dragons is ridiculously unlikely, as are their eggs. So we already can reasonably make the claim that such eggs don't exist. It's no more unreasonable to make the claim in response to someone claiming they do exist in a far off place.

 

[Thief]

No, it's not. It's the rational response. It's just another way of saying "prove it".



No, you can say exactly that without being on par with those who claim it. We already know for many reasons the existence of real fire-breathing dragons is ridiculously unlikely, as are their eggs. So we already can reasonably make the claim that such eggs don't exist. It's no more unreasonable to make the claim in response to someone claiming they do exist in a far off place.

Asking for proof in a topic that is understood to have no proof....is irrational.

 

[Willamena]

I prefer the realm of likelihood.
Imagination is the problem solving part of the mind.
We can't do any of this without imagination.

But if we must confront every extreme of imagination and subdue it....
we will never get anywhere.

I can say....there is a God.
I believe in God.
I do so because of an axiom of science.
Cause and effect.

I believe in things I know. It's the realm of anti-realism.

 

[Willamena]

No, it's not. It's the rational response. It's just another way of saying "prove it".

And yet, in hearing, "Well then he doesn't exist," sans the "nah-nah-nah-nah-nah," I am not childishly inspired to run out and prove anything. I'm more inspired to sigh.

No, you can say exactly that without being on par with those who claim it. We already know for many reasons the existence of real fire-breathing dragons is ridiculously unlikely, as are their eggs. So we already can reasonably make the claim that such eggs don't exist. It's no more unreasonable to make the claim in response to someone claiming they do exist in a far off place.

All posits are on equal par, as seen in that they carry the burden of proof.

 

[McBell]

Asking for proof in a topic that is understood to have no proof....is irrational.

Hiding behind faith is cowardly.

 

[Thief]

And yet, in hearing, "Well then he doesn't exist," sans the "nah-nah-nah-nah-nah," I am not childishly inspired to run out and prove anything. I'm more inspired to sigh.


All posits are on equal par, as seen in that they carry the burden of proof.

Are there not items considered self-proving?
(theology might be a bit slippery here)

 

[Thief]

Hiding behind faith is cowardly.

Shallow accusation of fear....is low.....very looooooooow......

 

[Magic Man]

Asking for proof in a topic that is understood to have no proof....is irrational.

Indeed, but asking for evidence for a positive claim is not irrational.

 

[Sabour]

Sorry to interrupt you guys, but I really have to say this but the proof is the holy Quraan.

Easy on me guys

 

[Thief]

Indeed, but asking for evidence for a positive claim is not irrational.

And a positive effort of explanation works for you?
I think Cause and effect are inseparable.
Works for me.

 

[Magic Man]

And yet, in hearing, "Well then he doesn't exist," sans the "nah-nah-nah-nah-nah," I am not childishly inspired to run out and prove anything. I'm more inspired to sigh.

In other words it's perfectly rational to say; you just don't like the tone of it. I can understand that, but it's still a rational response.

All posits are on equal par, as seen in that they carry the burden of proof.

If you want to get that technical, then the point is we already have plenty of evidence that dragon eggs don't exist. That's why it's up to the person making the positive claim about them to support the claim. Same with gods. Same with any extraordinary claim. But generally the rejection of a claim before anything has been established is not on par with a positive claim.

 

[Magic Man]

And a positive effort of explanation works for you?

I don't know what this means.

I think Cause and effect are inseparable.
Works for me.

If you're referring to God as the original cause, the argument fails, since by the same logic God would need a cause.

 

[Thief]

I don't know what this means.



If you're referring to God as the original cause, the argument fails, since by the same logic God would need a cause.

There's a new thread about that going on....