Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[McBell]

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

Your dislike of the fact does not alter the fact.

 

[Willamena]

In other words it's perfectly rational to say; you just don't like the tone of it.

Yes. If you're 10 years old. It shouldn't work on most grown-ups though. Most will see through rhetoric.

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.

Indeed, you can make a posit about the probability of dragon eggs.

 

[Thief]

Your dislike of the fact does not alter the fact.

I like to say God did it.
I don't make discussion just cause you don't like it'

That's a fact.

 

[McBell]

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

Easy on me guys

Um...
The Quraan?
Or is it Koran?
Or perhaps Quran?

 

[Thief]

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

Easy on me guys

Easy does it.
I just prefer the first two chapters of Genesis.

 

[McBell]

I like to say God did it.

Yes, I know.
You use that line mostly to divert attention from that which you do not want others to look closely at.

In this particular case, the fact that you hide behind your faith.

I don't make discussion just cause you don't like it'

That's a fact.

I strongly suspect you merely like hearing the sound of your own voice.

One thing I am curious about is why you hide behind your faith when your faith is so weak?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Um...
The Quraan?
Or is it Koran?
Or perhaps Quran?

He has always spelled it 'Quraan'... from his first appearance here. I don't remember seeing that spelling before now, but he probably has his reasons.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Non-believer also use a lessor standard of evidence for things they have personal experience with. Something you've seen/experienced for yourself you are more likely to accept the testimony of others having similar experiences. You end up judging someone else's truth based on your lack of experience. You ask for an uncommon amount of evidence because of your lack of experience.

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.

Only because they didn't see the dragons for themselves. If they had they really wouldn't need much evidence to be convinced.

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

Only among those lacking in experience.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes. If you're 10 years old. It shouldn't work on most grown-ups though. Most will see through rhetoric.

Yes, we've established you don't like it, but it's still rational. There is nothing to see through, though. It's your prerogative to see it as childish, as is my prerogative to see this response of yours as childish. But yet again, it's still rational to respond with the negative statement.

 

[work in progress]

Hiding behind faith is cowardly.

I don't get all bent out of shape, like typical atheist activists, about people who want to believe that we live in a universe created by an intelligent force (God), because I don't believe atheism, nor eradicating religions and supernatural beliefs should be a primary goal...at least it's not for me.

And, I get a little nauseated by standard atheist/humanists who claim that they have no faith-based beliefs, when they have ONE glaringly obvious faith-based belief that they either deny or don't recognize because it has become so universally accepted and approved - Faith in Progress.

And when I consider how clear evidence that a looming ecological catastrophe will wipe out the human race and likely all other complex multicellular life some time around or shortly after the end of this century, I believe that this secular faith in human intelligence and human ingenuity to invent our way out of a clear dead end, is in fact the most dangerous faith of all.

Faith in progress of technology and innovation, is the primary reason why we are still running economies based on the principle of continued exponential growth and consumption. If humans had a little less hubris and a lot more respect for how nature makes this planet liveable for all species, we wouldn't be on a path to destruction right now.

The only thing that will save us now is a complete reversal of humanism's principle that we have freed ourselves from the bounds of nature, to going back to understanding that we have to live within whatever natural limits are provided.

 

[Sabour]

Easy does it.
I just prefer the first two chapters of Genesis.

And those would be ?

 

[Sabour]

Um...
The Quraan?
Or is it Koran?
Or perhaps Quran?

The reason is I say Quraan is that I think the way I write it is the closest to how we pronounce it in Arabic.

A double "aa" is needed to show the letter. I prefer to start with a Q instead of K too.

He has always spelled it 'Quraan'... from his first appearance here. I don't remember seeing that spelling before now, but he probably has his reasons.

I am impressed that are paying such close attention. ( your line )

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The reason is I say Quraan is that I think the way I write it is the closest to how we pronounce it in Arabic.

A double "aa" is needed to show the letter. I prefer to start with a Q instead of K too.

I've always written it "Qur'an". I'm not sure where I picked up the apostrophe, but I think it was how it was written in my school, and it just kind of stuck with me. Nobody has ever really told me that it's weird or incorrect, and I've seen so many different spellings over the years, so I just decided I'll stick with it.

 

[Magic Man]

Non-believer also use a lessor standard of evidence for things they have personal experience with. Something you've seen/experienced for yourself you are more likely to accept the testimony of others having similar experiences. You end up judging someone else's truth based on your lack of experience. You ask for an uncommon amount of evidence because of your lack of experience.

You might assume something is true without getting all the evidence, sure. But when the issue is brought up, it becomes clear you've accepted something without evidence. It's happened to me, and then I recognize it and correct it. I tend not to continue arguing for the position without evidence.

Only because they didn't see the dragons for themselves. If they had they really wouldn't need much evidence to be convinced.

Kind of hard to see invisible dragons. That's the point. Believers haven't seen God either. They have had experiences they attribute to God, but those experiences have plenty of other easier explanations.

Only among those lacking in experience.

Only among those using reason.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And when I consider how clear evidence that a looming ecological catastrophe will wipe out the human race and likely all other complex multicellular life some time around or shortly after the end of this century, I believe that this secular faith in human intelligence and human ingenuity to invent our way out of a clear dead end, is in fact the most dangerous faith of all.

Don't worry. There'll be no such ecological catastrophe.

Growth is good. Progress is the purpose of life.

The only thing that will save us now is a complete reversal of humanism's principle that we have freed ourselves from the bounds of nature, to going back to understanding that we have to live within whatever natural limits are provided.

I thought the only thing that could save us was being reborn as Christians?

It's so hard to remember how to save myself! Sometimes I despair.

 

[Sabour]

I've always written it "Qur'an". I'm not sure where I picked up the apostrophe, but I think it was how it was written in my school, and it just kind of stuck with me. Nobody has ever really told me that it's weird or incorrect, and I've seen so many different spellings over the years, so I just decided I'll stick with it.

Actually that is a better way of writing it than with a double a.

 

[Nakosis]

You might assume something is true without getting all the evidence, sure. But when the issue is brought up, it becomes clear you've accepted something without evidence. It's happened to me, and then I recognize it and correct it. I tend not to continue arguing for the position without evidence.

Many believe they have evidence. Until someone comes along to prove otherwise they continue to believe their position is supported.

Kind of hard to see invisible dragons. That's the point. Believers haven't seen God either. They have had experiences they attribute to God, but those experiences have plenty of other easier explanations.

Actually a number believe they have. Google "I've seen God". Yes they may have other explanations and if you can prove these other explanations then we are done. That is kind of the point here. Whether you will take the burden to disprove the position that God exists or let the Theist continue on their merry way believing their claim is supported.

Only among those using reason.

Many prefer faith over reason and feel themselves justify in doing so. No one around to take on the burden of proving otherwise?

 

[McBell]

I don't get all bent out of shape, like typical atheist activists, about people who want to believe that we live in a universe created by an intelligent force (God), because I don't believe atheism, nor eradicating religions and supernatural beliefs should be a primary goal...at least it's not for me.

And, I get a little nauseated by standard atheist/humanists who claim that they have no faith-based beliefs, when they have ONE glaringly obvious faith-based belief that they either deny or don't recognize because it has become so universally accepted and approved - Faith in Progress.

And when I consider how clear evidence that a looming ecological catastrophe will wipe out the human race and likely all other complex multicellular life some time around or shortly after the end of this century, I believe that this secular faith in human intelligence and human ingenuity to invent our way out of a clear dead end, is in fact the most dangerous faith of all.

Faith in progress of technology and innovation, is the primary reason why we are still running economies based on the principle of continued exponential growth and consumption. If humans had a little less hubris and a lot more respect for how nature makes this planet liveable for all species, we wouldn't be on a path to destruction right now.

The only thing that will save us now is a complete reversal of humanism's principle that we have freed ourselves from the bounds of nature, to going back to understanding that we have to live within whatever natural limits are provided.

And if the atheists you mention hid behind their faith as does Thief, i would call them on it just like I do Thief.

Perhaps you had another point?

 

[Thief]

And if the atheists you mention hid behind their faith as does Thief, i would call them on it just like I do Thief.

Perhaps you had another point?

I'm not hiding.....here I am!

And the point you were about to make was what?

 

[cottage]

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.

It seems to me that the ‘commonality’ is the vagueness in what is said in making a case for arguments from religious experience. But I’m not questioning an individual’s justification for his/her own belief; that’s none of my business. On the contrary, what I am questioning is the OP’s misconceived notion that disbelief (or belief) in a supernatural being (or beings) has to be openly justified.

It is only assertions and stated judgements that must be defended. I disbelieve there is a God, but that isn’t to say no God exists, since that is something I cannot prove. So I am making no judgement or assertion in that respect. However I can conclude from propositions in a given argument that ‘God exists’ is false. For example: if God is X and it is said ‘No Y where there is X’, and Y exists then it follows that no-X is true. But notice that I haven’t proved God’s non-existence, which in any case is impossible; so we are where we began and the burden of proof is still with the theist’s existential claim that asserts that god exists is a true belief.

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.

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

But only when the matter is brought into the public arena and declared a truth, in which case evidence for its asserted truth is expected. ‘I believe in God’ and ‘God exists’ are two very different statements, as are: ‘I disbelieve there is a God’ and ‘There is no God’. No justification is required for either of the examples with the ‘I’ prefix.

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

That depends upon what you mean by ‘going about its business’, for that is a very ambiguous phrase. If its business means making promises or threats, presuming to make decisions that affect the rest of us on the basis of a doctrinal belief then there most certainly is an issue.

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?

What I’m saying is the existence of God has never been proved, despite its being held as something true. And if it’s being promoted as a truth, then the group must be prepared to take on the burden of proof. And am I not ‘among all others who will listen’, because isn’t listening what I’m doing now, or did you mean only those that are already inclined or disposed towards mysticism and are likely not to question it?