Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Falvlun]

I am sure glad that in medical science it is considered good practice to demand proof before approving and using a new medical procedure. I guess however that our souls are not nearly as important as our physical bodies.

I'm also glad that in science if someone says "Nuh uh. Your study doesn't show what you say it shows", they need to back that claim up.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm also glad that in science if someone says "Nuh uh. Your study doesn't show what you say it shows", they need to back that claim up.

Sure, but you would agree that in this case the burden of proof is entirely on the shoulders of the party who produced the study right?

The party who has come up with the new procedure bears the burden of proof for establishing it's efficacy.

 

[Thief]

This would be theology.
No evidence will be presented.

 

[atanu]

I am sure glad that in medical science it is considered good practice to demand proof before approving and using a new medical procedure. I guess however that our souls are not nearly as important as our physical bodies.

Sure.

Much simpler may be to think whether there is any 'label' that is not based on an understanding?

What is that understanding behind the label 'atheism'? Whether that understanding, has any foundation of its own? Or is it simply "I am an atheist because my theist neighbour failed to provide any satisfactory proof of his theism."?

 

[Magic Man]

I'm also glad that in science if someone says "Nuh uh. Your study doesn't show what you say it shows", they need to back that claim up.

Yes, they would have to show how and why the study is wrong. They wouldn't have to prove the negative claim. It's the same with the God debate. It's up to the believers to produce the evidence and support the claim. If they present something that's supposed to be evidence, the nonbelievers don't have to then prove God doesn't exist, just that the evidence the believers provided isn't real evidence.

 

[Thief]

Yes, they would have to show how and why the study is wrong. They wouldn't have to prove the negative claim. It's the same with the God debate. It's up to the believers to produce the evidence and support the claim. If they present something that's supposed to be evidence, the nonbelievers don't have to then prove God doesn't exist, just that the evidence the believers provided isn't real evidence.

No...no....no....
As we all know....this is theology.
No evidence will happen.

 

[Falvlun]

Sure, but you would agree that in this case the burden of proof is entirely on the shoulders of the party who produced the study right?

The party who has come up with the new procedure bears the burden of proof for establishing it's efficacy.

The party who says "This study shows X" has the burden of proof to demonstrate that "This study shows X".

The party who says "This study does not show X" has the burden of proof to demonstrate that "This study does not show X".

 

[Falvlun]

Yes, they would have to show how and why the study is wrong. They wouldn't have to prove the negative claim. It's the same with the God debate. It's up to the believers to produce the evidence and support the claim. If they present something that's supposed to be evidence, the nonbelievers don't have to then prove God doesn't exist, just that the evidence the believers provided isn't real evidence.

Exactly. That's the nonbelievers' burden of proof: To demonstrate why the evidence is insufficient to support the claim.

EDIT:
Unless, of course, the nonbelievers claim that gods don't exist, which some do. Then they would have to support that claim.

 

[Willamena]

Sure, but you would agree that in this case the burden of proof is entirely on the shoulders of the party who produced the study right?

Except the burden that isn't.

 

[Magic Man]

No...no....no....
As we all know....this is theology.
No evidence will happen.

Oh, obviously we know no evidence will happen, but if the believer wants their claim to be taken seriously, it's up to them to support it.

 

[Magic Man]

Exactly. That's the nonbelievers' burden of proof: To demonstrate why the evidence is insufficient to support the claim.

Sure, but the burden of proof is still on the believer at that point. They still need to prove their claim. All the nonbeliever has to do is show where their evidence fails.

EDIT:
Unless, of course, the nonbelievers claim that gods don't exist, which some do. Then they would have to support that claim.

Not until there's legitimate reason to think the positive claim could be true. If someone says they have pink dragons in their back yard and says the fact that they've seen them is their evidence, I don't have to prove there aren't pink dragons in their back yard to reasonably take the position that there aren't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The party who says "This study shows X" has the burden of proof to demonstrate that "This study shows X".

The party who says "This study does not show X" has the burden of proof to demonstrate that "This study does not show X".

Again: not every rejection of a study amounts to a claim of "this study does not show X". Often, it's more like "the paper describing the study doesn't allow me to confirm that X has been shown." In these cases, the burden of proof is still on the researcher, who now has to substantiate why the paper or study ought to be considered confirmation of X, or revise the paper to describe the underlying study better.

... or not. If the researcher doesn't care about getting the paper accepted, he or she can just set it aside and work on something else.

Edit: it's the difference between "you have made an error" and "I can't tell whether you've made an error". Both bring the conclusion into question, and both are rational reasons not to accept an argument, but only one has a burden of proof associated with it.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Thief I think you missed MM's point. Ideally theology is based on faith, which is where it should remain. But when believers attempt to use evidence to back up their claims of God(s), it then becomes an issue where that evidence has to be backed up by some sort of facts. There is a lot of religious folk trying to put forth real world evidence to back up their theological claims these days.

Any time they claim evidence, they have to be able to prove their evidence is acceptable according to the laws of evidence.

 

[Willamena]

No, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. It is part and parcel of making a claim.

To claim no burden because the other person has one is not only irrational but silly.

 

[Falvlun]

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

So is "You have not met the burden of proof". That's a claim.

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.

Eureka!

But theism is an existential proposition where the term ‘burden of proof’ means exactly what it says in the most literal sense.

I don't think there are any literal burdens here...

Also, it's not very fair to claim that I am using the term "burden of proof" incorrectly when the problem is that you were referring to it's literal special sense, rather than it's general one.

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.

This isn't true. Skeptics are fully free to investigate matters themselves. There is nothing illogical or impossible about this. I agree that in the strictures of a debate, they do not necessarily have this responsibility. But that is different from your statement that "the sceptic can only examine and object to arguments made by the theist".

Also, "proving non-existence" is really a strawman. We can't prove many things. But we can support why we believe what we do. It is very possible to defend the position that gods do not exist, even though it may not be possible to categorically prove that they do not.

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.

Of course "God exists" is not proven simply due to poor arguing on the part of the skeptic. That would be the argument from ignorance.

But, if the claim that the theist has not met the burden of proof is left unsupported, then we shouldn't assume that it is the truth either.

Also note: In a debate, there is no burden upon a disbeliever to disprove the existence of God. But s/he does have a responsibility to understand why they do not believe that gods exist.

Indeed! I’ve never said otherwise.

That seems to be the thrust of your argument: That the theist's burden is so special and unique that it basically supersedes any other responsibility, or else, obviates the need for any response.

Yes, I know that you have stated that people have the responsibility to support their counter-arguments. But it is hard to square that when you say things like this:

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.

From post 1072, my bolding

A person need not even make the argument. Lack of belief is warranted, period.

 

[Aristophanes]

Exactly. That's the nonbelievers' burden of proof: To demonstrate why the evidence is insufficient to support the claim.

EDIT:
Unless, of course, the nonbelievers claim that gods don't exist, which some do. Then they would have to support that claim.

The pursuit of truth is not divided into lines of non-believer and believer. Those who value truth over opinion will willing accept the burden of proof themselves. This debate is like kids fighting over who is going to take out the trash. The real division here is, as Plato would put it, "lovers of truth" and "lovers of opinion". I value truth and I take it upon myself to uncover it.

 

[Thief]

Thief I think you missed MM's point. Ideally theology is based on faith, which is where it should remain. But when believers attempt to use evidence to back up their claims of God(s), it then becomes an issue where that evidence has to be backed up by some sort of facts. There is a lot of religious folk trying to put forth real world evidence to back up their theological claims these days.

Any time they claim evidence, they have to be able to prove their evidence is acceptable according to the laws of evidence.

yeah didn't miss your point.....you missed mine.

Asking 'proof' for an item we all agree of which there will be none....
Is a bad argument.

 

[Magic Man]

yeah didn't miss your point.....you missed mine.

Asking 'proof' for an item we all agree of which there will be none....
Is a bad argument.

1) You missed the point. If someone wants their claim that God exists to be accepted by others who don't start with the assumption, they have to support the claim with evidence.

2) If you want to just go with the faith angle for believing in God, fine, but then why apply that standard of evidence in that one particular area while requiring a normal standard of evidence for everything else?

 

[Thief]

1) You missed the point. If someone wants their claim that God exists to be accepted by others who don't start with the assumption, they have to support the claim with evidence.

2) If you want to just go with the faith angle for believing in God, fine, but then why apply that standard of evidence in that one particular area while requiring a normal standard of evidence for everything else?

And faith requires no proving....see Webster's.

You can't put God on trial.
The universe won't fit in the petri dish.
No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no repeatable experiment.
No proof.

The burden will never be relieved by evidence.

You just have to think about it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The party who says "This study shows X" has the burden of proof to demonstrate that "This study shows X".

The party who says "This study does not show X" has the burden of proof to demonstrate that "This study does not show X".

I've just been told that I bear the BoP since my opinion differs from the 'scholarly consensus' (regarding the historical Jesus).

I hear that a lot. Sometimes choicers will declare that the anti-abortionists have the BoP since abortion is, after all, legal.

In other words, if you're not in the majority, you have the burden of proof.