Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Bunyip]

No, Doom is right. That these disciplines deal in non-falsifiable theories is why they are regarded as "soft" sciences. Many of the theories used to explain trends are impossible to falsify for various reasons. They don't rely strictly on empirical evidence as the "hard" sciences do. This was actually one of the major discussion points of a personality psychology class I took in undergrad: that there are many competing theories of personality, and given the lack of falsifiability in the discipline, all of them have explanatory power.

We were referring to hypothesis, not theories - but while I take your point about 'soft' sciences, the fields in question do still tend to favour empirical, verifyable and falsifyable hypothesis. It is indeed more difficult to apply the same rigour as is found in the 'hard' sciences, however anthropologists (for example) do still focus as much as possible on testable and falsifyable hypothesis and vast quantities of data. Evidences of purely anecdotal form such as the evidences presented by theism are not given the same sort of weight as are more substantial forms of evidence.

I would also point out that the term 'soft science' is used much less now. Psychology and sociology for example are no longer considered to be soft sciences as the technology to gather reliable empirical data has emerged. The same goes for anthropology, many of the sub-fields of anthropology follow the same scientific method as other 'hard' sciences.

 

[Willamena]

That's just it: I do think that most atheists can defend their beliefs. Admittedly, it irritates me when, instead of doing so, the claim is made that they have nothing to defend, or have no need to defend anything. That seems pointless to me on a personal level.

bingo.

 

[Willamena]

The burden of proof cannot be shifted onto the atheist until God is defined in falsifiable terms by the theist. Until then it is literally impossible to even attempt to disprove God's existence and therefore perfectly reasonable to reject the existence of God and anything else that is not defined in falsifiable terms.

It's not a shifting of burden. Atheists have their own burden.

 

[Willamena]

The problem here is that Christianity is a faith based religion. Followers are not convinced by the available evidence, but through an act of faith.

So why would atheists need to explain why they find the evidence and arguments for god lacking, when those same evidences and arguments are not what convinced people to believe anyway?

What is the "act of faith"?

 

[steeltoes]

It's not a shifting of burden. Atheists have their own burden.

And what would that be?

 

[Willamena]

Then please tell us how one could prove the non existence of invisible.

Invisible exists.

 

[steeltoes]

What is the "act of faith"?

Believing.

 

[steeltoes]

Invisible exists.

What would you accept as evidence for the non-existence of invisible?

 

[Willamena]

How is that incorrect? It is not that there is no evidence of non-existence, it is that evidence of non-existence can not exist.

Proving that god exists is possible, proving that it does not is not possible.

So the burden of proof must always be upon the party making the positive claim, that is why there is no such thing as a burden of disproof.

Perhaps re-read what you had said. You'd said that the reason why there is a burden of proof on theists is because there is no evidence of non-existence.

 

[Bunyip]

What is the "act of faith"?

I thought that was obvious. The act of faith in Christianity is the belief in god.

 

[Sir Doom]

Is God's existence a hypothesis or a theory? I'm so dumb not to know the difference.

:flirt:

 

[Bunyip]

Perhaps re-read what you had said. You'd said that the reason why there is a burden of proof on theists is because there is no evidence of non-existence.

Kindly re-read my posts, that is not what I said.

 

[Bunyip]

Is God's existence a hypothesis or a theory? I'm so dumb not to know the difference.

:flirt:

Neither. It is a belief. A faith based apprehension.

 

[Sir Doom]

Neither. It is a belief. A faith based apprehension.

You don't believe theories? I usually do...

 

[steeltoes]

God is not allowed into theory because theory only deals with facts.

 

[Sir Doom]

God is not allowed into theory because theory only deals with facts.

Then it is a hypothesis? That's good to know.

 

[Bunyip]

You don't believe theories? I usually do...

Theories are not a matter of belief, they are explanations.

 

[steeltoes]

Then it is a hypothesis? That's good to know.

No, God is not an hypothesis, it is a notion.

 

[Willamena]

And what would that be?

I thought it was well-explained by Falvlun in the first 9 pages of this thread. They have a burden to explain why they reject the claims of theists. It's not a burden of "convincing others," but simply a burden for themselves, to have a rational position.

 

[Willamena]

What would you accept as evidence for the non-existence of invisible?

There is no evidence of non-existence.