Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Willamena]

Edit: it's not chess; it's conversation. What are the rules of conversation?

- Choose a topic of general interest.
- Ask questions; questions keep the topics flowing.
- Listen actively; keep attention on the other person.
- Try to drive the topic and not dominate it.
- Speak to the person you're conversing with, not others.
- Remember, "It's not always about you."
- Know when to end a conversation.

 

[Thief]

None of this counters anything I said. Yes, there is no real evidence for God, and believing in God is about faith. But this is about the only time people will accept that reasoning for believing in something. In almost all other instances, even god believers want a normal amount of evidence.

Reason can be sufficient.

People asking for proof.....when reason is sufficient.... are unreasonable.

That's fairly simple......is it not?

 

[McBell]

Reason can be sufficient.

People asking for proof.....when reason is sufficient.... are unreasonable.

That's fairly simple......is it not?

Only if you think you can dictate what is and is not "sufficient" for others...

 

[cottage]

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

…which is my response precisely to the unsupported assertion that God exists.

Eureka!

Now don’t be so surprised when I’ve made this abundantly clear to you in my every reply.

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.

But it is a special case and that’s the issue central to the debate, as I explain below

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.

It isn’t a Straw Man: it’s fundamental to the argument. Believers often challenge sceptics to prove the non-existence of God, and sceptics frequently return the challenge by stating that one cannot prove a negative. But actually that’s not true. It is possible to prove a negative, in possible experience as in: No objects X defy gravity when released under Y conditions or, self-evidently such as No bachelors are married men. But it is impossible to disprove the existence of a transcendent being, and thus the burden of proof, as an existential proposition, will remain with those making such an assertion throughout the debate. Surely you agree with that?

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.

But if the existence of gods isn’t proved then the claim is unsupported.

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.

That part in red is a bit creepy and it’s also question-begging by implying the fallacy that gods might exist on the premise that their existence isn’t confuted. This is about statements and not the contents of an individual’s mind. So I don’t think we need to involve the Thought Police.

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.

It certainly is special and unique. Utterly! For it isn’t something that can be verified by the test of possible experience and nor is it self-evident. Theists aren’t proposing God as a speculative notion or an argument from possibility, a proposition that might be false, but as a being that has actual existence. And of course we can argue the finer points both sides of the proposition but the controversy can only be settled by the theist’s proof, and not by the sceptic’s arguments from doubt.

And, yes, it assuredly does obviate the need for a response, with ‘Why, where and how, etc?’

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:

From post 1072, my bolding

As a counter argument, yes, but disbelief has no burden of proof.

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

But the lack of belief isn’t warranted by anything other than what I identified in that very passage you responded to! Here it is again, with the crucial part highlighted:

'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’.

 

[Magic Man]

So, have we gotten anywhere? Do we all agree that someone who claims "God exists" bears the burden of proof for that claim?

 

[Thief]

Apparently not.

It seems even a straight forward definition will not quell the demand for 'evidence'.

Faith needs no proving. (Webster's)

 

[Willamena]

So, have we gotten anywhere? Do we all agree that someone who claims "God exists" bears the burden of proof for that claim?

Yes, but that was never at issue.

 

[Willamena]

Apparently not.

It seems even a straight forward definition will not quell the demand for 'evidence'.

Faith needs no proving. (Webster's)

Faith is not a claim. "God exists," is a claim. That one does need 'evidence.'

Edit: My faith that gravity exists needs no evidence; but if I claim that gravity exists, it should be warranted that "gravity exists" before I go around making such claims.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, but that was never at issue.

It sure seemed like it was.

 

[Willamena]

It sure seemed like it was.

Each party in an argument bears the burden of proof for their claims. This was never at issue.

 

[Magic Man]

Each party in an argument bears the burden of proof for their claims. This was never at issue.

It depends. Someone making the positive claim that god exists bears the burden of proof. If they present what they think of as evidence, the opponent would have to show how and why it's not evidence, but that's it. It's still up to the original person to prove the original positive claim.

 

[Willamena]

It depends. Someone making the positive claim that god exists bears the burden of proof. If they present what they think of as evidence, the opponent would have to show how and why it's not evidence, but that's it. It's still up to the original person to prove the original positive claim.

As indicated earlier, claim and posit are interchangable terms in this discussion. All claims are positive.

In "showing why it's not evidence," the opponent would be hard pressed to "show" anything without making claims. And that's it.

 

[Magic Man]

As indicated earlier, claim and posit are interchangable terms in this discussion. All claims are positive.

It's a positive claim as opposed to a negative claim, as in "God exists" vs. "God doesn't exist".

In "showing why it's not evidence," the opponent would be hard pressed to "show" anything without making claims. And that's it.

And the burden of proof is still on the person making the original positive claim.

 

[Willamena]

It's a positive claim as opposed to a negative claim, as in "God exists" vs. "God doesn't exist".

The negated posit is still a posit. The statement of the way the world isn't bears the burden of proof, same as the statement of the way the world is. If it wasn't so, there would be no obligation for evidence placed on the person who says there is no real Eiffel Tower.

And I realise that some people want it to be this way, but that's why this thread was created.

And the burden of proof is still on the person making the original positive claim.

They have their burden, yes. That's not in dispute.

 

[Magic Man]

The negated posit is still a posit. The statement of the way the world isn't bears the burden of proof, same as the statement of the way the world is. If it wasn't so, there would be no obligation for evidence placed on the person who says there is no real Eiffel Tower.

And I realise that some people want it to be this way, but that's why this thread was created.

The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, not the negative one. You can't prove a negative.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In the sense that you have shouldered the burden of proof for your claims.

What claims?

It probably doesn't.

Well, good?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just wanted to point out that that's not disbelief. That's simply ignorance, or what I would actually consider a "lack of belief". Disbelief is pretty consistently defined as a rejection or refusal to accept something.

Actually, no. To "reject" a claim simply means "to not accept" a claim. "A lack of belief" means exactly the same as "rejection of belief".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, not the negative one. You can't prove a negative.

Nonsense. I could easily prove that there is no giraffe in my bedroom.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think that's reasonable.

My only issue is that, at this point, we all know the arguments. It's not like we haven't heard them before. It sorta makes this whole burden-of-proof ritual a little stuffy and unnecessary, imo.

Are you suggesting that everyone who accepts the truth of a particular claim will only ever do so using reasons that people responding to the claim will have heard before? If that were always true, fine. But we don't live in such a world. Belief in God is a largely personal thing, and it's rare to encounter two identical definitions of God from two different people making the claim of God's existence, so it is even more rare to encounter two identical evidences or experiences that are used as the basis for that belief. Every claim deserves to validated on its own evidence. You cannot simply hear the claim and assume what evidence the person will present. If you want to debate such topics in any meaningful way, simply saying "God exists. You've heard the arguments, so I don't need to provide support for my beliefs" is not the way to do it. Isn't that a contradiction of the fact that not long ago you were chastising people for not supporting their beliefs, and now you're saying that an individual doesn't have to support their own position?

Not really. It demonstrates a difference between disbelief in something that someone in this thread can make up on the spot, and a belief that is held by billions of people.

There is no distinction. As I said above, every claim deserves to be validated on its own evidence. If there is just as much evidence for a claim I could make up on the spot now as there is for a claim believed by billions of people, then there is no difference in the established truth value of either claim. How many people believe something is not an indicator of anything about the validity (or non-validity) of that particular claim.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Each party in an argument bears the burden of proof for their claims. This was never at issue.

I agree.