Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Willamena]

What claims?

Any and each of them.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This one is tough for me. While I probably wouldn't categorize it as an official claim, I do think that disbelief is a position. It is part and parcel of a person's worldview just as much as a belief is. What we don't believe is just as important as what we do believe.

All you've really done is agree with me. Disbelief is not a claim.

This is why I think there is a personal responsibility to support your disbelief, even if, perhaps, there is not a responsibility within a debate to do so... at least, not until further claims are made.

Well, sure. But good reasons for not believing something are very different and rely on different kinds of evidence than the reasoning given for believing a claim. In rational terms, "there is insufficient evidence to believe claim X" is a perfectly good reason to disbelieve claim X. There is no further justification required other than that to justify the position of disbelief in and of itself. It is only when opposition comes in the form of "here is evidence for X" that the individual disbelieving the claim has the responsibility to evaluate the evidence and either explain why it doesn't convince them (if, in fact, it doesn't). With regards to the claim of a God, I have a fairly comprehensive library of arguments for the existence of God in my head that people have used over the years in countless debates, and not a single one of them has been convincing to me. I disbelieve them all. So when a new claim is made, I cannot simply go back to my library, unload the whole lot of it, and thereby explain my disbelief. Such a method would be impractical, and also highly disrespectful to the person making the claim since they may yet have an argument I have never heard before that requires a new response (if it doesn't convince me).

As long as you agree that people have a burden of proof-- a responsibility to provide reasons-- for their claims made within a debate, then we agree.

Well yes, but it isn't shared equally, and it isn't shared at all times. Not all claims have the same amount of burden. And in a typical debate, the burden should be passed from side to side like a tennis ball. In fact, a ball is kind of a good analogy to use for the burden. It isn't a roadblock set up to trip up theists in a debate so that us atheists can sneak off silently into the night without having to put forward an argument. It is like handing the person making the claim a ball and saying "Okay, here you go, now try and get it past us". Once they have made their claim (obtained the ball) and supported it with reasons and evidence (served it) it is up to the people who disbelieve the claim (the other team) to respond to those claims (catch the ball) and attempt to counter the reasons and evidence with their own (throw the ball back).

In the above analogy, I have no idea what sport is being played. Sport is not my strong point.

I don't think that all claims are equally burdensome or equally important within a debate. The theist claim is certainly a big claim that requires big proof and is central to a debate in regards to the existence of God. All I am saying is that doesn't negate the need for little claims to provide their own little proofs as well.

You're right, it doesn't.

So passive. Maybe I just favor a more hands-on and honest approach.

What's "dishonest" about my approach? I'm thoroughly honest and extremely hands-on when it comes to these kinds of debates. I involve myself in them constantly and make a concerted effort to respond to every argument made with my own reasons and evidence.

(In regards to your example above, I do think that it is relevant that you are already biased against the claim being debated. It is much harder to persuade a mind that is already made up than one that is still agnostic. This, of course, again speaks to the subjective nature of the requirements to meet a burden of proof.)

Don't confuse disagreement with bias. Just because I used to think X doesn't mean it'll make it any harder for me to realize that Y is actually true. People can and do change their minds.

Any and each of them.

Oh. Okay, then!

 

[Magic Man]

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

Could you also prove there are no dragons in the universe?

 

[Ouroboros]

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

That's an interesting claim.

How would you go about to prove it?

 

[Willamena]

Could you also prove there are no dragons in the universe?

I could prove that there is no "in the universe."

 

[work in progress]

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.

I'm going to give it another shot and see if anyone notices or understands what I feel is missing from this and other God/No God debates: everyone forms their core, basic beliefs that make up their worldview at an unconscious...not a conscious level of reasoning...and yes, that includes atheists as well!

Before I continue on, I should point out that my position on psychology of belief begins with my acceptance of Dual Process Theory of Mind:

The dual-process accounts of reasoning posits that there are two systems or minds in one brain. The theory of two distinct kinds of reasoning has been around for as long as documentations about theories of reasoning go. The current theory is that there are two distinctively separate cognitive systems underlying thinking and reasoning and that these different systems were developed through evolution.[10] These systems are often referred to as being either implicit or explicit, however some theorists prefer to emphasize the functional differences between the two systems and not the consciousness factor and thus refer to the systems simply as System 1 and System 2.
​

Dual process theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To complicate the simple picture of having an intuitive or unconscious system of thinking a little further - many researchers prefer to divide system 1 between "natural" intuitions and "practiced" intuitions that we develop through repetitive training or exercise.

The reason why this is important, is because every belief we have is the result of an unconscious sensation of certainty....and once we arrive at feeling certain, we start using system 2 - reasoning and/or rationalizing the positions we have already taken.

Obviously, there is a great need to rely more on system 2 when possible. But, a lot of atheists carry along an attitude...sometimes expressed in self-proclaimed atheist leaders like Dawkins, but mostly unrecognized in most atheists, that we are not as logical or rational as we think we are, and need to go over and scrutinize some of the beliefs we have adopted a little more often.

As I've said previously, the most obvious examples of atheist irrationality or at least ill-formed opinions come in the form of humanist approaches to progress, technological capabilities and future expectations. And I see a clear reason why humanists avoid reason in these areas: removing the existence of a creator and life-after-death in some imaginary form, means that the replacement of religion has to try to replace that future promise of paradise with one that we...or the human race in general, provide for ourselves. And, in brief, I don't see any reasonable signs to be hopeful for a star trek or singularity type of future!

 

[Magic Man]

I could prove that there is no "in the universe."

Please do tell.

 

[Nakosis]

All you've really done is agree with me. Disbelief is not a claim.

Just to point out here, the position of many Theists seems to be they disbelieve a universe is possible without a God.

Since it is a position of disbelief, does that mean they no longer have a burden of proof?

 

[Nakosis]

That's an interesting claim.

How would you go about to prove it?

Yes, I'm curios too.

I'm thinking any evidence brought up could be questioned and doubted. It'd be up to any individual to decide when the amount of evidence was acceptable for proof.

One could set the bar impossible high. What's reasonable?

 

[Willamena]

This one is tough for me. While I probably wouldn't categorize it as an official claim, I do think that disbelief is a position. It is part and parcel of a person's worldview just as much as a belief is. What we don't believe is just as important as what we do believe.

Disbelief is not in a claim any more than belief is, it's a condition (the state of disbelief). The claims are what we believe or disbelieve. Disbelief happens as a result of hearing a claim that is not in accord with what you already believe.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, I'm curios too.

I'm thinking any evidence brought up could be questioned and doubted. It'd be up to any individual to decide when the amount of evidence was acceptable for proof.

One could set the bar impossible high. What's reasonable?

First, terms must be agreed upon. What does it mean that Jay does have a giraffe in his bedroom? Then the negation can be addressed.

 

[Willamena]

Please do tell.

Off-topic.

I was pointing out a means of approaching the question.

 

[Magic Man]

Off-topic.

I was pointing out a means of approaching the question.

I don't think it's off-topic. You argued that you can prove a negative that I said can't be proven. I'm asking you to support your argument.

 

[Willamena]

I don't think it's off-topic. You argued that you can prove a negative that I said can't be proven. I'm asking you to support your argument.

It is off-topic.

The universe has no edge, end or boundary, hence nothing from which to define the relation "in" or "out." The term "in the universe" is but a convention or figure of speech that, if used in conjunction with the word "is," is tautological.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just to point out here, the position of many Theists seems to be they disbelieve a universe is possible without a God.

Since it is a position of disbelief, does that mean they no longer have a burden of proof?

That depends entirely on what claim is being made at that point in time. Also, disbelief that the Universe can be possible without a God implies a belief that it is impossible for the Universe to exist without a God - which is a claim.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, I'm curios too. I'm thinking any evidence brought up could be questioned and doubted.

Yep. Creationists do it all the time.

 

[Willamena]

That depends entirely on what claim is being made at that point in time.

Whether or not they have a burden of proof depends on the claim? That's not what I've read about the burden.

Also, disbelief that the Universe can be possible without a God implies a belief that it is impossible for the Universe to exist without a God - which is a claim.

Yes. That's why they're theists.

 

[Thief]

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.

God exists is a statement of faith.
I don't need to prove He's there.
Faith requires no proving.

Stand on the edge of a sure death and consider stepping off.

Will the angels spare you the fall?

I have faith.....but I don't tempt heaven.

 

[Willamena]

God exists is a statement of faith.
I don't need to prove He's there.
Faith requires no proving.

Stand on the edge of a sure death and consider stepping off.

Will the angels spare you the fall?

I have faith.....but I don't tempt heaven.

But "God exists" is also a posit. Whether or not you have faith, it is a posit.

Posits don't "require proving," but they do require that in order for them to be warranted, they have some evidence. And by evidence I refer only to an indication of existence. A finger pointing the way.

 

[Thief]

But "God exists" is also a posit. Whether or not you have faith, it is a posit.

Posits don't "require proving," but they do require that in order for them to be warranted, they have some evidence. And by evidence I refer only to an indication of existence. A finger pointing the way.

Like the 'snap of God's fingers'....setting the singularity into spin BEFORE the bang?