Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Willamena]

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

Well, not unless you were there too.

More like a threshold appearing beneath your feet and the entire world displayed before you.

 

[Thief]

Well, not unless you were there too.

More like a threshold appearing beneath your feet and the entire world displayed before you.

ok....I wasn't there.

That doesn't mean I don't understand.

And if heaven sees it fit that such a crown be on my head....so shall it be.

 

[Willamena]

ok....I wasn't there.

That doesn't mean I don't understand.

And if heaven sees it fit that such a crown be on my head....so shall it be.

But it also means you imagine.

 

[cottage]

I separated these responses as this half has more to do with the actual arguments for the existence of God, rather than the argument in regards to a skeptic's responsibility in a debate.

Now then that’s not quite accurate, is it? This isn’t simply about a sceptic’s responsibility in a debate; we’re not arguing a moral, social or political point but theists’ assertions concerning the existence of a supernatural, transcendent being, an extraordinary claim that as you said yourself demands ‘extraordinary evidence’. This has everything to do with the existence of God!

I don't find those terms very convincing. Our innate beliefs do not indicate the likelihood of something being true. And general human experience does include God. The fact that everyone doesn't experience God again does not indicate likelihood of something being true (or rational to believe) due to the wide variety of human beliefs, tendencies, and abilities.

1. There is no innate truth, or a priori knowledge that gives us the idea of God.

2. God is not evident in general experience, that is to say commonly and consistently apparent in the everyday lives of all people.

In other words ‘God’ isn’t something true, as in something that implies a contradiction if denied (as in Point 1), and nor is it universally confirmed by the senses (as in Point 2). So on those two counts alone disbelief is wholly justified, since ‘God’ is neither self-evident nor apparent as a common fact. Against this it is incumbent upon the theist to prove the claim that ‘God exists’ (the burden of proof).

It is being suggested that they need not know why they disbelieve in the existence of gods. I am arguing against this idea. I am not saying that people don't know; I am saying that they should know-- at least if they want to have a rational worldview.

Question-begging! You are basically presupposing God and then demanding of people that they must answer for not sharing the belief.

I really don't see how evolution meets either of your two criteria above. And yet, I would hope that an evolution-denier would be encouraged to analyze their position.

I don’t see what Evolution has to do with any of this? Evolution is factual, discoverable in possible experience and may be true or false. God’s existence isn’t falsifiable.

I don't see this as an either/or. This is not "If atheists need to examine their position, this means that theists don't need to" and vice-versa. It is "Atheists and theists should both understand and examine their positions."

I think you’re allowing your theistic inclinations to colour your view. Individuals do not need to question themselves as to why they don’t believe in mystical beings, when no such entities are impressed on their minds or apparent to them in experience. The contrary however is quite the case and theists that bring their beliefs into the public sphere need to justify their faith to themselves and to those they mean to convince.

Again, it's not an either/or. The fact that it is very reasonable, or even more reasonable, for theists to examine their own beliefs does not negate the fact that it is also reasonable for disbelievers to examine their disbelief in something that is widely held to be true.

That is a question-begging believer’s argument. It is a belief! If the advocates claim ‘God exist’ is a truth then it for them to demonstrate such.

It lends credibility to a belief. If thousands of people claim to have seen weird flashing lights in the sky on Oct 11th, 2013, then that lends credence to the idea that there were weird flashing lights in the sky on Oct 11th, 2013.

It does not prove it, nor should it be the only evidence accepted, especially if the claim is extraordinary (like UFOs). But it does warrant further investigation. It requires explanation.

Contrast this with only 3 people seeing those weird flashing lights. This is much easier to dismiss. Three people alone are not as credible as thousands.

Thousands of people, then I would certainly be inclined to believe them! You are speaking of something that happened in possible experience; there is nothing overly problematic in the witness statements. But can you not see the difference here? Just compare what you’ve described with Matthew’s testimony in the Bible, where he claimed that at the time of the Resurrection all the graves opened and the saints climbed out and went into the city. Answer me this: do the millions that believe the Bible is a literal truth mean that Matthew’s solitary claim is credible and therefore likely to be true?

You've pointed out instances when the majority has been wrong. But what about when they have been right? Surely that outnumbers the times they've been wrong.

And that’s just a matter of opinion, which rather makes my point.

What about when everyone tells you that the Bulls lost last night's game that you missed?
What about when no one else hears those voices that a schizophrenic claims to hear?
What about the often-cited support evolution has from the vast majority of the world's scientists?

As I said from the beginning, the reason that it's a fallacy is because our brain has adopted it as a shortcut towards figuring out what to believe and what not to. In general, if a lot of people believe it, the more likely it is to be true.

This isn't always the case, hence why it cannot be used as proof in a logical debate. However, this doesn't mean that it doesn't provide credibility.

All of the examples you give are verifiable or accountable in possible experience, but you are demanding credibility, that is to say proposing possible truth, on the basis of belief alone for an extra-experiential entity. And if that is to be so then you must show how it is possible to go outside general experience in order to justify the belief. But to simply claim credibility on the basis of belief alone is fallacious on not one but two counts, for it is an argumentum ad populum since you are making a positive case, and you are also arguing in a circle.

To say a thing is credible (W) is to give grounds to believe it might be true (Y), but the only explanation you’re offering is the belief that it might be true (W).

If W then Y

Y, then W

Affirming the consequent, i.e. it is circular.

And multiples of W is still only the equal of W (e.g. 1000 x W = W)

The part I bolded is a misrepresentation of what I am saying. I am not saying that the fact that the beliefs of a majority make God's existence true. I am saying that it provides credibility to the belief: it makes it a little more likely to be true.

It isn’t a misrepresentation. I wrote: 'From a true fact that the majority of people believe something, it doesn’t follow that their beliefs can in fact be true'. Now compare it again with what you said?

Our designation of things as true/false depends on a lot of variables. It's a complex algorithm of various factors that our brain synthesizes in order to come to a conclusion as to the likelihood of something being true and whether we should believe it. The number of people believing something plays a part in that assessment.
In fact, your "general experience" argument takes this to an extreme. The fact that everybody doesn't believe/experience Gods is a mark against them in your assessment. Which means, if everyone believed/experienced Gods that would be a mark for them. All that is is an argument of majority taken to it's extreme conclusion.

No, you’re going too far. God not being apparent in general experience does not signify anything other than grounds for disbelief; it doesn’t have any bearing on God’s existence or non-existence. And if everyone believed in God that still wouldn’t imply the existence of a supernatural being as a true belief; it would simply demonstrate a human disposition.

Yes, lots of people believing in something can affect everyone. Not really sure why that's a further reason why they bear a burden of proof, though. (and it's not like their burden is in question anyway.) After all, a minority of people not believing something can also affect everyone (if they are in power).

What I’m saying is a majority are in a position to put people in power that share their dogmatic beliefs, for example having a doctrine that is homophobic and views women as being inferior to men.

 

[Thief]

But it also means you imagine.

Imagination is the problem solving part of the mind.
There is no problem you can resolve without using it.

I suppose you could say, some types of logic have no imagination.....
just technique.

But for the most part....
If you cannot 'imagine' possible answers, you cannot find a way to solution.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now then that’s not quite accurate, is it? This isn’t simply about a sceptic’s responsibility in a debate; ...

It is about what participants in the thread make it about.

The burden of proof is on the claimant.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The burden of proof is on the claimant.

That's a fine claim, I guess. Although I'm skeptical, I am ready to listen as you shoulder the burden of proof and move forward with arguing your position.

Why is the burden of proof on the claimant?

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Ah, so you can't prove a dragon doesn't exist in the universe; you can just argue semantics to try to make a meaningless point.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ah, so you can't prove a dragon doesn't exist in the universe; you can just argue semantics to try to make a meaningless point.

A point does not become meaningless solely by virtue of your inability to understand it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is about what participants in the thread make it about.

The burden of proof is on the claimant.

But the mere existence of a claim, even an unsupported one, can have implications for other claims.

If a claim hasn't met its burden of proof, then its conclusion may be true or may be false (absent any other relevant information or arguments).

An argument is not reliable if its burden of proof has not been met. It's also unreliable if *we're not sure* whether the burden of proof has been met. As long as the claim "Person A hasn't met her burden of proof" is out there and hasn't been shown to be false, we have to leave ourselves open to the possibility that it MIGHT be true.

... and if we accept that it MIGHT be true that Person A hasn't met her burden of proof, then we can't be sure that her argument is correct.

This leaves us allowing for the possibility that Person A's claim could be right or could be wrong, which is exactly where we were before she even gave her argument.

 

[Magic Man]

A point does not become meaningless solely by virtue of your inability to understand it.

Quite true, although not very relevant. I'm going to assume you were trying to imply that I didn't understand her point, even though that comment would only serve to boost your own self image, rather than relay accurate information about the world.

I understood her point quite well, which is why I said that she was unable to support the idea that one can prove that dragons don't exist in the universe. Arguing about what "in the universe" is irrelevant, since we all know what the phrase means.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But the mere existence of a claim, even an unsupported one, can have implications for other claims.

If a claim hasn't met its burden of proof, then its conclusion may be true or may be false (absent any other relevant information or arguments).

Good points. I'm just not at all sure that either of these points are in question.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This leaves us allowing for the possibility that Person A's claim could be right or could be wrong, which is exactly where we were before she even gave her argument.

Again, I agree, but I believe that the question here is whether or not a person making a claim has a responsibility to support it.

 

[Willamena]

Why is the burden of proof on the claimant?

What is the burden of proof? That's your answer.

 

[Willamena]

If a claim hasn't met its burden of proof, then its conclusion may be true or may be false (absent any other relevant information or arguments).

A claim is not made true by shouldering the burden of proof, it's just made warranted (reliable, as you say).

As long as the claim "Person A hasn't met her burden of proof" is out there and hasn't been shown to be false, we have to leave ourselves open to the possibility that it MIGHT be true.

... and if we accept that it MIGHT be true that Person A hasn't met her burden of proof, then we can't be sure that her argument is correct.

This leaves us allowing for the possibility that Person A's claim could be right or could be wrong, which is exactly where we were before she even gave her argument.

"I don't know," is an acceptable alternative to, "It might be true."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A claim is not made true by shouldering the burden of proof, it's just made warranted (reliable, as you say).

"I don't know," is an acceptable alternative to, "It might be true."

Excellent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Good points. I'm just not at all sure that either of these points are in question.

I think they have been in question implicitly.

This whole thread has been about when a "burden of proof" claim is made in the context of a debate about some other claim. I think it's worth remembering that for all practical purposes regarding the original claim, there's no difference in implication between "the burden of proof hasn't been met" and "we're not sure whether the burden of proof has been met". Either way, the original claim *may* be true, but we can't rely on its supporting argument.

If we really just care about whether we should accept the claim "X is true", then it's irrelevant whether the claim "the burden of proof for X hasn't been met" has met its own burden of proof. Part of the burden of proof for the claim "X is true" is establishing that the burden of proof has been met.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, I agree, but I believe that the question here is whether or not a person making a claim has a responsibility to support it.

... in the context of a debate about some original claim.

If the burden of proof for a claim isn't met, then this allows doubt about whether the claim is true or false. And doubt about a claim's burden of proof allows doubt about the claim itself.

Falvlun's objection was to people claiming "burden of proof" as a debate tactic. In this context, it's still valid even if the claim is unsupported, because "you haven't met your burden of proof" and "*I'm not sure whether* you've met your burden of proof" are both valid, rational reasons to not accept an argument.

... and until it's been actually demonstrated that the burden of proof has been met, there's room for doubt that it has been met.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What is the burden of proof? That's your answer.

But I asked Jayhawker. And each person will answer differently. So thanks, but I'd like to see how he answers.

 

[Willamena]

But I asked Jayhawker. And each person will answer differently. So thanks, but I'd like to see how he answers.

Guy... the answer comes from you.