Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[AmbiguousGuy]

Guy... the answer comes from you.

Nah. I already have my answer. It's boring. I'm most curious about the answers of the other guy.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Ok, doesn't taking the position of atheism imply the belief that a universe is possible without a God. So an implied belief is a claim?

 

[McBell]

Ok, doesn't taking the position of atheism imply the belief that a universe is possible without a God. So an implied belief is a claim?

It could for some atheists.

However, there are some atheists who flat out claim god does not exist.
And then there are atheists who have no active belief concerning god.

So much like the term "theism" can mean a ton of different things depending on who you talk to, so does "atheism".

 

[Willamena]

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).

Your position is warranted.

It's those who deny the burden, such as you've so carefully outlined, that caused this thread.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, doesn't taking the position of atheism imply the belief that a universe is possible without a God. So an implied belief is a claim?

It implies that the possibility of the universe's existence without God has not been excluded. And until a theistic argument meets its burden of proof, this is correct.

 

[Willamena]

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.

It's not question-begging. "God exists," is not what is being suggested that "they should know." Rather, they should know what brings them to disbelieve.

 

[Nakosis]

It could for some atheists.

However, there are some atheists who flat out claim god does not exist.
And then there are atheists who have no active belief concerning god.

So much like the term "theism" can mean a ton of different things depending on who you talk to, so does "atheism".

Yes, someone told me Christians were considered atheist by Jews since they were without God. However if a term becomes so flexible doesn't it begin to loose any valuable meaning.

I'm ok with the idea that what we personally believe may not be defined by common terms. Probably better in that we have to interact with the individual and not the label.

 

[Nakosis]

It implies that the possibility of the universe's existence without God has not been excluded. And until a theistic argument meets its burden of proof, this is correct.

Sure but it is up to the individual to decide whether that burden has been met or not. It is also up to the claimant to decide whether it is reasonable to try and meet that burden.

As Willamena implies people discuss terms before hand. No agreement on terms, no necessary burden of proof.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure but it is up to the individual to decide whether that burden has been met or not.

To an extent. As I mentioned earlier, if the bar is set so low that mutually exclusive claims clear it simultaneously, then it's demonstrably too low and the burden definitely hasn't been met... regardless of how much the person wants one particular claim to be true.

 

[Nakosis]

I believe the burden of proof argument, as deployed by many atheists, is a bad argument, both ethically and philosophically.

The burden of proof argument claims that because theists have failed to adequately prove the existence of god, atheists need no further reason, evidence, or explanation for their own position of non-belief.

I do believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I do not deny that theists do have a larger burden in order to prove their claim. I simply do not think that this completely erases the need for an atheist to be able to support and defend their own position.

I think the "doubter" would at least need to get agreement that the level of proof being asked for is not unreasonable. No reason for a claimant to accept a burden of proof that seems unreasonable to them. If the claimant agrees that the required level of evidence is acceptable then they should certainly take on the burden to meet it. If however there is no agreement as to the required level of evidence required then there is no burden of proof yet put on the claimant.

The burden of proof is a bad argument if no agreement has been reached between the parties involved.

So if you are going to claim something it's up to you to define the terms and level of evidence you will need to provide to meet your claim. A "doubter" doesn't have a burden of proof but they can not arbitrarily change the terms and expect you to meet them. Unless they are making a claim of their own.

Someone wants to define the terms and level of evidence required then they'd need to make their own claim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the "doubter" would at least need to get agreement that the level of proof being asked for is not unreasonable. No reason for a claimant to accept a burden of proof that seems unreasonable to them. If the claimant agrees that the required level of evidence is acceptable then they should certainly take on the burden to meet it. If however there is no agreement as to the required level of evidence required then there is no burden of proof yet put on the claimant.

The burden of proof is a bad argument if no agreement has been reached between the parties involved.

So if you are going to claim something it's up to you to define the terms and level of evidence you will need to provide to meet your claim. A "doubter" doesn't have a burden of proof but they can not arbitrarily change the terms and expect you to meet them. Unless they are making a claim of their own.

Someone wants to define the terms and level of evidence required then they'd need to make their own claim.

In any real-life debate, there's almost always an implied minimum standard that the burden of proof must exceed: whatever the level of support is for the best-supported other claim that the claimant doesn't accept, claims must be supported to at least that level to be considered having met their burden. Otherwise, the claimant is being demonstrably hypocritical.

If your claim is no better than some other claim you reject yourself, why would you expect me to accept it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

No, I wrote "depends what claim is being made at that point in time". The person carries the burden is the person suggesting the claim at that particular point in the debate.

 

[Nakosis]

In any real-life debate, there's almost always an implied minimum standard that the burden of proof must exceed:

I think not. Just from this thread, any case made based on one person's input, someone else comes along to question the terms or evidence required. From my experience I think it is a mistake to believe there is any minimum standard. Certainly without any agreements in place it is at best an assumption.

whatever the level of support is for the best-supported other claim that the claimant doesn't accept, claims must be supported to at least that level to be considered having met their burden. Otherwise, the claimant is being demonstrably hypocritical.

In a formal argument terms are specified. In a casual setting like the forums nothing ever gets proven or dis-proven. Why? Nothing is agreed on. In a casual setting like this, the burden of proof is a meaningless argument. To think otherwise is hypocritical.

If your claim is no better than some other claim you reject yourself, why would you expect me to accept it?

If my claim is as good as some other claim I accept, should I expect you to accept it?

I don't think that works really. Things I already believe I'm going to require much less evidence for then something I already doubt. I don't think using myself as a measuring stick makes a reliable tool. Something I doubt you may need much less evidence to accept. That's why agreement is important. Nothing can be determined without it.

 

[Willamena]

No, I wrote "depends what claim is being made at that point in time". The person carries the burden is the person suggesting the claim at that particular point in the debate.

My apologies, then, for misunderstanding.

 

[Thief]

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.

Some things are self proving.

Can you not think of something you could say....and expect no rebuttal.

If I say....God does exist....
You might ask for evidence.
I would say the obvious.....'look up'.

 

[cottage]

It's not question-begging. "God exists," is not what is being suggested that "they should know." Rather, they should know what brings them to disbelieve.

Of course it’s question-begging! The supposition ‘God exists’ is implicit in the presumption that disbelief must be justified, and the implication is that the proposition ‘God exists’ is safe unless and until it can be shown otherwise.

 

[cottage]

Your position is warranted.

It's those who deny the burden, such as you've so carefully outlined, that caused this thread.

The conditions I mentioned are wholly sufficient to warrant disbelief as a lack of evidence and on those terms alone carries no burden of proof.

If ‘God exists’ is a belief that is true then the matter can only be settled by those making the claim. The non-existence of God cannot be proved and attempting to shift the burden onto the sceptic is, even in part, a fatuous ploy and an intellectual faux par. On the other hand ‘There is no God’ is an assertion for which an explanation is quite rightly expected, but even if the sceptical argument is poor or confused the onus remains with the advocate to demonstrate the truth of the original proposition, which hasn’t gone away.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some things are self proving.

Can you not think of something you could say....and expect no rebuttal.

I can't, actually.

Even if I was describing my own feelings, someone could say that I wasn't acting the way someone who was happy/sad/scared/calm would be expected to act.

If I say....God does exist....
You might ask for evidence.
I would say the obvious.....'look up'.

And I say that something truly obvious should be trivial to demonstrate. And saying "look up" is not a demonstration.

 

[Thief]

I can't, actually.

Even if I was describing my own feelings, someone could say that I wasn't acting the way someone who was happy/sad/scared/calm would be expected to act.


And I say that something truly obvious should be trivial to demonstrate. And saying "look up" is not a demonstration.

Observation is insufficient?
Cause and effect not enough?

So when you look up, the word...Effect...does not apply?
And the word....Cause....means nothing?

In which case the universe began all by itself?
Substance can take flight on it's own?

Science would say,'...an object at rest will remain at rest until something moves it.'

I agree.
The singularity and all it did contain would never have moved....
had it not been for the 'snap of God's fingers'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Observation is insufficient?
Cause and effect not enough?

So when you look up, the word...Effect...does not apply?
And the word....Cause....means nothing?

It doesn't mean we should jump to conclusions.

In which case the universe began all by itself?
Substance can take flight on it's own?

You're making an argument from ignorance. "We don't know how this happens, so we'll attribute it to God." It's the God of the Gaps and it's based on flawed reasoning.