Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Ouroboros]

Now this response is nothing but my personal opinion. Is this the silliest looking guy you have ever seen? Especially as we are supposed to give any credence in what he has to say?

Of course not. That's the point of the meme. God of the gaps works that way. "We don't know, therefore God." It's not a good argument. I don't know, therefore black box that do magic. It's better to say, I don't know, therefore... I don't know.

Of course this is one of the worst shows on the subject ever filmed. And that is saying a lot!

All the shows that try to prove aliens are bad.

 

[cottage]

And that's fine, as long as he has his reasons.

That statement is completely irrelevant. I said: ‘The disbeliever, however, does not have to give reasons for the disbelief other than in reply to a theist’s arguments.’

Edit: You seem to have introduced a non-sequitur to the discussion, which was not about 'God exists' but about 'they should know why they disbelieve.'

OP: “The argumentation often goes like this: Theists have not met their burden of proof, therefore, I need no reason to not believe in the existence of gods.”

This thread is just about burden of proof, which while it lends credibility to a matter, does not make a thing magically come true.

I’m responding to your claim that the assertion ‘God exists’ is safe if nobody objects to it – or ‘opposes it’ in your words – which is (an appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false.

 

[Willamena]

OP: “The argumentation often goes like this: Theists have not met their burden of proof, therefore, I need no reason to not believe in the existence of gods.”

And?

I’m responding to your claim that the assertion ‘God exists’ is safe if nobody objects to it – or ‘opposes it’ in your words – which is (an appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false.

It is safe if no one objects to it. But it's not true for being unopposed, that's just silly.

 

[Thief]

I asked you for evidence for your position. You responded by telling me, effectively, that it will be unfortunate if you're wrong and that there are lots of unknown places in the universe where we might find evidence when we get around to looking at them.

None of this is a rational answer to my question. Would you like to try answering again without the logical fallacies?

As long as I am using logic......
and faith needs no proving.....see Webster's.

It is illogical to ask for evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As long as I am using logic......

You're not.

and faith needs no proving.....see Webster's.

It's not so much that it "needs no" proving as that it hasn't been proven... and the same can be said of delusion.

Regardless, you're not going to convince me without good reasons.

It is illogical to ask for evidence.

No, it's not.

 

[Thief]

You're not.


It's not so much that it "needs no" proving as that it hasn't been proven... and the same can be said of delusion.

Regardless, you're not going to convince me without good reasons.


No, it's not.

I see you have taken a stance depending on my lack of 'evidence'.

That's too bad.
This is theology and no evidence can be tabled.

I might assume you are done here?

 

[cottage]

And?

‘And’ it is, exactly as I showed, about the reasons for belief or disbelief in God.

It is safe if no one objects to it. But it's not true for being unopposed, that's just silly.

‘God exists’ is propositional, a truth claim. But it can only be true if it is impossible for it to be false. And since ‘God exists’ isn’t demonstrably true the claim cannot therefore be upheld by a failure to prove it false.

 

[McBell]

Prove to me this universe is less than 'created'.

Classic example of proof burden shifting.

 

[McBell]

This is theology and no evidence can be tabled.

Thus you reveal the foundation of your beliefs...

 

[Thief]

Thus you reveal the foundation of your beliefs...

Faith requires no proving....see Webster's.

As for my foundation....cause and effect.....SCIENCE!

 

[Willamena]

‘And’ it is, exactly as I showed, about the reasons for belief or disbelief in God.

But you weren't responding to the OP in post 1264.

 

[Nakosis]

Let me begin my answer by making something clear. I will always be very pleased to debate with you any argument for the existence of God, and where I make assertions in response I promise you that they will be fully supported. However, yours is the premise to be proved and I am therefore under no obligation to justify my disbelief but only my arguments in response to those in the affirmative made by you.

Sure, I wouldn't say you have any obligation to justify your disbelief. In fact I'd encourage you to not believe in something unless you have some very good reasons to.

However I say the same to believers. They are under no obligation to justify their belief to me. I feel no need to take the position of disbelief. As long as their belief or disbelief doesn't affect me.

So in this case I see neither belief nor disbelief having any special exclusions.

And yet there is a fundamental reason for no belief in God and that is the lack of evidence, which, as already understood, by sceptic and theist alike, is that God is not apparent in general experience and nor is ‘God’ an innate idea (if those things were the case then the affirmative predication would necessarily hold), and so no further explanation can be reasonably demanded for my disbelief.

I have to assume by general experience you mean in your experience. Many people have had experiences with God. It's not that uncommon. Your disbelief because of your lack of experience is understandable. Many believe because of some experience they've had.

But on the contrary the question of reasonableness must be put to the claimant who asserts that God exists is a true belief. You are of course perfectly entitled to your mystical beliefs but by bringing them into the public domain it is incumbent upon you to support the assertions with the evidence previously mentioned that we must both acknowledge to be missing, and that is where the burden (of truth) lies.

Yes, the evidence is missing for you. Others believe themselves to have the necessary evidence. The evidence the result of personal experiences. There are people in the public domain which share these personal experiences. To them it is their truth and will remain their truth until, unless someone comes along to give reasons to question that truth.

For example I know of someone who is Pentecostal. They are certain they have the ability to speak in and interpret tongues. To them this is proof of God. Speaking in tongues is an interesting experience. The ability to make noise which have an apparency of language without "conscious" control.

What I have read though is someone sought to prove/disprove this for themselves. They went to a Pentecostal church stood as if speaking in tongues and read the US constitution in french. This was interpreted by one of the Church interpreters to provide some spiritual message. Obviously provides some evidence for disbelief.

Otherwise many continue to join the Pentecostal Church based on the evidence of God provided by being able to speak in tongues. They have their personal experiences shared by thousands. All you have is your personal disbelief.

I don't know, go to a Pentecostal Church for a while, speak in tongues. May make a believer out of you. Or go recite a Campbell's soup label in German. Might provide evidence one way or another.

 

[McBell]

Faith requires no proving....see Webster's.

As for my foundation....cause and effect.....SCIENCE!

No, cause and effect is your justification of your beliefs.
Which makes no sense seeing as you toss cause and effect out the door for your god...


No, the foundation of your beliefs is that they cannot be proven wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see you have taken a stance depending on my lack of 'evidence'.

That's too bad.
This is theology and no evidence can be tabled.

If a claim can be rationally considered, there is evidence and reason that supports it. If your faith has no evidence, then it's irrational.

I might assume you are done here?

Hey - this was your party: you gave bad arguments, I explained why they were bad. I don't know whether you have any good arguments in your back pocket. I'd be surprised if you did, but if you do, I'm all ears.

 

[Thief]

If a claim can be rationally considered, there is evidence and reason that supports it. If your faith has no evidence, then it's irrational.


Hey - this was your party: you gave bad arguments, I explained why they were bad. I don't know whether you have any good arguments in your back pocket. I'd be surprised if you did, but if you do, I'm all ears.

Cause and effect.
The universe is the effect.....God is the Cause.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Cause and effect.
The universe is the effect.....God is the Cause.

This is called God of the Gaps: "I don't know what did this, so I'll assume God did."

It's an example of the logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance". It's irrational.

 

[cottage]

Sure, I wouldn't say you have any obligation to justify your disbelief. In fact I'd encourage you to not believe in something unless you have some very good reasons to.

However I say the same to believers. They are under no obligation to justify their belief to me. I feel no need to take the position of disbelief. As long as their belief or disbelief doesn't affect me.

So in this case I see neither belief nor disbelief having any special exclusions.

I have to assume by general experience you mean in your experience. Many people have had experiences with God. It's not that uncommon. Your disbelief because of your lack of experience is understandable. Many believe because of some experience they've had.

Yes, the evidence is missing for you. Others believe themselves to have the necessary evidence. The evidence the result of personal experiences. There are people in the public domain which share these personal experiences. To them it is their truth and will remain their truth until, unless someone comes along to give reasons to question that truth.

For example I know of someone who is Pentecostal. They are certain they have the ability to speak in and interpret tongues. To them this is proof of God. Speaking in tongues is an interesting experience. The ability to make noise which have an apparency of language without "conscious" control.

What I have read though is someone sought to prove/disprove this for themselves. They went to a Pentecostal church stood as if speaking in tongues and read the US constitution in french. This was interpreted by one of the Church interpreters to provide some spiritual message. Obviously provides some evidence for disbelief.

Otherwise many continue to join the Pentecostal Church based on the evidence of God provided by being able to speak in tongues. They have their personal experiences shared by thousands. All you have is your personal disbelief.

I don't know, go to a Pentecostal Church for a while, speak in tongues. May make a believer out of you. Or go recite a Campbell's soup label in German. Might provide evidence one way or another.

This isn’t about your experience or my experience but ‘our experience’, that is to say the everyday experience upon which we agree and is common to us all. ‘God may exist for those that have the experiences but he isn’t in the café, the supermarket or the office, or in every public space, evident to all people everywhere. That is what I mean by ‘general experience’. And in any case ‘Experience of God’ is a highly ambiguous term, which, it seems to me, is open to anyone to interpret in anyway they choose. And that must cast doubt upon the subject since there are no necessary unifying criteria. Subjective ‘true for me’ beliefs aren’t evidence. If I said to you: The sun did not rise this morning and that is why there is total darkness’ you would reply: But it did rise, for it is light!’ My answer to you would be: ‘Not for me it isn’t.’ But my ‘true for me’ belief isn’t true of general experience.

But you are right in one respect. It is often asked of sceptics ‘Just what would it take to make you believe in God’? My reply would be: ‘for God to prove his existence to me’. No further explication is necessary on my part. What possible evidence might count as proof is not for me to say, since it is not for me to describe how God might go about convincing me he exists. It may of course be the case that God, for reasons of his own, doesn’t choose to prove his existence to me. Nevertheless, having assented to unconditionally accept proof, it is now for God to show me unequivocally that he exists. And if he does so, and even if the proof is entirely sufficient for me to belief in God, it still doesn’t follow that ‘God exists’ is a true belief.

I have no argument at all with those that say they believe in God. My dispute is with those that claim it as a truth or state that it is more reasonable to believe in God than not and in which case I ask for evidential proof that isn’t just belief in the belief, personal experience or anecdotal or vicarious argumentation.

 

[cottage]

But you weren't responding to the OP in post 1264.

1264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falvlun View Post
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."

 

[Willamena]

1264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falvlun View Post
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."

Which I've asked you to explain, in vain. I give up.

 

[Thief]

This is called God of the Gaps: "I don't know what did this, so I'll assume God did."

It's an example of the logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance". It's irrational.

I didn't say ...I don't know....

I'm altogether sure....Spirit first.