Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you prefer to disregard Webster's.
Is there a reference you DO prefer?

Please tell me what you think "Webster's" says that implies that faith is rational or justified without evidence.

Hint: if your reply doesn't use some form of the words "rational" or "justified", it's wrong.

Edit: Just to clarify, this is the argument you're making, right?

- Webster's dictionary somehow implies that we're justified in believing things on faith that aren't supported by evidence.
- if it's in Webster's dictionary, it must be true.

Is this correct?

 

[Nakosis]

The burden of proof isn’t really an argument at all, but it is an important principle without which anyone might claim anything without challenge. And the principle is especially important in the case of someone asserting an existential proposition where the burden of proof is always with the person making the assertion because the doubter cannot prove the non-existence of the supposed entity.

But it's an empty challenge. It's a challenge that no one "has" to respond to. By issuing it, you've proven nothing/dis-proven nothing. You've only professed your position of non-belief. This holds no necessary value to anyone but yourself.

 

[Willamena]

I’ve repeated it time after time. Of course people know why they disbelieve in gods, for the reasons I’ve already given, and I can’t imagine where the absurd notion came from that they may not. But sceptics don’t have to explain themselves in response to a question-begging ‘Why don’t you believe in God’, but only in reply to arguments asserting to God’s existence made by the theist. Is that clear now?

Disbelief is not represented by, "Why don't you believe in God?" but by, "I don't believe in God."

And yes, they don't have to explain. They already have justified their reasons.

 

[Thief]

Please tell me what you think "Webster's" says that implies that faith is rational or justified without evidence.

Hint: if your reply doesn't use some form of the words "rational" or "justified", it's wrong.

Edit: Just to clarify, this is the argument you're making, right?

- Webster's dictionary somehow implies that we're justified in believing things on faith that aren't supported by evidence.
- if it's in Webster's dictionary, it must be true.

Is this correct?

Oh...I think they took a moment to consider the definition.....don't you?

And when reason is considered.....
Cause and effect is an excellent form of reason.
The universe is the effect....and God is the Cause.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh...I think they took a moment to consider the definition.....don't you?

And when reason is considered.....
Cause and effect is an excellent form of reason.
The universe is the effect....and God is the Cause.

Are you going to answer my question or not?

 

[cottage]

[N.B. This reply also includes a response to your other post that you've now deleted.]

And yes, they don't have to explain. They already have justified their reasons.

At bottom, disbelief in God has no burden of proof because the object is not an innate idea and nor is it apparent in general experience; and this uncontroversial point is simply explained as a lack of evidence. Now there is a difference of course when in response to ‘There is no God’ the theist presents an argument for what is believed to be evidence for the existence of God, e.g. the cosmological argument or something of that ilk, and then in that case the disbeliever must step up and support his/her assertion; but even if arguments to the existent of God are refuted by the disbeliever, as they can be, it still doesn’t prove non-existence. So in the case of an existential proposition such as this the burden of proof is always with the person making the assertion because the doubter cannot prove the non-existence of the supposed entity. In simple terms, then, it’s for the theist to deliver the goods.

All assertions have a burden of proof, of course they do, but the thing in question, the central existential premise: ‘God exists’ isn’t safe on account of no convincing objection being made. The objector’s lighter burden is simply the requirement to respond with argument to the theist’s claim, while unable to disprove it since that is a logically impossible task; and contrarily the theist’s necessary burden is not merely to rebut the objectors’ arguments but to demonstrate the truth of the central premise:

Theist: W (God exists)

Objector: Not-W because of X

Theist: X is false because Y

Therefore W

Note that this hasn’t demonstrated God exists (W), it has only demonstrated that the objector’s argument fails. The burden for the positive case remains, however.

Disbelief is not represented by, "Why don't you believe in God?" but by, "I don't believe in God."

‘Disbelief is not represented by the question” Why don't you believe in God?'” I’ve no idea where you’ve got that from; it was merely a single working example and certainly not something I’ve stated as ‘representing disbelief’! And nor is disbelief ‘represented’ by an ‘assertion’! Disbelief is held through a lack of common evidence as I’ve already indicated, and God’s non-existence does not follow as a necessary assertion and a consequent of disbelief. One can disbelieve in God, as many do by simply observing what there isn’t, but negative assertion is treated differently as described up the page.

 

[cottage]

But it's an empty challenge. It's a challenge that no one "has" to respond to. By issuing it, you've proven nothing/dis-proven nothing. You've only professed your position of non-belief. This holds no necessary value to anyone but yourself.

I think perhaps you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. The burden of proof is a principle contained within an assertion (the proposition); it isn’t the argument itself. If as a disbeliever in God someone wants to disabuse me of my disbelief it is for them to convince me otherwise. But I need an argument in order to respond, which is what I do as a sceptic: I challenge claims and assertions. I cannot of course prove that God does not exist; I can only find fault with the arguments. It is for the theist to demonstrate the positive assertion, the existential proposition.

 

[Willamena]

At bottom, disbelief in God has no burden of proof because the object is not an innate idea and nor is it apparent in general experience; and this uncontroversial point is simply explained as a lack of evidence. Now there is a difference of course when in response to ‘There is no God’ the theist presents an argument for what is believed to be evidence for the existence of God, e.g. the cosmological argument or something of that ilk, and then in that case the disbeliever must step up and support his/her assertion; but even if arguments to the existent of God are refuted by the disbeliever, as they can be, it still doesn’t prove non-existence. So in the case of an existential proposition such as this the burden of proof is always with the person making the assertion because the doubter cannot prove the non-existence of the supposed entity. In simple terms, then, it’s for the theist to deliver the goods.

All assertions have a burden of proof, of course they do, but the thing in question, the central existential premise: ‘God exists’ isn’t safe on account of no convincing objection being made. The objector’s lighter burden is simply the requirement to respond with argument to the theist’s claim, while unable to disprove it since that is a logically impossible task; and contrarily the theist’s necessary burden is not merely to rebut the objectors’ arguments but to demonstrate the truth of the central premise:

Theist: W (God exists)

Objector: Not-W because of X

Theist: X is false because Y

Therefore W

Note that this hasn’t demonstrated God exists (W), it has only demonstrated that the objector’s argument fails. The burden for the positive case remains, however.

As I employ the principle, all posits have the burden of proof. In the case of Objector above, W or its negation is not his posit. He has a burden of proof for the posits he makes. Arguing that the Objector has to argue W or its negation misses the point.

That is what is being argued by Falvlun and I in this thread.

Disbelief is not represented in claim by the negation of W. The Objector has his own posits to deal with.

‘

Disbelief is not represented by the question” Why don't you believe in God?'” I’ve no idea where you’ve got that from; it was merely a single working example and certainly not something I’ve stated as ‘representing disbelief’! And nor is disbelief ‘represented’ by an ‘assertion’! Disbelief is held through a lack of common evidence as I’ve already indicated, and God’s non-existence does not follow as a necessary assertion and a consequent of disbelief. One can disbelieve in God, as many do by simply observing what there isn’t, but negative assertion is treated differently as described up the page.

Yet, disbelief is easily represented by an assertion. "I don't, or cannot, believe that."

 

[Willamena]

So you prefer to disregard Webster's.
Is there a reference you DO prefer?

Anything but Mr. Webster's.

(It lists the archaic first, for goodness sake.)

 

[Thief]

Anything but Mr. Webster's.

(It lists the archaic first, for goodness sake.)

Wherefore then shall we reason?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I employ the principle, all posits have the burden of proof. In the case of Objector above, W or its negation is not his posit. He has a burden of proof for the posits he makes. Arguing that the Objector has to argue W or its negation misses the point.

That is what is being argued by Falvlun and I in this thread.

Disbelief is not represented in claim by the negation of W. The Objector has his own posits to deal with.

‘
Yet, disbelief is easily represented by an assertion. "I don't, or cannot, believe that."

But, as I tried to point out earlier, when the objector makes his claim about the original burden of proof, the objector's burden of proof is irrelevant to the larger discussion.

A claim that has been made but not supported or refuted might be true. If it's claimed that someone hasn't met their burden of proof, then it might be true until it's refuted... but by the nature of the burden of proof, if it can be validly said that the claim might not meet its burden of proof, and if this can stand unrefuted, then this implies that the burdrn of proof hasn't been met.

This is because a claim that has met its burden of proof has within itself the refutation for any valid claim that its burden of proof has been met. Since a claim that has not met its burden of proof might not be true, speaking against a claim's burden of proof amounts to speaking against the claim itself... and meeting the burden of proof implies that all reasonable objections to the claim have been addressed (or at least rendered moot).

 

[Thief]

I see the edge of one coin.
One side says prove it....and the other side says....in God we trust.

I still say it is unreasonable to ask for evidence for a topic that is understood to be void of evidence.

 

[Desert Snake]

Like I stated earlier, atheists are just out of the conversation.

 

[Willamena]

But, as I tried to point out earlier, when the objector makes his claim about the original burden of proof, the objector's burden of proof is irrelevant to the larger discussion.

A claim that has been made but not supported or refuted might be true. If it's claimed that someone hasn't met their burden of proof, then it might be true until it's refuted... but by the nature of the burden of proof, if it can be validly said that the claim might not meet its burden of proof, and if this can stand unrefuted, then this implies that the burdrn of proof hasn't been met.

This is because a claim that has met its burden of proof has within itself the refutation for any valid claim that its burden of proof has been met. Since a claim that has not met its burden of proof might not be true, speaking against a claim's burden of proof amounts to speaking against the claim itself... and meeting the burden of proof implies that all reasonable objections to the claim have been addressed (or at least rendered moot).

But this thread is about the objector's claim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But this thread is about the objector's claim.

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

Edit: but for the reasons that I gave, if the claim that the original argument hasn't met its burden of proof isn't implicitly refuted by the original argument, then it's necessarily true that the original claim DIDN'T meet its burden of proof.

In this situation, the claim "the original claim didn't meet its burden of proof" has been demonstrated to be true, and has therefore met its own burden of proof.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see the edge of one coin.
One side says prove it....and the other side says....in God we trust.

I'm in Canada - the God on our coins comes with monarchist baggage (the Latin motto on Canadian coins around Queen Elizabeth's head translates as "Queen by the grace of God").

I still say it is unreasonable to ask for evidence for a topic that is understood to be void of evidence.

It's reasonable to ask for evidence for anything that might be reasonably believed. If gods are "void of evidence", then it's unreasonable to believe in them.

Edit: your argument implies that you have no way to tell that your religion is not a delusion. Is this really the position you want to take?

 

[Willamena]

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

Edit: but for the reasons that I gave, if the claim that the original argument hasn't met its burden of proof isn't implicitly refuted by the original argument, then it's necessarily true that the original claim DIDN'T meet its burden of proof.

In this situation, the claim "the original claim didn't meet its burden of proof" has been demonstrated to be true, and has therefore met its own burden of proof.

And that's fine. But this thread is about those objectors who irrationally deny that they have a burden of proof.

 

[Willamena]

Wherefore then shall we reason?

It's not like we have a choice. We reason.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And that's fine. But this thread is about those objectors who irrationally deny that they have a burden of proof.

It's about people who don't agree that they need to provide further justification for their claim about the burden of proof... and they don't.

An argument has met its burden of proof when it has addressed all reasonable objections and uncertainties. If the argument might not have met its burden of proof (which is the case if the claim "the argument didn't meet its burden of proof" is floating out there unrefuted), then there remains at least one uncertainty that is unaddressed. This implies that the burden of proof has not in fact been met.

IOW, an unrefuted claim that an argument didn't meet its burden of proof is self-evidently true (and therefore meets its own burden of proof) even if this objection isn't supported further.

 

[Willamena]

It's about people who don't agree that they need to provide further justification for their claim about the burden of proof... and they don't.

And they don't, that's correct. It's when they make a posit that a burden of proof comes into play. Rejecting the claim makes this apparent: if they are engaging discussion, they support their rejection by composing a counter-argument. Enter posits.

An argument has met its burden of proof when it has addressed all reasonable objections and uncertainties. If the argument might not have met its burden of proof (which is the case if the claim "the argument didn't meet its burden of proof" is floating out there unrefuted), then there remains at least one uncertainty that is unaddressed. This implies that the burden of proof has not in fact been met.

IOW, an unrefuted claim that an argument didn't meet its burden of proof is self-evidently true (and therefore meets its own burden of proof) even if this objection isn't supported further.

Not all of us argue that well (that our burden of proof is met).