Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

But if we're sticking to the OP, isn't the objection about people who don't provide further "posits"?

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

Does that mean you agree with me?

 

[Willamena]

But if we're sticking to the OP, isn't the objection about people who don't provide further "posits"?

I don't see that. From the 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.

Seems reasonable on the face of it, no? And it has been a convincing one, at least, to many atheists.

But look more closely. The atheist is making a claim...

Is this not a claim that requires it's own proof?

Edit: It's a case where people either fail to or refuse to recognize that they have made a claim.

Does that mean you agree with me?

If I don't, I wouldn't pursue it. I know this topic and am sticking to it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see that. From the OP:

Edit: It's a case where people either fail to or refuse to recognize that they have made a claim.

Also from the OP:

So, how would you go about evidencing the claim that theists have not met their burden of proof?

You would need to go through various arguments made for the existence of gods and explain why they fail to provide sufficient evidence.

And yet, this is precisely what one would need to do in the first place, before burden of proof is even evoked: If a theists asks an atheist to support their position, the atheist could simply explain why the various arguments for the existence of gods has failed to convince her.

Which seems to me to make the whole burden of proof argumentation not only unethical, but useless as well.

IOW, the claim is that the atheist in the hypothetical scenario should be giving "posits" to support his or her position that the theist hasn't met his burden of proof, but isn't doing this.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Only if they feel the need to change your position of disbelief. If they don't care whether you believe or not, they don't care that you are a skeptic.

As far as the claimant is concerned, the burden of proof has been met unless someone claims otherwise. Your claim is that you can't disprove the claim? Not really a threat to the claim. What makes you think anyone needs to accept a burden of proof on this basis?

 

[Nakosis]

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

Well only those that use the burden of proof as their argument.

 

[Willamena]

Also from the OP:


IOW, the claim is that the atheist in the hypothetical scenario should be giving "posits" to support his or her position that the theist hasn't met his burden of proof, but isn't doing this.

If they have that position, then yes, they should be making claims that well support their position (in a discussion forum) ... as you did above in post 1399.

Edit: To clarify, it is a case where people have the beliefs in place to make a good argument that supports their side, and either fail to or refuse to recognize that they have made any claim and so bear any burden. The subsequent professions that the original claim is the only one that has any made any claim and bears any burden is transparent. That is the 'bad argument.'

 

[Thief]

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").


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?

Reason can be held as cause to believe.
The experiment doesn't always fit the petri dish.

You won't find God in the laboratory or the library.

you have to think about Him.

btw.....rogue theologian.......I have no religion....plenty of reason and faith.

 

[McBell]

btw.....rogue theologian.......I have no religion....plenty of reason and faith.

:biglaugh:

 

[cottage]

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.

As a matter of fact the negation of W is a legitimate proposition, and a sceptic has good reason to question that extraordinary assertion: The central claim here concerns the putative existence of a supernatural being, and the OP herself states that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’, a cliché perhaps, but one that most people agree with, and so disbelief is justified in the absence of this ‘extraordinary evidence’. It seems to me that in this thread the final determination is being subtlety laid aside as if it is of reduced consequence with the real problem being the sceptic’s justification.

If someone makes an argument or asserts a denial then by definition it is a claim. However while the sceptic must be able to justify the disbelief to himself, which he does for the reasons I’ve given previously, he can also ask for proof of the existence of gods without having to first justify his disbelief to the theist. And the sceptic cannot shift the burden by returning the question to the sceptic with the question-begging ‘Why don’t you believe in gods?’ If the proposition ‘God exists’ is true then it is for the advocate to prove it, since non-existence cannot be proved by the sceptic. As Favlun herself said ‘the theist has the greater burden’, and I maintain that burden is carried throughout.

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

Of course, as in every argument ever made against the existence of God. An assertion is generally described as a confident or forceful statement or a positive declaration or argument, but not one of uncertainty or ambiguity where a thing might or might not be. Disbelief can be held through a lack of common experience as I’ve already indicated, and God’s non-existence does not follow as a necessary assertion and a consequent of disbelief. It’s not being proposed in such cases that there is, or there is not a God, that one particular is true and the other false.

 

[cottage]

Only if they feel the need to change your position of disbelief. If they don't care whether you believe or not, they don't care that you are a skeptic.

Nevertheless if they’re making an assertion then they ought to be prepared to defend it. And the same applies to the sceptic; no special exceptions.

As far as the claimant is concerned, the burden of proof has been met unless someone claims otherwise. Your claim is that you can't disprove the claim? Not really a threat to the claim. What makes you think anyone needs to accept a burden of proof on this basis?

The fact that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of supernatural entities isn’t itself the argument; however, it is significantly in accordance with the theist’s own failure to demonstrate the existence of what is claimed, ergo the actual existence of God.

 

[Desert Snake]

Well only those that use the burden of proof as their argument.

Hmm true, but what other argument is there? None that I know of.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Reason can be held as cause to believe.

What reason?

The experiment doesn't always fit the petri dish.

You won't find God in the laboratory or the library.

you have to think about Him.

How can an omnipresent being NOT be in a laboratory or library?

btw.....rogue theologian.......I have no religion....plenty of reason and faith.

Well, you've got plenty of faith at any rate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmm true, but what other argument is there? None that I know of.

Depends on the god in question. Some versions are inherently contradictory, or imply things that are demonstrably false.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If they have that position, then yes, they should be making claims that well support their position (in a discussion forum) ... as you did above in post 1399.

... out of a desire for discussion, not because I thought I "owed" the debate something.

Edit: To clarify, it is a case where people have the beliefs in place to make a good argument that supports their side, and either fail to or refuse to recognize that they have made any claim and so bear any burden. The subsequent professions that the original claim is the only one that has any made any claim and bears any burden is transparent. That is the 'bad argument.'

So you don't agree with my argument, then?

As I just finished explaining, if the burden of proof might not have been met, then it hasn't been met.

 

[Willamena]

... out of a

So you don't agree with my argument, then?

As I just finished explaining, if the burden of proof might not have been met, then it hasn't been met.

I'm not talking about whether it is met or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not talking about whether it is met or not.

You're talking about the claim that the burden of proof hasn't been met. And I'm saying that as long as this hasn't been refuted, its burden has been met.

It's unreasonable to demand further support once an argument has been established as correct.

 

[Willamena]

You're talking about the claim that the burden of proof hasn't been met. And I'm saying that as long as this hasn't been refuted, its burden has been met.

It's unreasonable to demand further support once an argument has been established as correct.

The claim that the burden of proof hasn't been met is but one example of how the objector makes a claim. The issue is the objector denying that he has a claim that carries a burden.

 

[Willamena]

It's unreasonable to demand further support once an argument has been established as correct.

But it (your position) is supported. You did a fine job of supporting it on Page 140. So there's no reason to declare you have no claim and no burden.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But it is supported. You did a fine job of supporting it on Page 140. So there's no reason to declare you have no claim and no burden.

Let me get this straight: you acknowledge that the person making the burden of proof claim is justified in his conclusion and has met his burden, but you take issue with people who claim they don't have a burden?

If so, then I think we're just arguing over semantics... about the difference between "no burden (whatsoever)" and "no (further) burden". Either way, it sounds like you agree that the person doesn't have any sort of obligation to provide further support, right?

 

[Willamena]

Let me get this straight: you acknowledge that the person making the burden of proof claim is justified in his conclusion and has met his burden, but you take issue with people who claim they don't have a burden?

If so, then I think we're just arguing over semantics... about the difference between "no burden (whatsoever)" and "no (further) burden". Either way, it sounds like you agree that the person doesn't have any sort of obligation to provide further support, right?

I don't think it is a matter of semantics, or that particular semantic, but otherwise, I agree.

The burden of proof does not obligate one to provide support--that burden is introduced by the ceremony of civilized discourse. The burden of proof, as Falvlun so nicely put it, is not something you owe other people, it's something you owe yourself: to have a reasonable and rational position from which to argue.