Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Sir Doom]

Should I just give up on expecting to see the comparisons I asked for?

 

[steeltoes]

Can you describe the difference between believing you know how the world works and knowing how the world works?

"Believing in" is a little different than keeping abreast of new discoveries.

 

[outhouse]

Or, as Falvlun said:

Which to me was weak, and ignored due to its impact on the OP.

Many theist are not able to even carry a rational or reasonable debate, when it gets to a point of supernatural explanations reaching into reality.

I am all for religious education, but not at the expense of history or reality.


Sometimes it is better to cut and run and hand wave off their claims, then try and enter a debate that will never be a REAL debate.

 

[Sir Doom]

"Believing in" is a little different than keeping abreast of new discoveries.

This was meant as an answer to the quoted question?

EDIT: I am noticing that you seem to be differentiating between believing something and believing IN something. Am I correct? This would change things a bit.

 

[Mycroft]

If you make a claim, you should be able to, at least, evidence it.

So.

If you have proof, there should be no problem presenting it.
If you can get the proof, then there should be no problem with the burden of proof.
If you don't have proof, well...this is when the burden of proof becomes a problem for you.

There's nothing wrong with the Burden of Proof concept.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Invisible exists.

If invisible exists, then nothing exists.

And non-existence exists.

 

[Breathe]

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

Do you have any proof of that?
Sorry, but it had to be done.

I agree with your point. In addition, I don't think any proof an other person -- especially a layperson -- can offer within discussing theology, is really going to be accepted as proof by the majority of people, as it is something that ultimately relies heavily on a person's subjective experiences.

 

[Sir Doom]

If invisible exists, then nothing exists.

And non-existence exists.

In the very least, it exists as a term. Then again that's true of anything... I guess that means everything exists. Even God. Oh noes...

 

[Bunyip]

Can you describe the difference between accepting an explanation and believing an explanation?

Sure, I'll use the example of the theory of evolution.

I accept that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for the phenomena of evolution currently available.

I do not 'believe in' the theory of evolution because it is not a system of belief, it is not an ideology that it is possible to 'believe in'. It is simply an explanation, not a truth claim.

My point here was not to distinguish between belief and acceptance, but to distinguish between an ideology or philosophy that one believes in, as in believes to be true - and a theory which is an explanation that is accepted to be the best possible explanation drawn from the available evidence.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

In the very least, it exists as a term. Then again that's true of anything... I guess that means everything exists. Even God. Oh noes...

Yep. Everything exists and nothing exists.

If invisible exists, I mean.

 

[Bunyip]

Yep. Everything exists and nothing exists.

If invisible exists, I mean.

Well something can certainly be invisible and exist - most gases for example, gravity, electricity, wind.

A substance can be invisible, but still be material.

I think the issue here is about the impossibility of proving the non-existence of an unproven immaterial entity, not the invisible - which is commonplace.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well something can certainly be invisible and exist - most gases for example, gravity, electricity, wind.

Sure, but that's not the claim. The claim is that invisible exists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, I wouldn't. And neither would you. Ignoring for a moment that humans are hardly "rational" creatures - meaning if they are presented with sound proofs they will in many (if not most) cases continue believing what they believed earlier - I quite firmly insist that presenting a decent argument or case for your position more than satisfies the demand placed regardless of whether or not some specific individual personally agrees with it. That a given presentation fails to be compelling for some specific individual doesn't mean that it lacks merit, and doesn't mean it isn't compelling for someone else.

You don't seem to understand my point. "Burden of proof" deals with the specific kind of evidence required that would be necessary for you to conclude that a given claim is true. If you do not believe something, then you are saying "the evidence presented for this claim is insufficient for me to believe it - i.e, this claim has not met its burden of proof". That's the whole point of "meeting the burden of proof".

Basically, what I'm saying is that just because one individual isn't convinced doesn't mean the person hasn't provided adequate proof on the whole. "I find your case for X uncompelling" =/= "X is false." Remove the egos and I's from the picture and look at the landscape. That's how I'm approaching this.

Again, you're not really understanding my point. If you personally believed that a person has provided sufficient evidence of their position, you should therefore conclude that it should be believed. To say "It has met it's burden of proof, but I don't believe it" is like saying "There is enough evidence for me to conclude that it is true, but I don't believe it", which is a contradiction. It is up to each individual to establish what is sufficient evidence for a given argument, and to address the logic and flaws of the evidence presented. The main issue is with establishing whose standard of evidence is most reasonable, given the claim.

 

[Thief]

16 pages...and did anyone note?.....

Faith is an item that requires no proving. (Webster's)

But when attempting to say there is a God....
and science offers the firm approach...for every cause there is an effect...
(which I believe)

The universe if the effect and God is the Cause.

Where proof cannot render to satisfaction.....reason remains.

 

[Bunyip]

16 pages...and did anyone note?.....

Faith is an item that requires no proving. (Webster's)

But when attempting to say there is a God....
and science offers the firm approach...for every cause there is an effect...
(which I believe)

The universe if the effect and God is the Cause.

Where proof cannot render to satisfaction.....reason remains.

But science claims the exact opposite of that - science argues that cause and effect break down at the quantum level, the formation of tye universe being an example of a quantum effect.

So you are claiming to agree with science, but are getting what science claims completely wrong.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, then that's a weighty freedom that they bear.

Hardly.

That does weight are the misconceptions that some people present in its place.

 

[Sir Doom]

Sure, I'll use the example of the theory of evolution.

I accept that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for the phenomena of evolution currently available.

So, you don't believe the theory of evolution is the best explanation for the phenomena of evolution currently available.

See how that's a problem? They mean the same thing.

I do not 'believe in' the theory of evolution because it is not a system of belief, it is not an ideology that it is possible to 'believe in'. It is simply an explanation, not a truth claim.

That's fine and dandy, but its almost identical to the second line of the post that prompted this question in the first place.

My point here was not to distinguish between belief and acceptance, but to distinguish between an ideology or philosophy that one believes in, as in believes to be true - and a theory which is an explanation that is accepted to be the best possible explanation drawn from the available evidence.

Actually, the point was to reinforce the sarcastic notion that I presented:

Okay, we aren't supposed to believe explanations. Gotcha.

Which is why you said:

Correct. Theories are accepted or rejected, they are not questions of belief.

For example: I do not 'believe in' the theory of evolution, because it is not an ideology or a belief system - it is a scientific theory. I accept the theory of evolution for what it is - the best possible explanation at this time for how evolution works. It demands no belief.

I am fairly certain I was not presenting 'explanations' as any kind of ideology to 'believe in'. So, your example (and the explanation it is intended to make me believe and accept) is hardly relevant. Of course, that still leaves the first statement, and of course my follow up question:

Can you describe the difference between accepting an explanation and believing an explanation?

And of course the only reason the answer to that matters was because you said that you don't believe theories because they are explanations, and that you don't believe explanations because you accept them instead.

 

[Thief]

But science claims the exact opposite of that - science argues that cause and effect break down at the quantum level, the formation of tye universe being an example of a quantum effect.

So you are claiming to agree with science, but are getting what science claims completely wrong.

Without the association between cause and effect.....experiment means nothing.

You will never again be sure of anything.

 

[Bunyip]

So, you don't believe the theory of evolution is the best explanation for the phenomena of evolution currently available.

False. I believe the TOE to be the best possible explanation of the available evidence, I do not 'believe in' the TOE.

See how that's a problem? They mean the same thing.

That's fine and dandy, but its almost identical to the second line of the post that prompted this question in the first place.

A statement or word can be almost identical and yet have a totally different meaning, I am surprised that you do not appear to know that.
For example; The word 'atheist' is almost identical to the word 'theist' and yet has the opposite meaning.

Actually, the point was to reinforce the sarcastic notion that I presented:


Which is why you said:


I am fairly certain I was not presenting 'explanations' as any kind of ideology to 'believe in'. So, your example (and the explanation it is intended to make me believe and accept) is hardly relevant. Of course, that still leaves the first statement, and of course my follow up question:



And of course the only reason the answer to that matters was because you said that you don't believe theories because they are explanations, and that you don't believe explanations because you accept them instead.

No, that is not what I said - you must have misread.

 

[Bunyip]

Without the association between cause and effect.....experiment means nothing.

You will never again be sure of anything.

I can only interpret that comment as some sort of vague non-sequitur. The fact remains that science argues that cause and effect are NOT universal, and do not necessarily apply at the quantum level - the big bang being a quantum event.