Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Thief]

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.

So...now....
Are you expecting to witness something you cannot prove?

 

[Bunyip]

So...now....
Are you expecting to witness something you cannot prove?

Nope, although you seem to do that a lot.

 

[Thief]

Then we shall no longer call for proof!.....and shall reason toward God!

 

[Sir Doom]

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

Then it is a matter of belief, after all.

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.

Pretty sure I know that. I'm pretty sure it was the reason I used to dismiss your example as irrelevant. You remember... the difference between 'believing in' ToE and believing the ToE. I'm sure you'll remember soon...

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

Oh my. Perhaps someone forgot how this conversation started...

Is God's existence a hypothesis or a theory? I'm so dumb not to know the difference.

Neither. It is a belief. A faith based apprehension.

A belief. Not 'believe in'...

You don't believe theories? I usually do...

Believe, Not 'believe in'...

Theories are not a matter of belief, they are explanations.

A matter of belief. Not 'believe in'

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

Believe. Not 'believe in'.

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

Questions of belief. Not 'believe in'

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.

And finally, 'believe in' shows up. And then promptly gets replaced by belief by the end.

Of course now you have said:

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

Which means you need to now explain again why 'The existence of God' is not a theory. Since the only reason you said it wasn't was because it was a matter of belief... which you've admitted theories ARE matters of belief since you believe them. Not 'believe in' just believe.

Naturally, I never said the existence of God was a theory, I only asked if it was. And your explanation of why it isn't is simply inadequate. Feel free to try again.

 

[Bunyip]

Then it is a matter of belief, after all.

Not at all, it is evidential.

Explaining why the existence of god is not a theory is easy - theories are testable, fasifyable explanations drawn from the available evidence. Belief in god is a question of faith.

 

[atanu]

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.

To begin with, ethically:
I believe that every person should be able to articulate why they do or do not hold particular beliefs (or, at the very least, beliefs that they spend time debating.) To me, this is an integrity thing. I can't imagine simply rejecting something, especially something that is widely held to be true-- whether it be evolution, or photosynthesis, or the existence of god-- without having an understanding of why I don't accept it.

Next, philosophically:
It seems to me that the burden-of-proof argument has been misused, or at least, not very well thought out.

Some background: The burden of proof is historically placed on the person making a positive claim. Thus, theists certainly have a burden of proof, as they claim that gods do in fact exist.

Many atheists have gotten around their own burden of proof by claiming to merely have a "lack of belief" in the existence of gods. They are not making a claim themselves; they are merely refusing to accept the claim of another.

Or are they?

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: The claim that theists have not met their burden of proof.

Who decides this? There is no objective arbiter. Why should we, or the theist, accept the assertion that the burden of proof has not been met?

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

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.

When a person asserts to be an atheist, that indicates that the person has selected a position out of two possible. And that entails a burden of proof, irrespective of claim of any theist.

 

[Bunyip]

When a person asserts to be an atheist, that indicates that the person has selected a position out of two possible. And that entails a burden of proof, irrespective of claim of any theist.

But the existence of god is unproven - so how can atheism bear a burden of proof that theism can not meet anyway?

 

[atanu]

But the existence of god is unproven - so how can atheism bear a burden of proof that theism can not meet anyway?

When i label myself an atheist, i bear the burden of justifying that label.

 

[Bunyip]

When i label myself an atheist, i bear the burden of justifying that label.

Sure, but you can justify atheism simply by recognising that the burden of proof for the existence of god is as yet unmet.

You do not need to disprove the unproven.

 

[atanu]

Sure, but you can justify atheism simply by recognising that the burden of proof for the existence of god is as yet unmet.

You do not need to disprove the unproven.

If I have not been presented with adequate proof ( adequate in my opinion) regarding a proposition, i do not take the opposite of the proposition as proven.

So, when I assert "I am an Atheist", I alone am responsible. I cannot say "I am an atheist because my neighbour theist has failed to give adequate proof for him being a theist".

 

[Erebus]

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

What evidence do you have to support that claim?

 

[Breathe]

You do not need to disprove the unproven.

Prove it.

 

[steeltoes]

Then it is a matter of belief, after all.

Words have more than one meaning.

 

[steeltoes]

When a person asserts to be an atheist, that indicates that the person has selected a position out of two possible. And that entails a burden of proof, irrespective of claim of any theist.

No, god claims are unsupported so that leaves us with only one possibility.

 

[Willamena]

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

It is the OP. In a nutshell.

 

[Willamena]

If invisible exists, then nothing exists.

And non-existence exists.

If you like.

Edit: For many people, they do. However, for me non-existence means just that; and "existence" does not equate to visible.

 

[atanu]

No, god claims are unsupported so that leaves us with only one possibility.

So the following seems to apply

"I am an atheist because my neighbour theist has failed to give adequate proof for him being a theist".

 

[steeltoes]

So the following seems to apply

The following is true:


"I am an atheist because my neighbour theist has failed to give adequate proof for him being a theist".



It is true because my atheism is predicated on there being theists. No theists, no atheists.

 

[Willamena]

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

Yes. Abstracts exist.

 

[Quintessence]

No, god claims are unsupported so that leaves us with only one possibility.

It is not accurate to claim so matter-of-factly that various theisms are "unsupported" any more than it would be to claim that various atheisms are.