Burden Of Proof

[NoOne]

So I was kind of thinking about this...whenever Christians get into debates with atheists (and no I'm not trying to single Christians out but I only see this with Christians...no other religious group does this), an argument that comes up to justify God's existence is "well you can't disprove him" or something along those lines. That is a logical fallacy called the burden of proof. It's when you make a positive claim, such as "God exists", then refuse to prove that claim. You have the burden of proof if you make the claim, you can't give it to the people who don't believe that claim since you can't prove a negative. And really, you can't be angry when you make such a bold claim and then people demand proof for it. It's how we decide what's worth believing or trusting and what's not. For example, if I go tell you that I have a whistle register and can hit all of Mariah Carey's whistle notes (which I obviously can't...but I do try), then you'd naturally want to hear it. You wouldn't necessarily say "prove it" but maybe something more casual like "oh show me" You want proof, just is perfectly fine because I made a claim that I can do this outrageous thing. So then I would show you and then you have reason to believe me. But, let's say I said, "no just have faith, I can hit those high 7th octave notes, don't test me" then you'd think or say "oh okay she can't really do it" because I refuse to give you valid evidence other than my claim, which you now think is a lie. Then I tell you that because you can't disprove that I can't do it, that's good proof that I can. See how dumb that is? This is the same exact thing that Christians are doing. You make a claim, you have to provide reasonable, objective evidence for it. The burden of proof is on you.

There's another example about a flying teapot, but I like my whistle register example more

 

So yeah, I don't know, just needed to get that off my chest.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi Defying Gravity, great post, and very important insights. I wish I had had your mind when I was your age. You're way ahead of where I was.

Since I'm not your age anymore, alas, but have had more time to come across more ideas etc., I'm chipping in with a thought about your OP.

In the spirit of our all learning from each other, I'd suggest you reword two things in this part of your post:

"That is a logical fallacy called the burden of proof. It's when you make a positive claim, such as "God exists", then refuse to prove that claim."

1. Technically, burden of proof is not a fallacy, although there are websites that talk about burden of proof as though it is a fallacy. A fallacy is a flaw in an argument that makes the conclusion an invalid inference from the premises. Some fallacies are strictly logical flaws, and others amount more to shady rhetorical tricks.
Burden of proof is not a feature of or step in an argument, but rather, one of the conditions that should be satisfied by someone making a certain kind of argument.
I think it may be helpful to reword the fallacy you name as something like "illicit reversal of the burden of proof." The fallacy lies in someone's attempt to shift the burden of proof, when s/he is making an assertive claim, onto to the person who declines to believe that claim.

2. Above I just alluded to what I'm suggesting as number 2: I think it's more helpful to say that the burden of proof falls on the person making the assertive claim, rather than to say that it falls on the person making the positive claim. That's because the phrase, "positive claim," is vague. It's clearer if you speak about "assertive claim."

Here's why.

An assertion is a speech act in which you state some proposition under assumptions that you and your listener share: e.g. that you believe the proposition is true when you state it, that you expect your listener to assume that you believe it, etc.

The proposition that you state can be a positive or a negative claim. You can say, "Yahweh exists." But you can also state the negation of any proposition, i.e. "It is not the case that Yahweh exists," or "Yahweh does not exist."  In logic, any proposition P can be negated and can be expressed as not-P.

A burden of proof rests both on the person asserting some proposition, P, and on the person asserting the negation of that proposition, not-P.  That the burden rests on both follows from the nature of the speech act, assertion.  Anyone who makes an assertion assumes the burden of justifying its truth.

The person who merely doubts that P or not-P is true bears the lesser burden of justifying his/her doubt. If you and a friend come to a closed door, and you say "The door is not open," your friend faces a very deep burden of doubt in order to justify declining to accept your assertion. If you say, "Yahweh does not exist," the friend has the burden of justifying doubt that you have stated a true proposition, but you face the steeper burden of proof for the assertive claim that you have made. You can give some reasons, though - e.g. you might try to show that the idea of Yahweh entails contradictions, or whatever.

This is why it's harder to argue for strong atheism, "there is no God," than to argue for weak atheism, "I don't believe there is a God."

I hope this makes sense. Nothing I wrote undermines your point!

[NoOne]

Hi Defying Gravity, great post, and very important insights. I wish I had had your mind when I was your age. You're way ahead of where I was.

Since I'm not your age anymore, alas, but have had more time to come across more ideas etc., I'm chipping in with a thought about your OP.

In the spirit of our all learning from each other, I'd suggest you reword two things in this part of your post:

"That is a logical fallacy called the burden of proof. It's when you make a positive claim, such as "God exists", then refuse to prove that claim."

1. Technically, burden of proof is not a fallacy, although there are websites that talk about burden of proof as though it is a fallacy. A fallacy is a flaw in an argument that makes the conclusion an invalid inference from the premises. Some fallacies are strictly logical flaws, and others amount more to shady rhetorical tricks.

Burden of proof is not a feature of or step in an argument, but rather, one of the conditions that should be satisfied by someone making a certain kind of argument.

I think it may be helpful to reword the fallacy you name as something like "illicit reversal of the burden of proof." The fallacy lies in someone's attempt to shift the burden of proof, when s/he is making an assertive claim, onto to the person who declines to believe that claim.

2. Above I just alluded to what I'm suggesting as number 2: I think it's more helpful to say that the burden of proof falls on the person making the assertive claim, rather than to say that it falls on the person making the positive claim. That's because the phrase, "positive claim," is vague. It's clearer if you speak about "assertive claim."

Here's why.

An assertion is a speech act in which you state some proposition under assumptions that you and your listener share: e.g. that you believe the proposition is true when you state it, that you expect your listener to assume that you believe it, etc.

The proposition that you state can be a positive or a negative claim. You can say, "Yahweh exists." But you can also state the negation of any proposition, i.e. "It is not the case that Yahweh exists," or "Yahweh does not exist."  In logic, any proposition P can be negated and can be expressed as not-P.

A burden of proof rests both on the person asserting some proposition, P, and on the person asserting the negation of that proposition, not-P.  That the burden rests on both follows from the nature of the speech act, assertion.  Anyone who makes an assertion assumes the burden of justifying its truth.

The person who merely doubts that P or not-P is true bears the lesser burden of justifying his/her doubt. If you and a friend come to a closed door, and you say "The door is not open," your friend faces a very deep burden of doubt in order to justify declining to accept your assertion. If you say, "Yahweh does not exist," the friend has the burden of justifying doubt that you have stated a true proposition, but you face the steeper burden of proof for the assertive claim that you have made. You can give some reasons, though - e.g. you might try to show that the idea of Yahweh entails contradictions, or whatever.

This is why it's harder to argue for strong atheism, "there is no God," than to argue for weak atheism, "I don't believe there is a God."

I hope this makes sense. Nothing I wrote undermines your point!

Thank you so much for this it makes sense, I see where you're coming from. I wasn't really all that great with the wording and what not. But I really like this, it explains and emphasizes a lot.

I do have a question though. Does that mean strong atheists also have a burden of proof, technically speaking?

[sdelsolray]

Thank you so much for this it makes sense, I see where you're coming from. I wasn't really all that great with the wording and what not. But I really like this, it explains and emphasizes a lot.

I do have a question though. Does that mean strong atheists also have a burden of proof, technically speaking?

 

 

Yes, technically "strong atheists" have the burden of proof to the extent they make an assertive claim.

 

I have found that the terms "strong atheist", "weak atheist" and the like are cumbersome.  I prefer the following:

 

Gnostic Theist - claims to know that God exists

Agnostic Theist - claims to believe God exists but does not claim to know that God exists

Agnostic Atheist - claims to not believe God exists (or claims to withhold belief in God due to lack of evidence) but does not claim to know that God does not exist

Gnostic Theist - claims to know that God does not exist

[florduh]

You'll find very few atheists who positively assert that there are no gods since they can't actually prove such a thing any more than you can prove there are no fairies hiding in the woods. Many would, however, be able to show evidence that a particular deity cannot exist as described, such as Bible God. Atheism is literally not belief, and it needs no defense as no assertions are made. The only position the atheist holds is that he/she has seen no evidence to warrant a belief in magical beings, and that is not an assertion but rather a fact.

[mymistake]

 Does that mean strong atheists also have a burden of proof, technically speaking?

 

 

I'm a strong atheist.

 

I rest my conclusion on all the evidence that archeologists and anthropologists have turned up in the last hundred years - specifically all the gods and goddesses that ancient human cultures have created.  It is human nature to create gods.  Now could I be wrong about this?  It's possible but I find that highly unlikely.  If down the road we uncover evidence that our universe was created by some kind of being then I will happily renounce my atheism.  But so far what cosmologists have uncovered demonstrates that our universe has unfolded by natural means.

[00LukeMan]

Because of the many shades of meaning in terms like these, as well as the need for very specific terminology, when talking with others I try instead to just say what I think rather than use a label.

 

I do not know that there is any god, therefore I am agnostic.

I do not believe that there is a god, which could be called weak atheism.

I also tentatively believe that there is no god, which would probably be called strong atheism. However, I am unclear as to whether strong atheism means believing that there is no god or claiming to know that there isn't.

 

I am by no means a gnostic atheist, I can't know that there isn't a god. I am merely completely unconvinced by any evidence thus far. Since I find no reason to believe in a god, I do not believe, but I also make the natural move as I do with things like Santa Claus and believe that he does not exist. (See Russell's Teapot for a similar example)

Could I be wrong? Of course! If some evidence comes up that holds water I will change my mind, but until that point I regard the existence of god the way I regard other magical creatures, as an invention of human imagination.

[NoOne]

*cough* Atheists have less of a burden *cough* Christians assert that some guy in the sky made you and wants to send you in hell because he has selfishness and jealously issues *cough*

 

Sorry guys I'm getting sick...

[ironhorse]

I cannot prove by any physical evidence that God exists in the physical world.

 

God is not a physical being.

[Astreja]

I cannot prove by any physical evidence that God exists in the physical world.

 

God is not a physical being.

 

Then by definition it is utterly powerless and incapable of intervening in any way in the physical universe, as energy is physical.

 

No point in worshipping an inert hypothetical entity that can't actually do anything.

[florduh]

I cannot prove by any physical evidence that God exists in the physical world.

 

God is not a physical being.

So how would such a non-physical construct that is undetectable be relevant in the physical realm in which we live? How is this anything more than imagination?

[mymistake]

I cannot prove by any physical evidence that God exists in the physical world.

 

God is not a physical being.

 

 

physical = real

 

not physical = not real

[bornagainathiest]

Ironhorse wrote...  

 

"I cannot prove by any physical evidence that God exists in the physical world.

 

God is not a physical being."

.

.

.

You cannot prove the first, but you state the second as a... fact?  

 

Or is that what you believe by... faith?  

.

.

.

If you declare the second to be a fact - then the burden of proof is on you to make good on your claim, Ironhorse. 

 

But if it's something you believe by faith - then there is no burden of proof on you.

 

You're free to believe whatever you like.

 

Just as we are free to not give a flying **** about what you believe.

.

.

.

Have a nice day! 

[NoOne]

I cannot prove by any physical evidence that God exists in the physical world.

 

God is not a physical being.

Perfect example of someone who has a burden of proof but is trying to get rid of it by saying irrelevant information.

[ConsiderTheSource]

Any sentence that begins "God is....." is a falsehood; unless what follows is "imaginary" or some synonyms thereof.

[Guest Furball]

I cannot prove by any physical evidence that God exists in the physical world.

 

God is not a physical being.

I cannot prove by any physical evidence that Peter Pan exists in the physical world.

 

Peter Pan is not a physical being.

[EyesOpened]

I cannot prove by any physical evidence that God exists in the physical world.

 

God is not a physical being.

That is not what i was told. I was told "GOD IS EVERYTHING". Wouldn't that include the physical? You sound confused IH.

[NoOne]

 

I cannot prove by any physical evidence that God exists in the physical world.

God is not a physical being.

That is not what i was told. I was told "GOD IS EVERYTHING". Wouldn't that include the physical? You sound confused IH.

EyesOpened, very good point...

[Ravenstar]

Then how did he wrestle? And how is he able to be beat by iron chariots?

 

People have been looking since the dawn of time for the 'non-corporeal'… both by direct means and by 'effect', even many scientists… there has of yet been no evidence to even suggest it could exist. If god can not interact with the universe then he seems kind of, irrelevant, no?

 

There's more evidence for the efficacy of meditation.

[ironhorse]

EyesOpened,

 

I did not mean to imply pantheism, the belief that God is in everything and that

God is not personal nor interacts with the universe.

[mymistake]

EyesOpened,

 

I did not mean to imply pantheism, the belief that God is in everything and that

God is not personal nor interacts with the universe.

 

 

Perhaps you didn't mean to but you are making multiple claims that contradict themselves.  It is impossible that God could be all the things you think God is.

[duderonomy]

The fact is we don't have to prove or disprove any invisible "Father" Biblegod.

 

He's the same in trinitarian thought as the holy spirit and Jesus. Jesus was supposedly here in the earth, and the holy spirit is supposed to be here now doing certain works through the church. Plus we have the Bible, through which we are supposed to be able to know this god.

 

The Jesus story is handily debunked and has been thoroughly, and the indwelt church speaks for itself with it's lack of miracles and dead-raising, etc. The Bible is the only thing left, and any one with an open mind can look into it and see that it cannot be divinely authored by the divinity that it claims wrote it, that it's stories are largely borrowed from other earlier religions, and that it's historically and scientifically not accurate in most instances.

 

The burden of proof in the Christians case is on the Christians. No wonder they have to hide behind delusions like "we can't know him". God is no more invisible than Jesus, the church, and the Bible.  Biblegod claims to be in this world and clearly is not. 

[ironhorse]

mymistake,

 

I  agree it does seem impossible.

 

If there is a universal God, then God is immense in intellect and power.

 

To me, the scriptures teach of God as a mysteriously powerful being that exists eternally.

The Bible does not answer our every question, but it does convey a simple message...

 

A God that does interact with his creation through his Word.

[duderonomy]

*snipped*

 

The Bible does not answer our every question, but it does convey a simple message...

 

A God that does interact with his creation through his Word.

 

Ironhorse, I think you meant to say the Quaran, not the Bible.

[Fweethawt]

 

*snipped*

 

The Bible does not answer our every question, but it does convey a simple message...

 

A God that does interact with his creation through his Word.

Ironhorse, I think you meant to say the Quaran, not the Bible.

Plus he forgot to capitalize his Hises.