Need Some Help!

[ChristIsTheWay]

Hi all. I am currently discussing the subject of God’s existence and the burden of proof with someone. This individual claims that the burden of proof only falls on someone who says something exists, not on someone who says something does not exist. I tried to explain to him that that is not true. The burden of proof falls on anyone making an affirmative statement. He didn’t believe it. I am wondering if anyone can give me some academic references or major works of philosophy that confirm this. Thanks.

 

[Mirdath]

Sounds like he needs a basic logic textbook, not any ‘major works’ necessarily. ‘God does not exist’ isn’t a negative statement.

 

[punkforchrist]

Is he a positive or negative atheist? In other words, does he claim there is no God or simply that there is insufficient evidence?

Burden of proof is an interesting subject, and even negative atheists have a burden of proof in a sense; they still have to undermine arguments in favor of theism.

 

[Pax]

I would suggest Peter Kreeft’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Kreeft accomplishes several things in this book.

He demonstrates the following:

1. There is no “proof” that God exists or does not exist. If there were proof there would be no need for faith.
2. There are arguments to support the belief in the existence of God, and there are arguments to support the belief that God does not exist.
3. There are arguments that support the belief that God exists that are logical and internally consistent. These arguments cannot be logically refuted. Even though these arguments do not “prove” that God exists, when taken together they form a highly persuasive case.
4. None of the arguments against the existence of God provide a proof. “All” of the arguments against the existence of God suffer from some fault or deficiency. Many are self defeating or suffer from some internal inconsistency. Every one of them can be refuted.

Kreeft does a great job of exploring all of the arguments from both sides. He shows the strengths and the weaknesses and leaves no stone unturned. The material is heady and deep but worth perusing carefully. I took a long time getting through the book to make sure I understood it. I have referred back to it many times, and I plan to read it in its entirety again in the future.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Sounds like he needs a basic logic textbook, not any ‘major works’ necessarily. ‘God does not exist’ isn’t a negative statement.

I agree. I should probably just point him in the direction of some basic materials.

punkforchrist:

Is he a positive or negative atheist? In other words, does he claim there is no God or simply that there is insufficient evidence?

I think he is a positive atheist (there is no God).

Pax:

I would suggest Peter Kreeft’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Kreeft accomplishes several things in this book.

Thanks. Any other suggestions? I’d like to find something that I could email to him. But I will definitely give this book a look. It sounds very interesting.

 

[punkforchrist]

I think he is a positive atheist (there is no God).

Universal negatives are very difficult to support, unless they are analytically true (i.e. “there are no married bachelors”). “God does not exist” has no mere analytical support, since there’s nothing about the definition of God that conflicts with His existence.

Jimmy Akin wrote an article about burden of proof in This Rock. Here’s the link: catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0310bt.asp

Akin addresses the theist/atheist debate halfway down the page.

Blessings

 

[ryanoneil]

I would suggest Peter Kreeft’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Kreeft accomplishes several things in this book.

He demonstrates the following:

1. There is no “proof” that God exists or does not exist. If there were proof there would be no need for faith.
2. There are arguments to support the belief in the existence of God, and there are arguments to support the belief that God does not exist.
3. There are arguments that support the belief that God exists that are logical and internally consistent. These arguments cannot be logically refuted. Even though these arguments do not “prove” that God exists, when taken together they form a highly persuasive case.
4. None of the arguments against the existence of God provide a proof. “All” of the arguments against the existence of God suffer from some fault or deficiency. Many are self defeating or suffer from some internal inconsistency. Every one of them can be refuted.

Kreeft does a great job of exploring all of the arguments from both sides. He shows the strengths and the weaknesses and leaves no stone unturned. The material is heady and deep but worth perusing carefully. I took a long time getting through the book to make sure I understood it. I have referred back to it many times, and I plan to read it in its entirety again in the future.

Here is a link to 8 articles; Arguments for God’s Existence by Peter Kreeft

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0184.html

 

[Sideline]

I tried searching for a non-religious, internet site that would be able to support your claim, but wasn’t really able to find one. The Wikipedia site on burden of proof, had a bunch of problems with it. Burden of Proof (logical fallacy) was better, but not really exhaustive. I’d recommend reading it though to see if it could give you a hand.

The problem is that not only is he putting the burden of proof on you, but he is also setting the standard for the burden. In essense he is saying, “I’m right unless you can convince me otherwise, and I will set the standard impossibly high.”

Perhaps the best place to start is to ask him what the standard of proof is that you need to acheive, and ask if he can accomplish that for a dead person (like Richard the Lionheart). You can actually both try it. If neither of you can prove a real person existed, then the standard is obviously to high. If either of you ***can ***prove that Richard the Lionheart existed using that standard, then it seems a reasonable standard to hold you to if you want to prove God exists.

Seems fair doesn’t it?

 

[AgnosTheist]

This individual claims that the burden of proof only falls on someone who says something exists, not on someone who says something does not exist. I tried to explain to him that that is not true. The burden of proof falls on anyone making an affirmative statement.

csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

***Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). **This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.

Whether or not an argumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, “The defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime.” But it would be perfectly valid for the defense to argue, “The prosecution has not proven the defendant committed the crime, therefore you should declare him not guilty.” Both statements have the form of an argumentum ad ignorantiam; the difference is the burden of proof.

In debate, the proposing team in a debate round is usually (but not always) assumed to have the burden of proof, which means that if the team fails to prove the proposition to the satisfaction of the judge, the opposition wins. In a sense, the opposition team’s case is assumed true until proven false. But the burden of proof can sometimes be shifted; for example, in some forms of debate, the proposing team can shift the burden of proof to the opposing team by presenting a prima facie case that would, in the absence of refutation, be sufficient to affirm the proposition. Still, the higher burden generally rests with the proposing team, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition. *

 

[Sideline]

Universal negatives are very difficult to support, unless they are analytically true (i.e. “there are no married bachelors”). “God does not exist” has no mere analytical support, since there’s nothing about the definition of God that conflicts with His existence.

Some people would say impossible. How can I know that there are no white crows? I can’t prove it, because there could be one that no one has ever seen. The best I can do is say, “Until I see one, I choose to believe that there isn’t one.”

It is easier by far to justify skepticism, than non-existence.

 

[punkforchrist]

Sideline:

It is easier by far to justify skepticism, than non-existence.

Hi Sideline,

As a general rule, I would agree. However, skepticism I think is ultimately self-refuting if taken too far. The verification principle is itself not verified by empirical observation.

Blessings

 

[Sideline]

Hi Sideline,

As a general rule, I would agree. However, skepticism I think is ultimately self-refuting if taken too far. The verification principle is itself not verified by empirical observation.

Blessings

And I mostly agree with that.

Although, I would say the problem is when you take skepticism to an extreme without going all the way. If you choose to reject all claims to knowledge then you don’t run into that problem.

It’s when you take skepticism to an extreme, but still try and make knowledge claims. That is you run into the problem.

But yeah, we seem to agree.

Was it Hume who tried to reject all knowledge? Someone did, I can’t remember.

 

[Peregrino]

1. There are arguments that support the belief that God exists that are logical and internally consistent…

4…“All” of the arguments against the existence of God suffer from some fault or deficiency.

Examples of both 3 and 4 please…

 

[punkforchrist]

Sideline:

If you choose to reject all claims to knowledge then you don’t run into that problem.

This may sound a bit picky, so please bear with me.

It seems to me that if skepticism is taken to the point where one doubts literally everything, then he must conclude that he is sure of at least one thing–namely, that all things should be doubted. It is kind of like saying, “It is true that there is no truth” or “I am sure that everything should be doubted”, with is self-contradictory.

Was it Hume who tried to reject all knowledge? Someone did, I can’t remember.

That is a fair assessment of Hume, but I think you are talking about Descartes.

 

[Sideline]

This may sound a bit picky, so please bear with me.

It seems to me that if skepticism is taken to the point where one doubts literally everything, then he must conclude that he is sure of at least one thing–namely, that all things should be doubted. It is kind of like saying, “It is true that there is no truth” or “I am sure that everything should be doubted”, with is self-contradictory.

Let’s say they don’t try to make a positive claim. All our skeptic claims is, “All I know is that I doubt everything.”

But then they don’t doubt their doubt do they? Which is contradictory.

Nicely done, well nit-picked.

That is a fair assessment of Hume, but I think you are talking about Descartes.

I don’t think it was Descartes. Descartes tried to rebuild a logical system after he reduced it all. The person I’m thinking of actually tried to live his life without believing in anything.

 

[RobNY]

I don’t think it was Descartes. Descartes tried to rebuild a logical system after he reduced it all. The person I’m thinking of actually tried to live his life without believing in anything.

Descartes doubted as a method by which to find certain foundations of knowledge.

Hume attacked induction and causality, which more or less destroys any type of scientific knowledge; he also pointed out that from a strict empiricist position that knowledge of the self, substance or God is impossible, thus destroying the science of metaphysics.

Hume, however, did not live as a skeptic-- in fact he lived as if none of his philosophy was true.

Perhaps you are thinking of the ancient skeptics who adopted skepticism as a moral philosophy-- they attempted to suspend belief on everything so as to avoid unhappiness.

-Rob

 

[Sideline]

Hume, however, did not live as a skeptic-- in fact he lived as if none of his philosophy was true.

Perhaps you are thinking of the ancient skeptics who adopted skepticism as a moral philosophy-- they attempted to suspend belief on everything so as to avoid unhappiness.

-Rob

Actually, it was Hume I was thinking about. I had misinterpreted a quote by Karl Popper:

“although he (Hume) felt rationally obliged to regard commonsense realism as a mistake, he admitted that he was, in practice, quite unable to disbelieve in it for more than an hour”

I had assumed that meant that he had tried this on occasion, but it seems instead to be an explanation of why he didn’t try to live that way.

 

[cpayne]

Hi all. I am currently discussing the subject of God’s existence and the burden of proof with someone. This individual claims that the burden of proof only falls on someone who says something exists, not on someone who says something does not exist. I tried to explain to him that that is not true. The burden of proof falls on anyone making an affirmative statement. He didn’t believe it. I am wondering if anyone can give me some academic references or major works of philosophy that confirm this. Thanks.

Regarding the specific example of God’s existence, the philosopher Norman Malcom has an argument which he says shifts the burden of proof to the atheist, a variation on Anselm’s ontological argument. You might google the name to see what comes up.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Regarding the specific example of God’s existence, the philosopher Norman Malcom has an argument which he says shifts the burden of proof to the atheist, a variation on Anselm’s ontological argument. You might google the name to see what comes up.

Thanks, I’ll check it out.