Teak421's thread on the philosophical burden of proof

[teak421]

Well, we may have covered that 8 times, but I’m not sure if teak agrees with us. Since the whole point of this thread is to discuss who has the burden of proof, I’d like to hear what he has to say on the subject.

Has the Shirley example cleared things up for you, teak?

What constitutes evidence depends entirely on the claim. If you claim that a god exists, we have to have some specifics about the properties of this god. How, exactly, does this god interact with the universe? Only after you’ve defined the god’s specific properties can we begin to see if evidence supports the claim.

Anti, you’ve read or maybe you haven’t read my messages posted here… I’ve been careful talking about BoP. What I’ve said and I continue to say is that the atheist must provide an argument (yes, this is new and developed, more soon) as to why they believe what they believe. How did one arrive at that…

Where I am wrong was the use of the word evidence… I should have used the word argument. Meaning, I am going to develop an argument against Shirley. My argument will use several methods… comparisons, evidence (affirmative or negative), whatever… My point was and has developed after reading this thread (thank you) is each of us arrive at our conclusions (or beliefs) based on arguments. So, what I am suggesting is that the atheist should provide an argument against God. Now, that argument may simply be, there is no evidence… ok… fine. I will accept that without hesitation. BUT, I believe its lazy… Why? Because, in the case of Shirley I will present my argument against Shirley using a variety of methods…

When in the court of law, the person making the claim builds an argument to try and persuade the jury to their point of view… the opposition, will attempt to construct an argument that will hopefully influence the jury in their favor. Regardless of the BoP, both sides (if they are competent attorneys) will create an argument to help their cause. When the atheists default argument is no evidence for, I don’t pay much attention. But, if the atheist calls into question…“Hey… why does the Bible speak about this or that…” Then, the atheist builds a case… Much like the other poster called into question Shirley on several grounds…

• Michael

 

[teak421]

Anti, you’ve read or maybe you haven’t read my messages posted here… I’ve been careful talking about BoP. What I’ve said and I continue to say is that the atheist must provide an argument (yes, this is new and developed, more soon) as to why they believe what they believe. How did one arrive at that…

Where I am wrong was the use of the word evidence… I should have used the word argument. Meaning, I am going to develop an argument against Shirley. My argument will use several methods… comparisons, evidence (affirmative or negative), whatever… My point was and has developed after reading this thread (thank you) is each of us arrive at our conclusions (or beliefs) based on arguments. So, what I am suggesting is that the atheist should provide an argument against God. Now, that argument may simply be, there is no evidence… ok… fine. I will accept that without hesitation. BUT, I believe its lazy… Why? Because, in the case of Shirley I will present my argument against Shirley using a variety of methods…

When in the court of law, the person making the claim builds an argument to try and persuade the jury to their point of view… the opposition, will attempt to construct an argument that will hopefully influence the jury in their favor. Regardless of the BoP, both sides (if they are competent attorneys) will create an argument to help their cause. When the atheists default argument is no evidence for, I don’t pay much attention. But, if the atheist calls into question…“Hey… why does the Bible speak about this or that…” Then, the atheist builds a case… Much like the other poster called into question Shirley on several grounds…

• Michael

One more thing… in the development of the argument, the person constructing the argument will learn (from inquiry) new things and allow for the process of changing their position. So, as I construct my argument against Shirley and as I research, I may find interesting little tid-bits that may (during the course of inquiry) change my mind. Wow, that’s interesting… Shirley is this or that… does this or that… has this or that. I never looked at Shirley this way…

• michael

 

[Rocinante]

Since the whole point of this thread is to discuss who has the burden of proof…

doesn’t the burden of proof sit with whoever wants to convince someone else to change his mind?

if someone wants you to believe in a particular religion, they are obliged to provide you with reasons why you ought to. if you want to convince someone else not believe in their religion, then you have the burden of proof to provide reasons why they should.

rocinante

 

[teak421]

doesn’t the burden of proof sit with whoever wants to convince someone else to change his mind?

if someone wants you to believe in a particular religion, they are obliged to provide you with reasons why you ought to. if you want to convince someone else not believe in their religion, then you have the burden of proof to provide reasons why they should.

rocinante

Replace BoP with an argument and I agree 100 percent… In your example above, the two parties would need to make a compelling argument for their position.

Sorry, that was not addressed to me.

• Michael

 

[AntiTheist]

the atheist must provide an argument …] Now, that argument may simply be, there is no evidence… ok… fine.

Ok.

 

[AntiTheist]

doesn’t the burden of proof sit with whoever wants to convince someone else to change his mind?

Teak is finally getting it, because his response below is spot on. The burden of proof always belongs to the person making the claim.

In a conversation, if I did not think that a person’s evidence supports his claim, and if I wanted to convince him that it did not support his claim, I would have to explain why it does not.

 

[Rocinante]

Teak is finally getting it, because his response below is spot on. The burden of proof always belongs to the person making the claim.

In a conversation, if I did not think that a person’s evidence supports his claim, and if I wanted to convince him that it did not support his claim, I would have to explain why it does not.

but you are both making a claim.

one person is saying “there is good reason to believe X, and here are some of those reasons…”

the other is saying “the arguments you’ve cited in support of X is insufficient to warrant belief that X is true.”

 

[AntiTheist]

but you are both making a claim.

one person is saying “there is good reason to believe X, and here are some of those reasons…”

the other is saying “the arguments you’ve cited in support of X is insufficient to warrant belief that X is true.”

We’re both making claims [let’s call them claim (1) and claim (2)] about whether the evidence is sufficient to justify belief in claim (X), but only one of us is trying to support claim (X).

The only way I can support claim (1) (“There arguments you’ve cited in support of claim (X) are insufficient to warrant belief that (X) is true”) is to respond to arguments that have been cited.

The burden of proof for claim (X) rests with the person who made claim (X).

 

[teak421]

Teak is finally getting it, because his response below is spot on. The burden of proof always belongs to the person making the claim.

In a conversation, if I did not think that a person’s evidence supports his claim, and if I wanted to convince him that it did not support his claim, I would have to explain why it does not.

While I appreciate the kudos, I’ve never said really anything about BoP. My contention from the start of this fun mess has been that the atheist must provide evidence that God does not exist. I was not asking the atheist to prove anything, only offer evidence. However, I was wrong. My error was in that I should have used the term argument, not evidence. The atheist should provide a reasonable argument against God… how they construct that argument is up to the atheist.

I really think the position that I’ve come to is reasonable… No?

• Michael

 

[teak421]

While I appreciate the kudos, I’ve never said really anything about BoP. My contention from the start of this fun mess has been that the atheist must provide evidence that God does not exist. I was not asking the atheist to prove anything, only offer evidence. However, I was wrong. My error was in that I should have used the term argument, not evidence. The atheist should provide a reasonable argument against God… how they construct that argument is up to the atheist. And based on the merits of the argument is how well it will be received.

I really think the position that I’ve come to is reasonable… No?

• Michael

 

[AntiTheist]

While I appreciate the kudos, I’ve never said really anything about BoP. My contention from the start of this fun mess has been that the atheist must provide evidence that God does not exist. I was not asking the atheist to prove anything, only offer evidence. However, I was wrong. My error was in that I should have used the term argument, not evidence. The atheist should provide a reasonable argument against God… how they construct that argument is up to the atheist.

I really think the position that I’ve come to is reasonable… No?

• Michael

You’re close. I would offer this correction: if an atheist is confronted with someone presenting evidence for a god, if the atheist does not think that the evidence supports the claim, and if the atheist wants to convince the other person that the evidence does not support the claim, then and only then does the atheist need to point out why the evidence does not support the claim. I don’t know if I would call it an “argument” to point out problems in the evidence, though.

Again, let’s say that there’s a box that no one can look into, and a guy tells me that he believes that a leprechaun lives in the box. I don’t need to present evidence against his claim or make an argument against his claim. I can simply observe that there’s no good evidence for it (if you want to call that an “argument” on my part, then, ok, whatever).

If the leprechaun-believer tells me that his evidence is that the leprechaun speaks to him in his mind, then I can point out that this “evidence” isn’t even close to sufficient to demonstrate his claim.

 

[teak421]

You’re close. I would offer this correction: if an atheist is confronted with someone presenting evidence for a god, if the atheist does not think that the evidence supports the claim, and if the atheist wants to convince the other person that the evidence does not support the claim, then and only then does the atheist need to point out why the evidence does not support the claim. I don’t know if I would call it an “argument” to point out problems in the evidence, though.
.

What you described is how you would construct your argument against a believer in God. There may be other Atheist who go after God, let’s say specifically the God of the Christian Bible by making an argument that Christ never existed. As part of that argument, the atheist would provide evidence to support his argument… The Christian then, would have to refute… and so on.

I do think you are trying to ascribe your style of argumentation onto all atheists… Not sure that’s wise. That’s why I wrote what I wrote in my previous message… that, each Atheist, just like the Christian can construct their argument anyway they see fit.

• Michael

 

[AntiTheist]

What you described is how you would construct your argument against a believer in God. There may be other Atheist who go after God, let’s say specifically the God of the Christian Bible by making an argument that Christ never existed. As part of that argument, the atheist would provide evidence to support his argument… The Christian then, would have to refute… and so on.

Maybe. But if an atheist doesn’t believe that Christ existed – and by “Christ,” I mean the character as depicted in the Gospels, with all the miracles and magic and everything else – the logical basis for that claim has to be that there is insufficient evidence to think that such a character existed.

You can’t support “The Christ depicted in the Gospels didn’t exist!” with anything other than responses to theistic claims about evidence (and in fact, that’s worded the wrong way – it should be “There is not enough evidence to say that Christ existed”). If you look up my thread in the philosophy section entitled “The Gospels are Myths,” you will find that I do exactly that…I go through a bunch of theistic arguments and show how they are not sufficient to demonstrate their case.

I can’t think of evidence that a person could present to prove that a historical person didn’t exist at all. You just point out lack of evidence: lack of any contemporary documentation and only a set of sources produced decades after the fact by a cult.

 

[teak421]

Maybe. But if an atheist doesn’t believe that Christ existed – and by “Christ,” I mean the character as depicted in the Gospels, with all the miracles and magic and everything else – the logical basis for that claim has to be that there is insufficient evidence to think that such a character existed.

You can’t support “The Christ depicted in the Gospels didn’t exist!” with anything other than responses to theistic claims about evidence (and in fact, that’s worded the wrong way – it should be “There is not enough evidence to say that Christ existed”). If you look up my thread in the philosophy section entitled “The Gospels are Myths,” you will find that I do exactly that…I go through a bunch of theistic arguments and show how they are not sufficient to demonstrate their case.

I can’t think of evidence that a person could present to prove that a historical person didn’t exist at all. You just point out lack of evidence: lack of any contemporary documentation outside of sources produced decades after the fact by a cult.

Anti, you killin me… I re-read my post and I knew that you would catch my example and I was even editing to change. But then I said, nah… I should have. OK, change to a new example, whatever you like and insert into my previous posting.

• Michael

 

[AntiTheist]

each Atheist, just like the Christian can construct their argument anyway they see fit.

Certainly, nothing’s going to stop an atheist from presenting an “argument against god!” but from my experience, “arguments against god” usually proceed from a flawed understanding of the burden of proof – a flawed understanding of the kind you demonstrated at first on the other thread – and are almost always horrendously puerile.

Let’s face it: people are often dumb. There are a lot of dumb atheists, just like there are a lot of dumb theists. As George Carlin put it, “Just think about how dumb the average person is – and then realize that half of them are dumber than that!”

I’ve seen truly atrocious “arguments against god,” almost certainly constructed by angsty teenagers who have no grasp of the burden of proof. Dumb, dumb, dumb arguments like “There’s evil in the world! Gasp! Therefore, there’s no god!”

I’m beginning to suspect that your goal here is to talk yourself into thinking that “atheists need to present arguments” so that you can hand-pick the most logically-atrocious “arguments against god” and claim that theism is superior because “the atheist arguments all fail!”

I hope I’m wrong and that you’re not that intellectually dishonest.

 

[Pieman333272]

Maybe. But if an atheist doesn’t believe that Christ existed – and by “Christ,” I mean the character as depicted in the Gospels, with all the miracles and magic and everything else – the logical basis for that claim has to be that there is insufficient evidence to think that such a character existed.

You can’t support “The Christ depicted in the Gospels didn’t exist!” with anything other than responses to theistic claims about evidence (and in fact, that’s worded the wrong way – it should be “There is not enough evidence to say that Christ existed”). If you look up my thread in the philosophy section entitled “The Gospels are Myths,” you will find that I do exactly that…I go through a bunch of theistic arguments and show how they are not sufficient to demonstrate their case.

I can’t think of evidence that a person could present to prove that a historical person didn’t exist at all. You just point out lack of evidence: lack of any contemporary documentation and only a set of sources produced decades after the fact by a cult.

I know I promised I wouldn’t hijack this thread towards Jesus (see above), but I feel I should comment for clarity, almost all views on the historical Jesus from both laypeople, clergy, and scholars fall into one of these 5, listed from lease skeptic to most.

1. Jesus did not exist (some will add this can be proven while others use BoP shifting to make their case)
2. Jesus might have existed
3. Jesus was a real person/people, but the Gospels are not authoritative stories about this person/people
4. Jesus was a real person, and the Gospels (both Canon and Non-Canon) are authoritative stories of this person, but the miracles did not happen
5. The Gospels are completely true, the resurrection, virgin birth, healings, AND teachings all happened (note this does not equate either Christianity or Biblical Inerrancy, but often does)

AT, it seems, takes point 3, which requires no BoP. Feel free, Teak or AT, to comment/build on this. Just felt like putting it out there.

 

[AntiTheist]

AT, it seems, takes point 3, which requires no BoP.

Yeah, I think that there probably was a person named Jesus who probably was a moral teacher. Probably.

I don’t think that there’s evidence to support the claim that the magical stories attributed to him actually happened. It’s not remotely surprising to me that a respected person and/or cult leader from those days would have magical stories spring up about him.

 

[teak421]

Certainly, nothing’s going to stop an atheist from presenting an “argument against god!” but from my experience, “arguments against god” usually proceed from a flawed understanding of the burden of proof – a flawed understanding of the kind you demonstrated at first on the other thread – and are almost always horrendously puerile.

Let’s face it: people are often dumb. There are a lot of dumb atheists, just like there are a lot of dumb theists. As George Carlin put it, “Just think about how dumb the average person is – and then realize that half of them are dumber than that!”

I’ve seen truly atrocious “arguments against god,” almost certainly constructed by angsty teenagers who have no grasp of the burden of proof. Dumb, dumb, dumb arguments like “There’s evil in the world! Gasp! Therefore, there’s no god!”

I’m beginning to suspect that your goal here is to talk yourself into thinking that “atheists need to present arguments” so that you can hand-pick the most logically-atrocious “arguments against god” and claim that theism is superior because “the atheist arguments all fail!”

I hope I’m wrong and that you’re not that intellectually dishonest.

You are a “smart” atheist… right… So, those other atheist who try to provide a fuller and more robust argument (besides the robotic no evidence… no evidence… no evidence) are somehow dumb because they do not fit inside your template. Uh… if you say so.

If I am intellectually dishonest because I want to have an exchange with people who like to read… research… give and take, and provide a full argument, so be it.

You see to me, this was not about winning, losing, etc. It was about testing a thought that I had about the atheist getting a free pass on not providing evidence against God… It turned out my thought was wrong. I’m OK with that. But, I will say for the final time even if this causes you to cringe in disbelief… I would much prefer someone who offers a full argument than simply saying “no evidence”. You have responded with your diatribe above. I got your point… and frankly I don’t see any more use in having a dialog with you…

• Michael

 

[AntiTheist]

So, those other atheist who try to provide a fuller and more robust argument (besides the robotic no evidence… no evidence… no evidence)

No, not “robotic no evidence” – I specifically demonstrate how the presented “evidence” fails to support the claim. You can read any of my posts on here to see me do this.

I don’t just say, “Nope! Not evidence!” I specifically provide argumentation to demonstrate why that particular piece of evidence does not qualify.

are somehow dumb because they do not fit inside your template. Uh… if you say so.

No, not “because * say so” or “because they do not fit inside [my] template.” They are offering dumb arguments.

The “argument from evil” is an obvious example. The presence of evil, in and of itself, does not invalidate any god claims, even claims of an omnibenevolent god because “omnibenevolent” can be defined in such a way so as to coexist in a world with evil and free will.

I don’t see any more use in having a dialog with you…

So be it. Take care.*

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve seen truly atrocious “arguments against god,” almost certainly constructed by angsty teenagers who have no grasp of the burden of proof. Dumb, dumb, dumb arguments like “There’s evil in the world! Gasp! Therefore, there’s no god!”

Not only teenagers but some contributors to this forum!