Who Has the Burden of Proof?
Offline This argument is made by the philosopher David Gordon; see his stuff is at www.mises.org.
Atheists often argue that the burden of proof of the existence of God is on the theists. For "atheism" means a lack of belief that God exists, whereas theism says something positive about the world. And, in fact, since an atheist has asserted nothing about the way things are, he is under no obligation to prove anything.
But consider now a third category of person, the antitheist. He, on the other hand, holds a firm belief that God does not exist. A theist, on the other hand, can be described as someone who lacks this belief. Hence the theist now says nothing about the world, whereas our antitheist makes a specific claim. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the latter.
Is this symmetry correct, in your view? And which are you, atheists or antitheists?
- Login to post comments
An atheist doesn't believe that there is a god. A theist believes that there is a god. An anti-theist would be a person who is against theists. I am not against theists. I am against theism. I do have a firm belief that a god does not exist. It's a belief, not a claim of knowledge. I have no burden of proof because I am not making any positive claims.
A strong atheist is a person who claims that they can prove a god doesn't exist. They are in the minority and they are taking up a burden of proof because they are claiming knowledge that a god doesn't exist.
A theist will always have the burden of proof. Their belief contains a positive claim that a god exists. If they wish for someone to believe it then it is up to them to prove their assertions. The strong atheist is making a positive claim that a god doesn't exist so if they wish for someone to believe them then it is up to them to prove their assertions. An atheist makes no positive claims, they simply say I don't believe you when the theists say that a god exists.
Sorry if that was redundant, just wanted to make sure you understood.I don't know about the difference between an atheist and an antitheist, but the burden of proof is always upon the theist. The burden of proof is on the atheist only when they make a claim as evidence against the existence of a god. So, in other words, while the atheist only has the burden of proof some of the time, the theist always does.
The atheist and antitheist both hold the same position. I assume the only difference between them is that the antitheist is… more aggressive?
Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?
The burden of proof has to lie on the theist because belief that there is no God only came about because someone made a positive claim that there was a God. If no-one ever claims a God exists why would someone claims God doesn't exist?
And theists always complain bout it, because they can't possibly provide a rational argument for their belief.
So rather than admit the obvious, they seek to tear down logic instead.
Logic is the study of arguments. It examines when the conclusion of an argument is justified by its premises. If we were to accept positive assertions as the fallback, then we would unseat logic itself. It would necessarily follow that every claim is true, and must be true, until proven false!
Yes. Non belief is the fallback. There is no such thing as a burden of disproof.
By the same logic, a strong atheist lacks the lack of belief of the theist, and the theist can then counter that he lacks the lack of lack of belief.
Of course, our Dr. Seussian play doesn't stop there: the strong atheist lacks the lack of lack of lack of belef, and the theist, in turn, lacks the lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of belief....
And so on, until the entire process of insanity collapses onto itself in a vapid black hole of stupidity.
Of course, there is an actual rational answer to this question.
Yes, the strong atheist does make a positive claim. You're right.
Yes the strong atheist has a burden of proof.
But so does the theist.
For both make claims that depart from the fallback position.
BOTH are making positive claims.
Only the weak atheist, the implicit atheist, is without a burden of proof. Only he holds to the fallback position of non belief.
The theist and the strong atheist share a burden of proof.
As demonstrated above the burden is on both, as both are making claims that depart from the fallback position.
If one were to seriously hold that only those who reject a claim have a burden of proof, then you would be forced by logical consistency to accept ANY claim I made to you as true until refuted. Everything I said, and everything everyone said, no matter the lack of justification, would be true, and would have to be true, until proven otherwise.
This is clearly irrational.
There's no need to discuss 'viewpoints'. This is a matter of justied claims, hence all that is called for is a quick review of the basics of logic.
Logic (Greek logos, "word," "speech," "reason"
Therefore, the very foundations of logic itself tell us that there is a burden of proof on any claimant. From this, the fallacy of the Shifting the burden of proof necessarily follows:
SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something that departs from the default position. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (arguing from ignorance/naked assertion), is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. This is not the case. You can't assume the truth of a proposition without proof. If we could assume truth until disproven, we would be stuck with the ridiculous conclusion that anything we said to be true, must be true, and would only become false when proven false.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
He's attempting to draw a distinction between weak atheism, which is a lack of belief in 'god' and strong atheism, which is a belief that gods are incoherent or impossible (with the rational acceptance that they could be wrong.)
Strong atheists make a claim, that a specific 'god' does not exist. They have a burden of 'proof' for the claim.
Theists make a claim, or, perhaps more correctly, assert an acceptance of the claims of the apostles, to paraphrase C. S. Lewis. They too have a burden of proof.
I believe our friend has made an error by holding that only strong atheists have a burden of proof. And I believe the motivation is the theist realization that its probably easier to deny away a burden of proof than to actually try to meet it.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I got the argument he was trying to make, but thanks for clarifying what he meant by antitheist.
Suppose that no one claims that God exists, but some theist2 (that is, the theist defined as lacking the belief in God's non-existence) quite innocently says to you: "Do you think there is a being out there who is unlimited and perfect in all respects?" You confidently reply, "No," to which he says "Why not?" or "How do you know?" It appears that now you have to justify your claim.
I wouldn't confidently reply, "No." If it was the first time I had heard that notion, I would ask, "What makes you think that?"
At least, if I knew anything about logic, that's what I'd say.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Even though the question needs an answer, the theist still has the burden of proof, always. It's only temporarily shared by the atheist. Even if the atheist could offer no proof, the theist still needs to back his/her claim that a god exists.
It would be the same as if I asked someone if they believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If I asked them why they didn't believe in it, and they were unable to offer proof as to its non-existence, it would not in any way mean that it actually exists. For belief in it to be rational there must be evidence for its existence.
Lack of proof of non-existence does not equal proof of existence.
Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?
If atheists have the burden of proof, then theists have the burden of proving that all the gods they don't believe do not exist.
Oh, I like that one.
Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?
Ophios hit the critical point, but it goes even farther. If the burden of proof is on the atheist to disprove god, then logic gets literally flipped on its head and absolutely every single "potentially extant" thing must be either proved or disproved before anything can be said about anything. Since "infinite" is only a mathematical concept and we cannot literally prove or disprove everything that may or may not exist, it would then become impossible to know anything.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Suppose the theist does not back his claim. Do you automatically become an agnostic?
Well, obviously. But it could exist. Maybe there is an undiscovered bird on some remote island that looks ugly and likes spaghetti. Again, should you withhold judgment on this?
I think a Christian theist could do what you propose with diligence and after much study. Can an atheist?
No, an atheist can't, nor does he need to. You've completely ignored the valid argument that if you allow that disproof is necessary for one god, it is necessary for not only all gods, but everything that could possibly exist!
If you say that only god(s) is removed from the dilemma, you've already presupposed a property of this god, and you beg the question of why you are granted the liberty of pre-defining a thing into logic-exempt status. It's a big circle, and there's no way out of it.
Your only two choices are:
1) admit that a proof (or disproof) of god's existance (or nonexistence) is bound by logic
or
2) provide evidence that logically removes god from the confines of logic (which is, of course, impossible... so you're left with option one)
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Actually, Dmitri, I have a challenge for you. I'm being completely serious. You seem like a guy who doesn't mind doing some reading and studying. I don't propose that you disprove every possible god, but how about this: Disprove Marduk.
I'm a particular fan of the story of Marduk, and I'd be interested in seeing how you could disprove him. The rules, of course, are that you can't disprove him by using another unproven god for an appeal to authority. You must use logic only.
Can you do it?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Why just a christian? Are you a christian? are you willing to go through all the gods that you don't believe in have ever been made and find proof of them not existing? Are you willing to come back here and present this evidence to us?
Yes.
You mean a soft atheist?
I guess I need to clarify one thing. When I said an atheist cannot disprove all the gods, I mean that there is an infinitely large number of possible gods, given just the one property that a "god" exists outside of the logical universe.
Since there is the conjecture that a god might exist that is at present completely unknown to humanity, it follows that there are an unknown and infinite number of possible unknown gods, and so it becomes impossible to say that an atheist could disprove all of them.
Logically, I can disprove a great many gods simply by using the blanket statement, "Gods that defy logic cannot exist."
This would be fine, except that as dmitry has said over and over, I apparently can't do this because the one true god is outside of logic. How this is logically possible, I still fail to see, but apparently it is necessary to disprove everything that doesn't exist so that his god can exist.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Appearances can be deceptive. Atheism has it's proof. That proof is in the laws of physics, history, and evolution. These facts are laid out, and theists are welcome to attempt to refute them. They try quite often. But they always fail. The burden of proof thus rests solely on you. You are suggesting something that would break the laws of physics and render history and evolution impossible. Yet we know they are not. So you must prove how your claims are justified.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I'm an atheist and an antitheist, except I do not "hold a firm belief that god does not exist." I hold a belief that you are being irrational for holding theistic belief without evidence. Is the burden of proof on me when making that claim? Sure, why not. See the past 42 shows of RRS radio for my proofs.
In other words I'm saying a god could exist, but until there is some proof, it's not rational to believe that one does. I am against believing in a god, but not against the notion that some sort of god could exist.
P.S. I make the assertion that the Abrahmic gods couldn't possibly exist, and again see the first 40 shows of RRS for the proofs.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
For clarity, my definition of anti theist is one who is against being theist.
As wikipedia puts it:
An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a God." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. What the Oxford definition may fail to make clear is that an antitheist is categorically opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I'm trying to be polite, but this is simply idiotic.
Lacking the belief of something's non existence is a double negative. It boils down to believing it exists.
And this is a positive claim.
The lengths that a theist will go to to avoid their intellectual responsibility are galling.
Or, otherwise, it just exists and is true, simply because someone asserted it is? Is that how you think the world works? You assert, and if someone can't refute your assertion to your satisifaction, then you have a right to believe it?
Can you grasp how irrational this is yet? And is there any reason that you are studiously avoiding the points on basic logic that I've posted that refute your claim by demonstrating it's fundamental error?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Very nice point, they would have to disprove the existence of 10's of thousands of gods.... but it's actually worse.
If one overturns logic itself and rejects the burden of proof for a burden of 'disproof', then they would have be burden of disproving EVERY CLAIM EVER MADE that they disagreed with.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
No, I mean agnostic, as in: "1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god."
I do so in my article on the Trinity, where I write: "With this understanding of the Trinity we arrive at a surprising and non-trivial corollary. It is that it is impossible (false in every possible world) that there exists a being which has at least one but no more than two of the "omni" properties of God. In other words, either there exists a being who is omnipotent (p), omniscient (s), and all-loving (l) at the same "time" – the Christian God – or there are only "us" – beings who are not omnipotent and not omniscient and not all-loving. Thus, there cannot be, for example, a being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and yet not all-loving."
So Marduk, unless he were exactly like the Christian God would be, if he were good, like an angel or a human saint. If he is not good, then he is like a demon and a human criminal.
God is not so much "proven" as He is "built up" one property after another (unmoved mover, uncaused cause, designer, etc.); I think I've covered this before. If Marduk is the name you give to the being who emerges from these philosophical speculations, then he is the Christian God; otherwise he is nothing special; perhaps, again, a created angel.
Do you understand what logic is? It is a means for discursive reasoning. It gets us from one true proposition to another. God does not need to engage in such reasoning, proceeding logically from the known to the unknown, because His knowledge is intuitive, "discerning all things directly in its own light" (Hodge, Outlines of Theology). It is independent, such that God's knowledge is the cause of things, unlike us for whom things are the cause of our knowledge of them. God's knowledge is "total and simultaneous, not successive. It is one single, indivisible act of intuition, beholding all things in themselves, their relations and successions, as ever present." (Ibid.) God is not bound by human logic, because He does not require it (in His inner life; but He knows logic and uses it in His dealings with the world).
On the other hand, in reasoning about God, logic is indispensable. We cannot say that God is eternal and at the same time not eternal.
For goodness sake, what facts? Actually, the existence of laws of nature is Aquinas's fifth proof for the existence of God. He asks, "What is the cause of the laws of nature?" Why is there necessity in the world? His answer is that any cause, even, say, gravitational attraction, in a way loves the effect and "wants" to see it happen. So even natural causes act toward an end. But "whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence... Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God." Gravity, in other words, is low-level love. And love, if it is to succeed in attaining the end that it seeks, must know how to do so. Gravity's "knowledge" of how to act, Aquinas says, is due to some transcendent intelligence guiding it. Same with the gravity's "power," which, too, is bestowed on it as a permanent gift by God.
So, Sapient, you are an antitheist except not by my definition but by yours. Is that correct? I beg to differ. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. I think it's a very interesting process, because as time goes on, both the arguments and the counter-arguments will get ever more sophisticated.
I am not going to listen to 40 shows, are you kidding me? Write an essay summarizing your points and post it here for our consideration.
I thought you had previously agreed with me that both theists and (strong) atheists have the burden of proof.
I'm not "committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god" and I "who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable" thefore I am an agnostic. And like most agnostics I am without a belief in a god, therefore I am an atheist as well. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, Atheism deals with belief.
And my definition is from the Oxford English Dictionary.
No.
No.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I see our freind dchernik, is up to the challenge of disproving other gods.
*Runs off to his big list of gods*
Actually, ophios, Dmitri has failed miserably. He completely ignored my warning that it would not be logical to use a presupposition of his god to disprove another god because he has yet to offer any proof of his.
Nevertheless, his disproof of Marduk?
brilliant proof. If he's not exactly like god, who exists because I say he does, then he can't exist.
Dmitri, I would like to compliment you on your ability to avoid all questions while still retaining an air of indignance. You should have been a politician.
Oh, and Ophios, just so you'll be prepared, when you finally prod him into providing proof, it will be:
1) appeal to authority, especially Aquinas.
2) fallacy of equivocation, using two definitions or redefining words like "infinite" to define god into existence
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Yes, but he is trying.
Chances are, I can use that against him.
You obviously don't . If you did, you'd realize that your claims that there is only a burden of proof on those who reject a claim commits a shifting of the burden of proof fallacy.
It tells us when we are justified in holding that our true propositions lead to the conclusion.
In other words, the very point of logic is to affirm that there is a burden of proof on anyone making an assertion.
Logic does not proceed 'from the unknown to the known'. Logic proceeds from true propositions to conclusions that must be true, given the propositions are true.
Each step is known.
Logical arguments seek to provide clarity. They offer a demonstration. They do NOT proceed from the 'unknown'. In fact, the conclusion of a deductive syllogy includes and exhausts its premises. In fact, any deducitve argument can be rewritten as a tautology.
They do. The statement before you does not contradict that fact.
Holding to a claim, and rejecting the claim as false both have a burden of proof. Non belief (a fallback position) has no such burden of proof.
The terms that you are struggling to understand are theism, strong atheism, and implicit atheism.
Implicit atheism is the fallback.
You're entire time here could have been greatly shorted by simply asking about this.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Yes. I'm sure he's completely unaware of the circular logic in his argument.
Then again, anyone who holds that he is being logical while he unseats the very foundation of logic itself, the burden of proof, is probably unaware of more than few things.
I find it interesting that he continues to studiously avoid the key points on logic presented him, that refute his claim. Even a cursory examination of logic will show that the foundation of logic is that any positive assertion that diverts from the fallback must be supported by an argument other than a completely circular one.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
While I'm at it...
Yes.
Good enough for the moment. In any case, we can agree that it means moving from the known to the unknown.
Ok. You've said this before. One of the qualities of god is that he does everything intuitively, and since he knows absolutely everything, he is completely incapable of a posteriori knowledge, and is therefore, not all powerful.
contradiction. Your god therefore cannot exist, because:
1) If god is all knowing, then "God knows everything intuitively" must be true, as you have pointed out.
2) God uses logic (discursive, of course!)
3) Since the existence of 2) contradicts 1), one of the two must be false.
So, pick your poison. Either:
A) Your god does not exist
B) God is either not all knowing, or not capable of logic, rendering him not all-powerful.
C) Redefine these terms, rendering them meaningless, so that you can define god into existence.
So... anyone want to place bets on which option dmitri chooses? I'm going for redefinition.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I disagree with both of you, unless you have a different meaning in mind.
Logic has to do with assessing argument forms. A logical argument tells us that our claim is sound. Logic does not and cannot move from the "unknown". It moves from true premises to a conclusion that must logically follow.
Perhaps by 'moving from the unknown' you mean to say that logic provides a demonstration of a point?
The problem with his claim is that his claim involves natural processes. As long as he continues to use such terms while refering to the 'supernatural' he commits a stolen concept fallacy.
Interesting.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Actually, yeah, I wasn't completely clear... by the way, it was dmitri who said moving from the unknown. My text is moving from the known, but I didn't really proofread that post, and should have worded it differently.
The meaning I failed to convey is that logic is a means of describing our movement from one point to another, and that it can lead us from things we know to things we can deduce, in other words, things that were unknown to us until we entered into the line of reasoning.
Basically, I was just using his choice of words to show him that any route he could take would lead him to a contradiction. I wasn't particularly hung up on his choice of terminology.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism