Reasonable Faith Forum
Welcome to the Reasonable Faith forum! This is a general discussion board on apologetics, theology,... View more
The Burden of Proof
-
The Burden of Proof
When starting out with discussing these issues on the internet (some 20 odd years ago) I would often hear atheists claim that “you cannot prove a negative” in support of the idea that they had no burden to disprove theism. I actually don’t think the claim is true because clearly, there are lots of situations where negatives are demonstrable (beyond reasonable doubt). It is analogous to “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” that I’ve seen used in defence of theism when it is pointed out by atheists that theism lacks adequate evidence. As a blanket statement, it just isn’t true. Clearly, there are plenty of situations when an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Even if, in some instances, there are circumstances where these statements are true, there are too many defeaters for these types of claims in order to use them as a blanket measure.
What is of significance, is that a burden of proof only exists a claim if there is some conceivable way of disconfirming the claim under circumstances where it is false. For this, an oft used (by me) silly example may help.
I claim to have a purple rhino that lives at my house. You can form a concept of what evidence for this claim would look like and can set about confirming whether or not the evidence actually exists. So you come to my house only to discover that the expected evidence is not there. I respond by telling you that my rhino is extremely rare and timid. He is the size of a cat and lives in the cupboard under my stairs. You can still form a concept of what evidence for this claim would be, so go looking for that evidence and surprise, it is not there! I now respond by saying that when startled, my rhino turns invisible. You insist that you should still be able to feel his presence with your hands, but I point out that he also shrinks down to the size of a grain of sand too.
The point of this? You now have no way of disproving my claim and even if it is false. As such, you now have no burden of proof against it. You cannot rationally be asked to demonstrate the falsity of a claim that it is not logically possible to disprove, even if it is false. Even worse, if someone confuses this inability to disprove the claim with evidence in its favour (the possibility of it being actually true) and forms a belief that it is true because of this, they now have no way of finding out that they have made a mistake, other than the fact that claim suffers all of these problems!
This is important because we can apply the problem to traditional philosophical problems such as the hard problem of solipsism. Solipsism cannot be disproved even if it is false but this shouldn’t be confused with evidence in its favour and in fact, to remain consistent and avoid fallacious reasoning such as special pleading, we must take this approach to such problems.
Unlike “absence of evidence is not absence of evidence” and “you cannot prove a negative” for which we have defeaters, “you cannot disprove an unfalsifiable claim” is tautologically true so cannot be mistaken. However (and as far as I can tell), this also causes a serious problem for supernatural claims (including the claim that God exists) because it is my contention that they possess the same problem. Indeed, we see via the history of theism that claims about the supernatural follow a similar path (that I can say more about, if this discussion is of interest to folk). Whenever a potential defeater is found for theism, the concept of God is adjusted so that a claim he exists can no longer be disproven and even if it is false. This is why there are so many different religions and God concepts out there, with some branching off from previous iterations. This is the valid reason that there is no burden of proof against theism (it is not logically possible to demonstrate it false, and even if it is). When theists demand that atheists must disprove theism and cannot, this is then often mistaken as evidence in favour of theism.
-
13 Replies
-
I agree, but atheists are trying to prove that God doesn’t exist. For example, one atheist provided me the following list of evidence that God doesn’t exist:
· Argument from incredulity – if not my god then who- I cant imagine its false -it must be true
· Strawman: Make up your own definition (atheism) then refute it
· Circular reasoning – God exists bc the bible says & the bible is true bc God exists
· God-of-the-gaps – I don’t understand so my god did it
· Red Herring – Ignore my original flawed argument – heres another flawed one
· Argument from authority – gods exists bc the X says so
· Shifting burden of proof- you can’t prove god doesn’t exist
· Anecdotal fallacy -It’s true for me so it’s true for everyone – I felt Jesus -hes real
· Special Pleading – everything requires a creator – except my creator
· Pascal’s Wager -better safe than sorry -excludes other religions
· Bandwagon – Its popular so its true
· Watchmaker – complexity comes from more complexity
· Ad Hominem – attack the person not the argument
· Non Sequitur – My god gives me comfort – so he’s real & magical
· False Premise – The universe exists proves my god exists
· Confirmation bias – favor small amount of info supporting an existing belief -ignore most info not supporting it
· False Dichotomy – accept Jesus or go to hell (there’s other options)
The experiences in my life PROVE that God exists. An atheist cannot discount my life experiences and I have had discussion with many others who have witnessed God in their life. There are events that could only have come from God, therefore I believe. Is this proof for you? That’s up to you and most atheists will disagree with my reasons and that is up to them. I see the universe as evidence that God exists. There was a total eclipse recently that had the moon in a perfect position to block out the sun, but we know the sun that is much larger is behind the sun. Happenchance or God? It’s everyone’s choice and I choose God again.
I agree with a few of these points made by the atheist. Those of faith do present a circular argument for the presence of God. However, when someone objects to the Bible as the word of God this is a personal attack on Christians–as though the Christians are evil. Why not attack the Muslims who believe in the Qur’an? Why not attack the Mormons who believe in their book of Mormon? Every faith is based on a book they claim to be the word of God, so why not attack them all instead of always focusing on the Bible. They all believe in God but have a different God.
The Bible is a circular argument and I never agreed with this aspect of it. I also have had problems with the reliability of the story of Jesus because the evidence to support their integrity is scant. That is why I analyze and dig for evidence of Jesus as God. I’ve found that the evidence in the Gospels and the words of the Prophets support the existence of God through Jesus. Of course there will be objections, but it will not be based on evidence–it never is for those who object to God or Jesus.
-
I agree, but atheists are trying to prove that God doesn’t exist.
I’ve literally just spent a whole post, explaining why that can’t be done. The claim “God exists” is unfalsifiable. Every time some evidence is presented that apparently disconfirms God’s existence, the concept of God is adjusted so that it is no longer possible to disconfirm the claim that he exists.
The examples you cite are just the “fallacy fallacy” … a conclusion is not incorrect just because it is arrived at via fallacious reasoning. They are not valid defences of strong atheism. So I agree, those are a poor defence of atheism.
As for the other matter, our external world experience is falsifiable in principle (you can at least conceive of an observation you could make that would disconfirm it under circumstances where it isn’t true, such as waking up in a Matrixesque situation only to find that your current experiences were never real). If the external world experience is falsifiable, how can unfalsifiable claims about the external world ever be confirmed via our external world experience? Anything presented in sense data is always falsifiable because it is always logically possible that we are in a Matrix.
-
Exactly the response I expected—a closed mind with no way to get into it. We will all find the truth someday…
-
Thank you for the ad hominem.
Ad Hominem (Abusive) (logicallyfallacious.com)
I believe that the external world exists and I would say I’m pretty closed minded about it. The fact that I’m closed minded on that issue isn’t evidence that my belief (that the external world is real) is mistaken or that my reasons for holding to that view, are invalid. Similarly, atheists being closed minded vis a vis their atheism, is not evidence that atheism is false. And I find in practice that actually, it is people who believe in God who find it a lot more difficult to open themselves up to the possibility that they are mistaken (due in part to the adoption of an unfalsifiable position, confusing the inability to disprove it for evidence in its favour and so on). Many atheists I have discussed with can at least conceive of evidence that would move them from a position of disbelief but can also verify that the evidence is not there. Atheists not being able to disprove your experiences is consistent with your beliefs about them being unfalsifiable I’m afraid.
logicallyfallacious.com
Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.
-
-
-
“The experiences in my life PROVE that God exists.”
So you say, but WHICH of the 4,000 or so gods that have been reported do you claim your personal experiences prove? Just one? More than one? What do your experiences prove to you about the other gods?
seán s.
-
This reply was modified 2 weeks ago by seán s. (nonbeliever).
-
This reply was modified 2 weeks ago by seán s. (nonbeliever).
-
This reply was modified 2 weeks ago by seán s. (nonbeliever).
-
That’s a valid question. Once God proved to me that he existed I went on a search for the word of God. It’s been a frustrating journey, but the evidence proves one God through Jesus and the resurrection.
-
… and once you can demonstrate your God’s proof to others, then your claim will become more credible than similar claims made by others who believe in entirely other gods.
I engaged in a similar search once; it came up empty.
seán s.
-
-
This reply was modified 2 weeks ago by
-
-
IMO, debates about burden of proof often impede productive discussion. What is meant by “proof”? Is it logical entailment? Does it mean both proving I’m right and you’re wrong?
I think it’s more productive to discuss our respective justifications (warrants) for our beliefs. These can be analyzed using standard epistemological methods. It can happen that two diametrically opposed positions are both justified. For example, @John may be perfectly justified in his theistic belief because it’s the product of personal experience. By contrast, I justify my belief in the non-existence of (theistic) God by abduction (naturalism best explains what we know about the world). My jusification doesn’t defeat* John’s belief, and John’s personal experience doesn’t defeat mine.
*”Defeater”=a fact or inference that contradicts (defeats) a justification.
Both positions can still be questioned and defended, but by approaching it this way it may help each side to remain respectful – versus the typical “I’m right/you’re wrong) discussions typical of atheist/theist debates.
-
The OP seems correct to me.
Anyone making any claim (“X is so”) has a burden of proof EVEN IF IT’S A NEGATIVE CLAIM.
If someone says, “God exists.” they have a burden of proof; no one has to prove their claim is wrong.
Likewise: if someone says, “No gods exist.” they have a burden of proof; no one has to prove their claim is wrong.
For those of us who are non-believers, the problem is that the positive claim (“God exists.”) should be easy to prove especially if it’s true, but the negative claim is hard to prove even if it’s true. That difficulty does not remove the burden; no one gets a pass. No one making a claim is exempted from the burden of proof. If neither claim for or against gods can be proven, then only doubt remains.
- If someone claims there are gods, then they have a burden of proof.
- If someone claims there are no gods, then yes, they also have a burden of proof.
- If neither claim can be proven, then doubt remains.
Do any gods exist? I don’t know. I also don’t know why I should think any do.
However: if someone claims there are “no known proofs of gods”, that requires no further evidence because it’s not a claim about gods, it’s a claim about proofs. No one can reasonably say “You don’t know there’s no known proof!” because not knowing is what that claim is about! Anyone who disputes that is making a positive claim which they need to prove.
seán s.
-
This reply was modified 2 weeks ago by seán s. (nonbeliever).
-
This reply was modified 2 weeks ago by seán s. (nonbeliever).
-
However, someone who states that there are “no known proofs of gods” has claimed that they have evaluated ALL the experiences of others and found with certainty that there is no proof of God. They have made a judgement–not a statement that requires proof. They couldn’t possibly have reviewed ALL the experiences and observation to know without a doubt that God was not responsible. When someone states there are “no known proofs of gods,” it’s subjective, and for those who have had God-experiences, it’s a lie.
-
“… for those who have had God-experiences, it’s a lie”
No.
Unless those who have had God-experiences can prove their experiences, for everyone else those experiences are not known proofs of god.
To say they are not known proofs is no lie. It’s not even a mistake!
Someone who states that there are “no known proofs of gods” is NOT claiming “there are no proofs” nor are they claiming “there are no gods”.
seán s.
-
“Unless those who have had God-experiences can prove their experiences, for everyone else those experiences are not known proofs of god.”
A God-experience is proof to the person who has the experience.
*”Dialectically efficacious” is a term Graham Oppy uses to describe an argument that has the power to change someone’s view on a matter. He mentions it here. So I suggest that the more precise question is: are there any dialectically efficacious arguments for God’s existence?
plato.stanford.edu
Ontological Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Ontological Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
-
-
-
However, someone who states that there are “no known proofs of gods” has claimed that they have evaluated ALL the experiences of others and found with certainty that there is no proof of God.
There are no known proofs that bright red ducks exist. Have we searched the entire universe and ascertained that no red ducks exist anywhere? No. Have we searched the entire universe and ascertained that nobody in the universe anywhere has had experience of a bright red duck? Nope.
So should we refrain from claiming that there are no known proofs of bright red ducks? Of course not. Even if there are bright red ducks in the universe somewhere and someone has had an experience of them (has direct proof they exist), it is still true that we don’t have access to that proof and at the current time, do not know that it exists (and even if it does). We understand the scope of the claim. We (humans on earth) don’t have access to the proof, if it exists.
When someone says that there are no known proofs of God, that is all they are saying. If there is a proof out there, it is based on a non-transferable experience that has not been shared with us, at the time of writing. In other words, if the proof is out there, we are still currently unaware of it.
They have made a judgement–not a statement that requires proof. They couldn’t possibly have reviewed ALL the experiences and observation to know without a doubt that God was not responsible.
If someone or a research team had proved the existence of God (moved the existence of God from being a matter of faith, into the arena of being an established fact), it is reasonable to think that the work of the person or team who had achieved this remarkable feat would have been published and peer reviewed. Their incredible achievement would have been recognised (maybe with a Nobel prize?) and received much publicity. We would be able to access their findings. It would be available in published papers, books and talks. After all, it would be a history making moment.
Someone doesn’t need to investigate every single experience to know that the above is true, do they? There are hundreds and thousands of Christians who desperately want people to believe so if there was a proof of God, they would publish and broadcast it for that reason alone. If the most respected people who believe it and who want others to believe are not claiming to have a proof, that’s a reasonable ground for thinking that there isn’t one.
And there are other tests. Let’s grant that God exists and that people have had direct experiences with an invisible being who has extraordinary power. How did the people having these experiences determine that it was God they were experiencing and not some other invisible being with extraordinary power who was engaging in a type of supernatural identity theft (pretending to be God)? This is all possible in the broadest sense. Even if an invisible being was much less powerful than God, if he was much more powerful than us, he could still pull off pretending to be God. So how do we rule this out? If we can’t, we do not need to explore every single experience to know ahead of time, that it cannot constitute proof that God was involved and even if we concede that it involved an invisible being with extraordinary powers.
When someone states there are “no known proofs of gods,” it’s subjective, and for those who have had God-experiences, it’s a lie.
According to this reasoning, our claim that there are no known proofs that bright red ducks exist should be taken as a possible lie, just in case they exist in the universe somewhere and they have been experienced by someone. Are you really not able to take a claim and see how it could be taken as true in its proper context (“There are no known [by us people, on earth] proofs for the existence of bright red ducks”).
Furthermore, if a proof is personal and not shareable (it does not constitute proof for someone else despite it being proof for the individual) then that proof is subjective by definition. For the person who has not had the experience, they are still left not knowing of any proof. Just some empathy and a little bit of thinking make this much obvious.
Log in to reply.