Understanding the Burden of Proof

[FallentoReason]

I know this is a topic that gets discussed over and over again, but I just wanted to share my view on it and why I refuse to show God doesn't exist.

The way I see it it's kind of like a number line:

<----------not-real---------(-ve)|0|(+ve)----------real--------->

Now to explain how this works, let's think of an apple. It's a tangible object that we can all observe, therefore on the scale it gains x positive points. Now let's expand this and consider a handful of different fruits. They are all like the apple and therefore add to the 'real' side. Now do this with all that we know to be real and we are left with the 'real' side representing roughly what we think to be reality.

Now, when it comes to religion, let's see what we can conclude. Let's take Heracles, Son of Zeus and try and add him to the 'real' side. Well, what do you know, we have all just agreed on a whim that it's a myth and therefore doesn't amount to a positive quantity, therefore adding to the 'not-real' side. Ok, well let's grab the next mythology and chuck it there as well, along with flying hippos, 3 headed kangaroos and lunar vegetation. It turns out the 'not-real' side isn't bounded i.e. is infinite (unlike the 'real' side) which means we could go on and on about what isn't real.

My issue then with providing evidence that no god exists is that that isn't what the universe is concerned about--non existence. In actual reality what's happening is that the theist is coming up to me and proposing a brand of god that could plausibly exist with various different attributes and characteristics and trying to add it to the 'real' side. What the atheist will then do is dismantle the claims and show it's 'negative value' which means that particular idea is not real and goes into the infinite list of other things/ideas/beliefs that aren't real/don't reflect reality.

In a nutshell, god stories started at the origin (0 value) and tried to add positive value but when we all agree it's man-made fiction it flips to the negative side. There's no need for me to do anything different from this model, unless you, the theist, want to prove to me the non-existence of a planet-sized fly orbiting the nearest star from us. Only then will I realise that's actually possible and will move on to do the same for 'GOD'.

[Lion IRC]

Where is the burden of proof on this scale?

[FallentoReason]

Someone's belief has no impact on something being true or not. I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[Skepsis]

Dawkins' scale doesn't deal with the burden of proof, it deals with belief like Fallen said.

I don't think of the burden of proof as being quantifiable like a number line, nor do I believe that people can dictate truth value with common opinion. Just because people don't agree that Zeus isn't real doesn't mean he isn't, and likewise just because there are a huge number of people that believe in Jebus it doesn't mean that he is real.
I don't think that was what you meant to imply when you said things like, "Well, what do you know, we have all just agreed on a whim that it's a myth and therefore doesn't amount to a positive quantity, therefore adding to the 'not-real' side." Still, truth doesn't take into account popular opinion. What we have to work with is the claims of others, which we weight against what is real and see how they stand up. With anything that has confessedly no way to prove itself as exigent, I dismiss it offhand until such time that evidence is presented. Oftentimes those presenting a God claim do so when they have zero evidence referring instead to the human capacity to convince itself, a tactic I find repels the critical thinker to dismiss that person's claims entirely.

[Ace Otana]

Simpler way of putting it, - the claimer has the burden of proof.

[CliveStaples]

Isn't this a simpler characterization that captures the notions of "burden of proof" just as well:

Anyone who claims that a proposition is true has the burden of supporting their claim.

So when someone claims p = "There exists at least one god", they have the burden of supporting their claim; when someone claims p = "No gods exist", they have the burden of supporting their claim.

In your example of the apple, when someone says, "There exists at least one apple", what might constitute support for their claim:

1) Your memory of apples existing, along with the belief that this memory is accurate; or

2) Sensory-perception of an apple (say, if they provide you with an apple that you can see and taste and touch)


What you consider "support" depends on your theory of justification.

[Mister Agenda]

True, someone who says God does not exist is making a claim that assumes the burden of proof. If someone asks how the claimant knows there is no God, the claimant has the burden to justify the position.

It's probably worth pointing out that something strange is going on with this particular claim, because the argumentation is so odd.

Gnostic Atheist: 'There is no God.' Not GA: 'How do you know?' GA: 'God is defined as omniscient and omnipotent and omnipotence contradicts both itself and omniscience'. Not GA: 'I define 'God', 'omniscience', and/or 'omnipotence' differently.'

Gnostic Theist: 'God exists.' Not GT: 'How do you know?' GT: 'One of hundreds of arguments.' Not GT: 'This is the flaw in your argument.' GT: 'Different argument or different definition of God or repeats same argument as though no objection was raised.'

[Mystic]

While I agree there is no burden of proof for an Atheist for his disbelief, what about if someone disbelieved in the wall of China existing. Surely people will wonder why he doesn't believe in the wall of China existing, when everyone believes it's reasonable to believe in the wall of China existing.

Analogies can go both ways.

[Tiberius]

There is a difference between not believing something and making a truth claim about something.

[Mister Agenda]

While I agree there is no burden of proof for an Atheist for his disbelief, what about if someone disbelieved in the wall of China existing. Surely people will wonder why he doesn't believe in the wall of China existing, when everyone believes it's reasonable to believe in the wall of China existing.

Analogies can go both ways.

Wouldn't the simplest thing be for the person who believes the Great Wall exists to provide the readily-available evidence for it?

Up-close photos, satellite photos, accounts of people who have been there...THEN if the person rejects this evidence, the burden of proof is on them to explain why it isn't sufficiently convincing.