Ethical Debate: Challenging "There is No Evidence for X"

[Meleagar]

If, in a debate, someone categorically claims, "There is no evidence for X", does that not count as an assertion? Can that assertion not be fairly challenged by asking whomever made the claim to support their assertion?

If Joe says "There is no evidence for X", is it my obligation to provide evidence for the converse, or for X, or is it Joe's obligation to support his assertion that there is no evidence for X? Since I haven't claimed in that argument that there is evidence for X, how can it be my obligation to provide evidence for X, when i didn't claim X was true? When all I am doing is asking Joe to support assertions Joe made? Is it my problem that Joe has made an assertion that is probably impossible to support?

Wouldn't demanding me to support the converse be "shifting the burden"? Isn't that in fact a textbook case of shifting the burden?

If Joe is going to use unsupportable rhetoric in an argument, and I can demonstrate it to be unsupportable rhetoric simply by asking Joe to support his assertion, isn't that an entirely ethical challenge to make?

[arX]

The burden to provide evidence is on whoever claimed X to be true. Without the claimant, Joe wouldn't be addressing X in the first place.

[Meleagar]

The burden to provide evidence is on whoever claimed X to be true. Without the claimant, Joe wouldn't be addressing X in the first place.

Let's call the other guy Bob. If Bob claims X is true, it is his burden to support evidence for his claim of X. I am not questioning that. That is true.

Joe, however, didn't challenge Bob to support his assertion by providing evidence for X; Joe made his own, second, positive assertion: that there is no evidence for X. Joe didn't say "I haven't seen any evidence for X, could you provide it?"; Joe made the categorical assertion as fact that there is no evidence for X.

Isn't that assertion just as available to challenge as Bob's assertion? Or does Joe get a pass for some reason on his assertion? If so, why?

Now, let's use "god" for "X". Let's say that Bob makes the uncontroversial statement "A lot of people believe in god", to which Joe states "There is no evidence for god." Bob didn't claim that God exists, so he bears no responsibility for supporting that god exists; his only claim is the non-controversial claim that a lot of people believe in god.

Can Bob not ethically challenge Joe to support his assertion that "there is no evidence for God"? Is that challenge wrong or faulty in some way, even though we know Joe cannot support his assertion? Isn't Bob really just pointing out, through the challenge, that Joe has made an unsupportable assertion?

[Jack]

Being human and not all knowing, the unstated conditional clause to all such claims of "no evidence" is, "as fas as I know (am aware)". It shouldn't be necessary to append to every absolute claim, it should be obvious and understood. No human can reasonably make an absolute statement of fact that would require absolute knowledge.

What separates "There is evidence of..." from "There is no evidence of..." is that the person claiming evidence should be able to produce it, whereas the person claiming no evidence exists can hardly be expected to provide "no evidence". That's a claim that can be easily countered, though, by producing evidence.

Now, let's use "god" for "X". Let's say that Bob makes the uncontroversial statement "A lot of people believe in god", to which Joe states "There is no evidence for god."

Joe is presenting the wrong argument. He should instead point out that popularity does not confer validity when it comes to human beliefs.

[DavidSupreme]

Meleagar, I think Jack's cartoon shows your logic (or lack of) here, if you make a claim (ie, "God Exist", "UFO's exist" etc), you need to produce evidence.

If you are in a debating forum and someone makes a thread stating "I see no evidence for gods", is he suppose to provide none-evidence for YOU, rather then YOU, being the one believing/claiming gods exist, to simple supply evidence for the argument. You could simple give EVIDENCE for gods, and then he would say "oh, cool, fine", which never been done by the way, say tjhe last 200 000 years of human existence, no evidence for gods have ever been supplied for some reason.

And personally, I was a high better on Thor.

[Meleagar]

Being human and not all knowing, the unstated conditional clause to all such claims of "no evidence" is, "as fas as I know (am aware)".

Isn't it Joe's responsibility to say "As far as I'm aware" in order to avoid making assertions he cannot support, especially after being challenged? I mean, how is it Bob's job to know what Joe "really" meant, when Joe flatly states that there is no such evidence, and doesn't even amend his position after Bob challenges it? Further, how is it that Bob should be held accountable for Joe's poorly-stated assertion? Is Bob supposed to read Joe's mind?

It shouldn't be necessary to append to every absolute claim, it should be obvious and understood. No human can reasonably make an absolute statement of fact that would require absolute knowledge.

So those who run around making poorly-worded absolute claims they cannot support should simply be allowed to do so? Isn't it possible that a person who makes such a claim **actually means** that he believes that it is a fact that no evidence exists, and that it is demonstrable that no such evidence exists, even if it is an irrational belief? Should such (potential) irrational views never be challenged, so that the person making the assertion has the opportunity to clarify?

What separates "There is evidence of..." from "There is no evidence of..." is that the person claiming evidence should be able to produce it, whereas the person claiming no evidence exists can hardly be expected to provide "no evidence".

Why make claims one cannot support? Why put up with unsupportable assertions? Aren't such sweeping, unsupportable assertions just a form of inflammatory rhetoric, since they cannot be supported, intended to imply that there is factually no evidence for the thing in question even though the person issuing the rhetoric has no capacity or even intent to support thier irrational assertion?

IOW, wouldn't a person who wishes to engage in meaningful, civil debate say, "I'm not aware of any evidence for X", instead of claiming "there is no evidence for X"?

That's a claim that can be easily countered, though, by producing evidence.

That's shifting the burden via inflammatory rhetoric, IMO, especially if the other person made no claim that X was true.

Joe is presenting the wrong argument. He should instead point out that popularity does not confer validity when it comes to human beliefs.

Bob didn't say that the beliefs of the many made X true, or that it supported the position that X was true; he was just stating a non-controversial fact - that many people believe in god. It seems to me that, in the case of arguments about God, atheists and anti-theists wish to be allowed the luxury of making unsupportable, sweeping claims of fact about "lack of evidence" without being challenged. It also seems to me that it is up to atheists to word their arguments correctly to avoid misunderstanding, especially after being challenged or called on the irrationality of their categorically negative assertion.

Even if Bob is incorrectly inferring from Joe's statement "there is no evidence of God", one can hardly fault him for taking the wording at face value and challenging the assertion, since many anti-theists and atheists in fact insist that no such evidence exists, and refuse to amend that into a non-objective statement. Isn't it then Joe's obligation to state, "I mean, I'm not aware of any such evidence", instead of attempting to make it seem like Bob is in error for taking his words at face value?

Then, Bob will know that when Joe says "There is no evidence, " that what he really means is "I'm not aware of any such evidence"; but until then, I think it's hardly Bob's job to attempt to read Joe's mind, much less be held accountable for reading it in debate.

[scholardude]

Even if Bob is incorrectly inferring from Joe's statement "there is no evidence of God", one can hardly fault him for taking the wording at face value and challenging the assertion, since many anti-theists and atheists in fact insist that no such evidence exists, and refuse to amend that into a non-objective statement.

If they challenge the assertion effectively, then they've disproved him and won the debate. Obviously in debate every statement could be prefaced with "as far as I'm aware", but why waste the finger strength given that everybody is going to assume you're not claiming knowledge of something you're not aware of.

If I say "there is no evidence for X" and you provide evidence for X, then you've proved me wrong and won the debate. If you fail to do so, you're only backing me up, since now two people can't find any evidence.

[Jack]

Isn't it Joe's responsibility to say "As far as I'm aware" in order to avoid making assertions he cannot support, especially after being challenged? I mean, how is it Bob's job to know what Joe "really" meant, when Joe flatly states that there is no such evidence, and doesn't even amend his position after Bob challenges it? Further, how is it that Bob should be held accountable for Joe's poorly-stated assertion? Is Bob supposed to read Joe's mind?

Bob doesn't have to read minds, just possess some common sense. Anybody who postulates anything in the field of beliefs is speaking from their limited body of knowledge. It's nonsensical to suggest that Bob might suspect that Joe knows everything and is therefore qualified to make absolute statements.

So those who run around making poorly-worded absolute claims they cannot support should simply be allowed to do so?

Well, we don't let the religious get away with that around here.

Isn't it possible that a person who makes such a claim **actually means** that he believes that it is a fact that no evidence exists, and that it is demonstrable that no such evidence exists, even if it is an irrational belief? Should such (potential) irrational views never be challenged, so that the person making the assertion has the opportunity to clarify?

If you wish to derail the debate, by all means do so. Otherwise you can accept that no one possess absolute knowledge and thus cannot make or support absolute claims and get on with debating the topic.

Why make claims one cannot support? Why put up with unsupportable assertions? Aren't such sweeping, unsupportable assertions just a form of inflammatory rhetoric, since they cannot be supported, intended to imply that there is factually no evidence for the thing in question even though the person issuing the rhetoric has no capacity or even intent to support thier irrational assertion?

You tell me. The religious do that constantly.

IOW, wouldn't a person who wishes to engage in meaningful, civil debate say, "I'm not aware of any evidence for X", instead of claiming "there is no evidence for X"?

Only when debating someone who lacks enough sense to understand that all debates involve personal opinion and reflect a person's limited knowledge.

That's shifting the burden via inflammatory rhetoric, IMO, especially if the other person made no claim that X was true.

Really? OK, if you don't believe that fairies exist please provide evidence of their non-existence.

Bob didn't say that the beliefs of the many made X true, or that it supported the position that X was true; he was just stating a non-controversial fact - that many people believe in god. It seems to me that, in the case of arguments about God, atheists and anti-theists wish to be allowed the luxury of making unsupportable, sweeping claims of fact about "lack of evidence" without being challenged. It also seems to me that it is up to atheists to word their arguments correctly to avoid misunderstanding, especially after being challenged or called on the irrationality of their categorically negative assertion.

When atheists respond to such an assertion with that exact statement they are wrong to do so. As I said, that's not an appropriate response. But in this case it's you putting those words into your fictional atheist's mouth, so no correction is necessary. Your imagined scenario is lacking in authenticity.

Even if Bob is incorrectly inferring from Joe's statement "there is no evidence of God", one can hardly fault him for taking the wording at face value and challenging the assertion, since many anti-theists and atheists in fact insist that no such evidence exists, and refuse to amend that into a non-objective statement. Isn't it then Joe's obligation to state, "I mean, I'm not aware of any such evidence", instead of attempting to make it seem like Bob is in error for taking his words at face value?

Bob sounds like a literalistic idiot. Joe should take no pity on his apparent lack of basic understanding.

Then, Bob will know that when Joe says "There is no evidence, " that what he really means is "I'm not aware of any such evidence"; but until then, I think it's hardly Bob's job to attempt to read Joe's mind, much less be held accountable for reading it in debate.

If Bob's going to be so ignorant and such a stickler for precision in wording he'd better not make any of those same "mistakes" when he's making his own points.

[Meleagar]

If they challenge the assertion effectively, then they've disproved him and won the debate. Obviously in debate every statement could be prefaced with "as far as I'm aware", but why waste the finger strength given that everybody is going to assume you're not claiming knowledge of something you're not aware of.

If I say "there is no evidence for X" and you provide evidence for X, then you've proved me wrong and won the debate. If you fail to do so, you're only backing me up, since now two people can't find any evidence.

Explain to me how saying "there is no evidence for X" with the expectation that someone must provide evidence for X to challenge your statement isn't asking someone to "prove you wrong"? It's never up to the other guy to prove the claimant wrong; it's up to the claimant to support their assertion.

I don't see how one can make a legitimate case that using the pejorative and inflammatory "there is no evidence for god" instead of the emotionally neutral and more accurate "I'm unaware of any evidence for god" is warranted based on conserving 7 keystrokes.

[Jack]

Explain to me how saying "there is no evidence for X" with the expectation that someone must provide evidence for X to challenge your statement isn't asking someone to "prove you wrong"? It's never up to the other guy to prove the claimant wrong; it's up to the claimant to support their assertion.

The only reasonable disproof to the atheist's stance is the presentation of proof. Once again the ball's back in the theist's court. Swing and miss.

I don't see how one can make a legitimate case that using the pejorative and inflammatory "there is no evidence for god" instead of the emotionally neutral and more accurate "I'm unaware of any evidence for god" is warranted based on conserving 7 keystrokes.

I've got keystrokes to spare. If you are implying that you are such a literalist that you need to be reminded at every turn that I am only expressing my opinion based on my personal limited knowledge then I doubt I'll be responding to too many of your posts in the future. That's too much effort to simply state the obvious (to everyone else).

[scholardude]

Explain to me how saying "there is no evidence for X" with the expectation that someone must provide evidence for X to challenge your statement isn't asking someone to "prove you wrong"? It's never up to the other guy to prove the claimant wrong; it's up to the claimant to support their assertion.

But, logically, it is impossible to prove the negative assertion that there is no evidence for god. The responsibility for proof is on someone making a positive assertion, i.e. "there is evidence for god", which shouldn't be difficult, because if you think that there is evidence, you must actually have evidence. It doesn't matter who is the aggressor in the conversation, it instead matters who is asserting the existence of something.

I don't see how one can make a legitimate case that using the pejorative and inflammatory "there is no evidence for god" instead of the emotionally neutral and more accurate "I'm unaware of any evidence for god" is warranted based on conserving 7 keystrokes.

Inflammatory? I say more inflammatory things to my mother. And who the hell cares if its inflammatory, if you have evidence for god I'd soon be eating my words anyway.

[arX]

Joe, however, didn't challenge Bob to support his assertion by providing evidence for X;

Isn't that assertion just as available to challenge as Bob's assertion?

It is clearly implied here that "Bob's assertion" is that X is true. Therefore, again, the onus is on Bob to support the assertion that Joe is refuting.

Joe can only refute what is claimed by someone else. In your hypothetical scenario, the notion of gods is already claimed and well-known and there's no need to state the obvious.