The Burden of Proof
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-10-2015, 07:02 AM
The Burden of Proof
And clearly we don't agree on the burden of proof. Because you believe a rejection of the burden of proof must be accompanied by an alternative theory. This is simply stupid.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 07:02 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 06:51 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Is theism falsifiable then?


I don't know about all theism, but sure I consider mines falsifiable, I think of variety of things that if I was convinced was true, then could perhaps convince me to not believe in God.

Theism is primarily an ontological belief, if I was convinced that an alternative godless ontological view was the correct one, than my theism would be falsified.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 07:07 AM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2015 07:38 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 07:02 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And clearly we don't agree on the burden of proof. Because you believe a rejection of the burden of proof must be accompanied by an alternative theory. This is simply stupid.

No I don't.

It can be, but doesn't have to be.

Scenario A:

A man is affirming that the earth is only 10,000 years old, and another main is merely disputing this claim. In this scenario the burden of proof falls on the man affirming the 10,000 year old earth, not the one disputing it.

This is the scenario you put yourself in as the disputing party, without a burden of proof. .

Scenario B:

Two men are arguing, one man is affirming the earth is 10,000 years old and the other is affirming the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, both are disputing each other's claims, while affirming their own. In this scenario both have the burden of proof.

This is the scenario in which I prefer, in which both parties have the burden of proof. It's not the one you prefer, you prefer Scenario A.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 08:02 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 07:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-10-2015 06:51 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Is theism falsifiable then?


I don't know about all theism, but sure I consider mines falsifiable, I think of variety of things that if I was convinced was true, then could perhaps convince me to not believe in God.

Theism is primarily an ontological belief, if I was convinced that an alternative godless ontological view was the correct one, than my theism would be falsified.

You started off good but then blew it by in essence asking that one prove a negative, I.e., a godless universe. How about if someone proved that the idea of God can not be true?

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 08:06 AM
The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 07:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-10-2015 07:02 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And clearly we don't agree on the burden of proof. Because you believe a rejection of the burden of proof must be accompanied by an alternative theory. This is simply stupid.

No I don't.

It can be, but doesn't have to be.

Scenario A:

A man is affirming that the earth is only 10,000 years old, and another main is merely disputing this claim. In this scenario the burden of proof falls on the man affirming the 10,000 year old earth, not the one disputing it.

This is the scenario you put yourself in as the disputing party, without a burden of proof. .

Scenario B:

Two men are arguing, one man is affirming the earth is 10,000 years old and the other is affirming the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, both are disputing each other's claims, while affirming their own. In this scenario both have the burden of proof.

This is the scenario in which I prefer, in which both parties have the burden of proof. It's not the one you prefer, you prefer Scenario A.

More logical fallacy. Facepalm

And you still haven't admitted you were wrong/lying or delivered the evidence.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 08:22 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 08:02 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  You started off good but then blew it by in essence asking that one prove a negative, I.e., a godless universe. How about if someone proved that the idea of God can not be true?

I should say, I don't expect anyone to prove that to me. I'll take your views, the views of others, of atheistic philosophers and writers, and if one day I find their picture convincing enough perhaps I'd become an atheists. I don't ask you to prove to me God doesn't exist, I'll just read your responses as to why you believe there isn't one.

And sure if someone "proved" to me that the idea of God cannot be true, and I actually bought the argument they peddled I'd probably stop believe in God all together. And given some past experience with you, I think I know where you're going, to the whole laws of non-contradiction, laws of identity thing, while it's an amusing argument, I don't think it's a particularly good, We had a brief discussion about it before, you said you'd get back to me, but didn't as I recall.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 08:23 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 07:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-10-2015 06:51 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Is theism falsifiable then?


I don't know about all theism, but sure I consider mines falsifiable, I think of variety of things that if I was convinced was true, then could perhaps convince me to not believe in God.

Theism is primarily an ontological belief, if I was convinced that an alternative godless ontological view was the correct one, than my theism would be falsified.

Again here you seem to not understand what falsifiable means(in reality terms). What is convincing to you, makes you hold a belief, or seems sensible to you does not make a claim falsifiable in any way - nor if you change your stance based on any of those things that make you feel a claim is true.

Why can't theists look past their own personal "feels" and see the big picture when it comes to the criteria for claiming something as true or testable?

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
21-10-2015, 08:28 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 08:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-10-2015 08:02 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  You started off good but then blew it by in essence asking that one prove a negative, I.e., a godless universe. How about if someone proved that the idea of God can not be true?

I should say, I don't expect anyone to prove that to me. I'll take your views, the views of others, of atheistic philosophers and writers, and if one day I find their picture convincing enough perhaps I'd become an atheists. I don't ask you to prove to me God doesn't exist, I'll just read your responses as to why you believe there isn't one.

And sure if someone "proved" to me that the idea of God cannot be true, and I actually bought the argument they peddled I'd probably stop believe in God all together. And given some past experience with you, I think I know where you're going, to the whole laws of non-contradiction, laws of identity thing, while it's an amusing argument, I don't think it's a particularly good, We had a brief discussion about it before, you said you'd get back to me, but didn't as I recall.

As Timber points out, your feelings are irrelevant to whether or not a claim is falsifiable. Your god isn't a falsifiable claim, allowing you to special plead away anything that contradicts it.

Also, I am still waiting on your "abundant and compelling evidence" or an admission of dishonesty/lying. Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 08:33 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 08:06 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And you still haven't admitted you were wrong/lying or delivered the evidence.

You're arguments are pretty bad, usually bordering on the worst anyone here ever offers. But some how in your mind, you imagine that I'm lying when I say this. As if there was some reliable polygraph it would point out that I was lying when I say this.

In your mind, you think I see them as good ones, and that deep down I know they are true. But that's not the case at all, no matter how much you want imagine that it is.

As far as meeting the burden of proof, in a game in which I'm the affirming party, and you're the disputing party. You're right I never do, because it's a not a game I'm interested in playing with you. And it's not like your eager to play my game either.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 08:36 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 08:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-10-2015 08:06 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And you still haven't admitted you were wrong/lying or delivered the evidence.

You're arguments are pretty bad, usually bordering on the worst anyone here ever offers. But some how in your mind, you imagine that I'm lying when I say this. As if there was some reliable polygraph it would point out that I was lying when I say this.

In your mind, you think I see them as good ones, and that deep down I know they are true. But that's not the case at all, no matter how much you want imagine that it is.

As far as meeting the burden of proof, in a game in which I'm the affirming party, and you're the disputing party. You're right I never do, because it's a not a game I'm interested in playing with you. And it's not like your eager to play my game either.

More red herring (avoidance of the topic at hand by using bullshit asides, in case you don't know what a red herring is) Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: