Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Thief]

It doesn't mean we should jump to conclusions.


You're making an argument from ignorance. "We don't know how this happens, so we'll attribute it to God." It's the God of the Gaps and it's based on flawed reasoning.

Not at all.
I simply place Spirit before substance.

If substance can move without 'something' to move it.....
the laws of motion are a lie.
Inertia is a false idea.

And on top of that.....all of life would be substance orientated.
When your chemistry fails....nothing will remain.

I simply don't believe death is final.
7billion copies of a learning device and all fail into dust?
Not one chance in 7billion that someone will survive the last breath?

That would place Man as a puzzle, without purpose or resolve.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not at all.

Yes, you do.

I simply place Spirit before substance.

Yes, and that's where you jump to conclusions.

If substance can move without 'something' to move it.....
the laws of motion are a lie.
Inertia is a false idea.

The laws of motion require momentum to move an object, not intelligence. When you go on about this "spirit" nonsense, you're conflating ideas.

7billion copies of a learning device and all fail into dust?
Not one chance in 7billion that someone will survive the last breath?

The assumption that we're so wonderful that the universe must care about us enough to preserve us is hubris. And in your case, the hubris seems to be unfounded.

That would place Man as a puzzle, without purpose or resolve.

And this is what we call an argument from consequences, which is another logical fallacy.

 

[Thief]

Yes, you do.


Yes, and that's where you jump to conclusions.


The laws of motion require momentum to move an object, not intelligence. When you go on about this "spirit" nonsense, you're conflating ideas.


The assumption that we're so wonderful that the universe must care about us enough to preserve us is hubris. And in your case, the hubris seems to be unfounded.


And this is what we call an argument from consequences, which is another logical fallacy.

Argument from consequence?
Well...ok....

If you cannot escape your flesh when you think you're in control...
you say as you please....do as you please.....
What makes you think you can escape when you're dead?

Eternal darkness is physically real.
No form of light follows anyone into the grave.
Really is dark down there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Argument from consequence?
Well...ok....

Yes, argument from consequences: it's irrational to think that an idea is true just because the consequences would be unpleasant if it was false.

If you cannot escape your flesh when you think you're in control...
you say as you please....do as you please.....
What makes you think you can escape when you're dead?

Eternal darkness is physically real.
No form of light follows anyone into the grave.
Really is dark down there.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't mind non-existence before I was born. I have no reason to think I'll have a problem with it once I'm dead.

 

[Willamena]

The laws of motion require momentum to move an object...

That doesn't jive. Momentum is "an object in motion remains in motion."

 

[McBell]

That doesn't jive. Momentum is "an object in motion remains in motion."

Which has nothing to do with how the object was put into motion in the first place...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That doesn't jive. Momentum is "an object in motion remains in motion."

Momentum is the product of mass and velocity. An object's speed or direction is changed by imparting it with momentum.

 

[Gordian Knot]

That doesn't jive. Momentum is "an object in motion remains in motion."

Close but not quite. Momentum is simply movement. Methinks you are thinking of Newton's three laws of motion, which is not the definition of momentum.

 

[Willamena]

So motion requires that an object already be in motion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So motion requires that an object already be in motion.

A change in motion requires a change in momentum. The amount of momentum imparted and the object's mass will determine just how much the motion changes.

My original point was that inferring a physical cause behind something and inferring an intelligence behind that physical cause are two separate things. The one doesn't automatically follow from the other.

 

[viole]

A change in motion requires a change in momentum.

Not necessarily. I can reduce my velocity (motion) while increasing my mass so that the product of these two things (momentum) remains constant.

Anyway, motion is relative to the observer and has therefore no objective physical meaning.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Willamena]

Anyway, motion is relative to the observer and has therefore no objective physical meaning.

Can you say, "Can of worms?"

 

[Nakosis]

Of course it’s question-begging! The supposition ‘God exists’ is implicit in the presumption that disbelief must be justified, and the implication is that the proposition ‘God exists’ is safe unless and until it can be shown otherwise.

People have reasons for believing in God. I have my reasons. I can go about my business thinking it is perfectly reasonable for others to believe in God. No reason to think otherwise. You say you don't believe in God. Ok, really why not?

Most people are perfectly happy to explain their reasons. So a person explains their reasoning. Then you say sorry I don't need to justify my disbelief. Ok, next.. Too bad, you might have had some good reasons for your disbelief but the world will never know. Certainly no reason to change my thinking.

I'm happy to have discussions with people more reasonable.

 

[Willamena]

Of course it’s question-begging! The supposition ‘God exists’ is implicit in the presumption that disbelief must be justified...

Its gross contrast with beliefs presently held is not something I would describe as "implicit."

...and the implication is that the proposition ‘God exists’ is safe unless and until it can be shown otherwise.

It is safe only if it is unopposed. Disbelief implies an opposition of beliefs that will contrast with it.

 

[Willamena]

The conditions I mentioned are wholly sufficient to warrant disbelief as a lack of evidence and on those terms alone carries no burden of proof.

That's all burden of proof is: the warrant, duly served.

"...the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not necessarily. I can reduce my velocity (motion) while increasing my mass so that the product of these two things (momentum) remains constant.

How would you do this, exactly?

Anyway, motion is relative to the observer and has therefore no objective physical meaning.

Ciao

- viole

This isn't true for change in motion.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Not necessarily. I can reduce my velocity (motion) while increasing my mass so that the product of these two things (momentum) remains constant.

One can certainly increase mass by increasing velocity; not so sure how to increase mass by reducing velocity. Unless we are talking about eating tons of cheeseburgers!

Not sure this is in any way related to the topic though.

 

[Magic Man]

Observation is insufficient?
Cause and effect not enough?

So when you look up, the word...Effect...does not apply?
And the word....Cause....means nothing?

In which case the universe began all by itself?
Substance can take flight on it's own?

Science would say,'...an object at rest will remain at rest until something moves it.'

I agree.
The singularity and all it did contain would never have moved....
had it not been for the 'snap of God's fingers'.

When I look up, I see the sky (at least if I was outside I would). I don't see any evidence for a god.

 

[viole]

How would you do this, exactly?

By catching hamburgers while I am moving at constant speed in space, for instance.

Slowing down, catching mass, no loss of momentum.

This isn't true for change in motion.

True. But change in motion is not motion. For instance, speed and acceleration are not the same thing. The first is relative, the second is not.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By catching hamburgers while I am moving at constant speed in space, for instance.

Slowing down, catching mass, no loss of momentum.

Catching hamburgers would impart momentum on you. That's why you would slow down.

True. But change in motion is not motion. For instance, speed and acceleration are not the same thing. The first is relative, the second is not.

Ciao

- viole

That depends on your frame of reference. There are accelerating frames of reference - in fact, we live on one of them.