Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Thief]

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.

So a mindless creator said.....'Let there be light!'......?

Someone had to be first in mind and heart....that's reasonable.
I simply place mind before matter.

Otherwise, substance is 'self' starting.....a paradox of science if you insist on saying it can be so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So a mindless creator said.....'Let there be light!'......?

Someone had to be first in mind and heart....that's reasonable.
I simply place mind before matter.

You place "mind" before the medium in which minds operate. This is unreasonable.

Otherwise, substance is 'self' starting.....a paradox of science if you insist on saying it can be so.

Why would you think this is a paradox?

 

[cottage]

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.

Let me begin my answer by making something clear. I will always be very pleased to debate with you any argument for the existence of God, and where I make assertions in response I promise you that they will be fully supported. However, yours is the premise to be proved and I am therefore under no obligation to justify my disbelief but only my arguments in response to those in the affirmative made by you.

And yet there is a fundamental reason for no belief in God and that is the lack of evidence, which, as already understood, by sceptic and theist alike, is that God is not apparent in general experience and nor is ‘God’ an innate idea (if those things were the case then the affirmative predication would necessarily hold), and so no further explanation can be reasonably demanded for my disbelief. But on the contrary the question of reasonableness must be put to the claimant who asserts that God exists is a true belief. You are of course perfectly entitled to your mystical beliefs but by bringing them into the public domain it is incumbent upon you to support the assertions with the evidence previously mentioned that we must both acknowledge to be missing, and that is where the burden (of truth) lies.

 

[cottage]

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

What is implicit in the question-begging is that ‘God exists’ is a truth unless the unbeliever can demonstrate otherwise.

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

A proposition isn’t safe on account of its being unopposed. ‘God exists’ doesn’t become true because its supposed truth has not been challenged. And nor does disbelief that God exists imply ‘There is no God’.

 

[cottage]

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."

The (non-partisan) conditions, i.e. a lack of evidence, which I previously described, have no burden of proof for the conditions are not disputed. It is only assertions that we rightfully expect to be supported, e.g. ‘God exists’ or ‘There is no God’, and it does not follow from no evidence for God that ‘There is no God’ is therefore true.

 

[Thief]

You place "mind" before the medium in which minds operate. This is unreasonable.


Why would you think this is a paradox?

The medium is spirit.

Science would insist an object at rest will remain at rest...Until...
Something moves it.

God would be that Source...'of something'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The medium is spirit.

No, the medium is matter. Every mind we've ever enountered has required a physical brain. What reason do you have to assume that a brainless mind is even possible?

 

[Willamena]

What is implicit in the question-begging is that ‘God exists’ is a truth unless the unbeliever can demonstrate otherwise.

A recap is in order.

Is it honestly being suggested that folk don’t know why they disbelieve in gods? ... But come on, if gods don’t exist in general experience, and they are not an a priori truth or an innate idea, then disbelief is more than adequately justified without any navel-gazing or self-analysis.

It is being suggested [throughout this thread] that they need not know why they disbelieve in the existence of gods. I am arguing against this idea. I am not saying that people don't know; I am saying that they should know-- at least if they want to have a rational worldview.

Question-begging! You are basically presupposing God and then demanding of people that they must answer for not sharing the belief.

Your suggestion that the idea that they should know why they disbelieve is "question-begging" seems out of place. Then you go on about presupposing God, but really, I do not see why the idea that they should know why they disbelieve in the existence of god/gods presupposes 'God exists.' Help me with this.

A proposition isn’t safe on account of its being unopposed. ‘God exists’ doesn’t become true because its supposed truth has not been challenged. And nor does disbelief that God exists imply ‘There is no God’.

No, it is safe if no one opposes it, not because it's true but because it's unopposed. Nothing here that we are discussing makes it true.

 

[Willamena]

No, the medium is matter. Every mind we've ever enountered has required a physical brain. What reason do you have to assume that a brainless mind is even possible?

The "medium" as mind is not unfamiliar to Philosophy of Mind, which delights in debating positions such as solipsism and phenomenalism.

 

[Thief]

No, the medium is matter. Every mind we've ever enountered has required a physical brain. What reason do you have to assume that a brainless mind is even possible?

No chance of a spiritual existence?

Then all of this humanity will soon be dust.....

Man is then a mystery with no resolve and no purpose.

That we don't see the spiritual realm doesn't mean it ain't there.
Most of what we have learned about the universe we have learned in the most recent 100hundred years.

Most of that.....we can't see.

 

[Ouroboros]

Or... "we don't know, therefore spirit."

 

[Thief]

the other guy might not know.....
but I have strong.....very strong....suspicion!

 

[McBell]

the other guy might not know.....
but I have strong.....very strong....suspicion!

what happened to your faith?

is your "suspicion" stronger?

Does suspicion require proof?

Interesting, is it not, that you STILL do not know....?

 

[cottage]

A recap is in order.
Your suggestion that the idea that they should know why they disbelieve is "question-begging" seems out of place. Then you go on about presupposing God, but really, I do not see why the idea that they should know why they disbelieve in the existence of god/gods presupposes 'God exists.' Help me with this.

First of all it certainly isn’t being suggested by me that people don’t know why they disbelieve in God. As a matter of fact I’ve given reasons that are absolutely fundamental to disbelief. So of course people know why they disbelieve, and no disbeliever needs to be patronised with the condescending pronouncement that ‘People should know why they disbelieve in God’, which, in the vernacular, is stating the bleedin’ obvious.
(The disbeliever, however, does not have to give reasons for the disbelief other than in reply to a theist’s arguments.)

But it begs the question because it implies that the assertion ‘God exists’ is to be accepted unless and until unbelief is justified. No, it’s for the advocate to demonstrate the truth of this central claim and the assertion isn’t safe in the absence of coherent objections. On the contrary, despite the passing of millennia, God’s existence is still just as controversial, and that’s not because of the success of sceptical objections but because of the failure to prove the truth of what is claimed. So that burden is still borne by the advocates, despite the subtle attempts to shift it elsewhere that are misconceived and trivial.

No, it is safe if no one opposes it, not because it's true but because it's unopposed. Nothing here that we are discussing makes it true.

That’s nonsense! It is about truth!! The central claim that god exists is a proposition. If it is not about what is the case then it’s about nothing at all! ‘God exists’ is either true or false.

 

[Thief]

First of all it certainly isn’t being suggested by me that people don’t know why they disbelieve in God. As a matter of fact I’ve given reasons that are absolutely fundamental to disbelief. So of course people know why they disbelieve, and no disbeliever needs to be patronised with the condescending pronouncement that ‘People should know why they disbelieve in God’, which, in the vernacular, is stating the bleedin’ obvious.
(The disbeliever, however, does not have to give reasons for the disbelief other than in reply to a theist’s arguments.)

But it begs the question because it implies that the assertion ‘God exists’ is to be accepted unless and until unbelief is justified. No, it’s for the advocate to demonstrate the truth of this central claim and the assertion isn’t safe in the absence of coherent objections. On the contrary, despite the passing of millennia, God’s existence is still just as controversial, and that’s not because of the success of sceptical objections but because of the failure to prove the truth of what is claimed. So that burden is still borne by the advocates, despite the subtle attempts to shift it elsewhere that are misconceived and trivial.




That’s nonsense! It is about truth!! The central claim that god exists is a proposition. If it is not about what is the case then it’s about nothing at all! ‘God exists’ is either true or false.

I would flip that coin over.

God would be the standard.
There is a creation at hand....the evidence all around us.

Prove to me this universe is less than 'created'.

 

[Willamena]

First of all it certainly isn’t being suggested by me that people don’t know why they disbelieve in God.

Of course not! That's not being suggested, and was specifically supported by both sides!

(The disbeliever, however, does not have to give reasons for the disbelief other than in reply to a theist’s arguments.)

And that's fine, as long as he has his reasons.

But it begs the question because it implies that the assertion ‘God exists’ is to be accepted unless and until unbelief is justified.

Edit: You seem to have introduced a non-sequitur to the discussion, which was not about 'God exists' but about 'they should know why they disbelieve.'

That’s nonsense! It is about truth!! The central claim that god exists is a proposition. If it is not about what is the case then it’s about nothing at all! ‘God exists’ is either true or false.

This thread is just about burden of proof, which while it lends credibility to a matter, does not make a thing magically come true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No chance of a spiritual existence?

Then all of this humanity will soon be dust.....

Man is then a mystery with no resolve and no purpose.

That we don't see the spiritual realm doesn't mean it ain't there.
Most of what we have learned about the universe we have learned in the most recent 100hundred years.

Most of that.....we can't see.

I asked you for evidence for your position. You responded by telling me, effectively, that it will be unfortunate if you're wrong and that there are lots of unknown places in the universe where we might find evidence when we get around to looking at them.

None of this is a rational answer to my question. Would you like to try answering again without the logical fallacies?

 

[Gordian Knot]

Now this response is nothing but my personal opinion. Is this the silliest looking guy you have ever seen? Especially as we are supposed to give any credence in what he has to say?

Of course this is one of the worst shows on the subject ever filmed. And that is saying a lot!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now this response is nothing but my personal opinion. Is this the silliest looking guy you have ever seen? Especially as we are supposed to give any credence in what he has to say?

Of course this is one of the worst shows on the subject ever filmed. And that is saying a lot!

Don't be too hard on him. I'm sure he had a rough time after Babylon 5 got cancelled.

 

[Gordian Knot]

LOL. Good one!