Christianity and the Burden of Proof

[zippy2006]

That "ubiquitous consent" is not a thing. Stomp your feet and shake your Crayola stuffed hands all you want, ad hoc definitions to support paper thin syllogisms will get you nowhere.

It seems that foot-stomping is about as close to you get to an argument. Why, pray tell, isn't ubiquitous consent "a thing." What is that even supposed to mean? "Not a thing"? Is that what you say when all rationality has escaped you? Sounds a lot like foot-stomping to me.

I gave 9 examples of ubiquitous consent. Beyond that, even if every example I gave failed it would not invalidate my argument. Ubiquitous consent is obviously possible, and if it's possible that a natural state of affairs could come about which would falsify your definition, it follows that your definition is false.

I'm still waiting for anything resembling a sound syllogism from you.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the one you were given.

I don't care how many people believe something; they could all be wrong, they could all be right.

Sure, and whether they are wrong or right it does not follow that the claim is therefore disputed. Either way, you're still dead wrong.

Here's the syllogism you still haven't answered:

The burden of proof relates to disputed claims; claims which command ubiquitous consent are not disputed claims; therefore claims which command ubiquitous consent do not have the burden of proof.

Yet you claim that they do.

 

[variant]

It seems that foot-stomping is about as close to you get to an argument. Why, pray tell, isn't ubiquitous consent "a thing." What is that even supposed to mean? "Not a thing"? Is that what you say when all rationality has escaped you? Sounds a lot like foot-stomping to me.

The appeal to popularity has to demonstrate that the popularity is sound and rational or else it is a fallacy.

Much like the appeal to authority has to show the basis of that authority.

Facts don't change based upon the opinions of the majority, and you can't be an authority on something when the facts disagree with you.

 

[variant]

My point is that your position reduces to absurdity. It leads to the conclusion that claims which command ubiquitous consent have the burden of proof.

Do you suppose there are claims that should have ubiquitous consent without evidence, or some very strong rational?

Why would we be agreeing so much on things we don't have very strong reasons to believe are true?

The burden of proof only matters for controversial claims, that need support but don't already have it. So, your argument is a bit of a red herring.

 

[zippy2006]

The appeal to popularity has to demonstrate that the popularity is sound and rational or else it is a fallacy.

Much like the appeal to authority has to show the basis of that authority.

Facts don't change based upon the opinions of the majority, and you can't be an authority on something when the facts disagree with you.

The claim that I have committed an argumentum ad populum fallacy has been addressed here, here, and here. No one has maintained the claim.

HitchSlap has claimed 1) Claims which command ubiquitous consent have the burden of proof, and 2) It is "patently false" that claims which command ubiquitous consent are not disputed claims.

He does this all the while agreeing to Merriam-Webster's definition of burden of proof, "the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge."

Do you agree with either claim (1) or claim (2)?

Do you suppose there are claims that should have ubiquitous consent without evidence, or some very strong rational?

I don't think there are claims which have ubiquitous consent absent evidence, and I do not see what this question has to do with my position in the thread.

Why would we be agreeing so much on things we don't have very strong reasons to believe are true?

Again, it seems that you are fundamentally misunderstanding my position.

The burden of proof only only matters for controversial claims, that need support but don't already have it. So, your argument is a bit of a red herring.

It is the atheists who disagree with you, not me.

The fundamental position taken by the atheists in this thread is that every claim has the burden of proof. Even if a claim commands ubiquitous consent, it still has the burden of proof, say the atheists.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Meaning, that every atheist remains unconvinced about the claims of theism.
Derp-di-derp

Infants ARE atheists.
An atheist is a person without a positive belief in gods and/or the supernatural.
An infant couldn't even conceive of such entities, so how could they have any positive beliefs about it?

So, you admit there is an equivocation between calling an infant an atheist and an adult who disbelieves in God while in cognitive awareness of what he/she doesn't believe in? I mean...we really can't even call an infant an 'agnostic' because the infant has no cognizance about any entities pertaining to religious belief or non-belief.

When will you atheists give up the hokey "baby knows best" argument?

An atheist is any person who doesn't answer "yes" to the question "do you believe god/the supernatural exists?".

A theist is a person who answers that with "yes".
Just like I've been telling you all this time...

You need to believe something specific to be a theist.
An atheist is just a person without belief in that specific something for whatever reason.

If the Krakken was a god, you'ld be an atheist concerning the Krakken.
So tell me, do you think you have a burden of proof concerning anything about your disbelief that the Krakken exists?

I'll go ahead and assume that you don't hold any positive beliefs about the existance of the Krakken.



Yes.

It's a rather binary position. You are either a theist or you aren't.
You either have a positive belief in the existance of gods/the supernatural or you don't.
If you do, you're a theist.
If you don't, you're an atheist.

It's not hard.



I've been explaining it to you for eleventyseven pages already.
You either HAVE a belief in gods or you DON'T.

You either accept the claims of theism as true, or you do not.

And for the upteenth time, saying "I don't accept claim X as true", is NOT the same as saying "I believe claim X is false"



We've been over this.
It is a claim about the arguments offered in support of the claims of theism. It is not a claim about theism itself or gods or the supernatural.

It's, quite simply, motivating why one remains unconvinced of the claim at hand.




Your position is dishonest and I've been explaining why for several pages now. But it seems your record is broken. It seems you insist on knowing better what my beliefs or non-beliefs are, then I do.




And as an atheist, I dispute the assertions of theism.



Every truth claim DOES have a burden of proof.
But not every truth claim will be challenged in everyday life and nobody is going bother meeting those burdens on things that everybody already agrees on.

But in principle, yes, every truth claim has a burden of proof.
This means that whenever there is a dispute or a challenge, it will be upto the person who makes the truth claim, to step up and support his claim to resolve the dispute and/or challenge.



In practice, that's when it will come up, yes.
And, as said, as an atheist, I dispute the assertions of theism.
Guess where the burden lies, in that case.

 

[variant]

The claim that I have committed an argumentum ad populum fallacy has been addressed here, here, and here. No one has maintained the claim.

HitchSlap has claimed 1) Claims which command ubiquitous consent have the burden of proof, and 2) It is "patently false" that claims which command ubiquitous consent are not disputed claims.

You still have the burden of proof when you make a claim where people generally agree with you, and even when people universally agree with you, it wouldn't matter regardless. Claims are supported with evidence. The facts and evidence are how you support claims, and how they become accepted in a valid epistemology.

We can of course dispute such claims with evidence to the contrary, but that happens in a situation where some evidence has been missed by the first claim.

He does this all the while agreeing to Merriam-Webster's definition of burden of proof, "the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge."

I would say that the theist has the greater duty as they make the assertion that causes the argument. We wouldn't even have atheists if there weren't theists.

I don't think there are claims which have ubiquitous consent absent evidence, and I do not see what this question has to do with my position in the thread.

It has to do with the point that ubiquitous consent means nothing to the burden of proof. Burdens are met by evidence.

It is the atheists who disagree with you, not me.

I doubt it but they can resolve that with me at their pleasure.

 

[variant]

Presumably for the same reason you believe a claim everyone accepts as true has the burden of proof. I have no idea what that reason might be.

It doesn't matter what people accept as truth, it matters what they can show to be true.

Proof isn't related to what people believe, but what the facts are.

 

[zippy2006]

You still have the burden of proof when you make a claim where people generally agree with you, and even when people universally agree with you, it wouldn't matter regardless.

You yourself said that the burden of proof applies to controversial claims. Merriam Webster uses the word "disputed." If a claim is not controversial or disputed then it doesn't have the burden of proof.

It has to do with the point that ubiquitous consent means nothing to the burden of proof. Burdens are met by evidence.

I think ubiquitous consent is relevant to the burden of proof. I think that if a claim commands ubiquitous consent, then it isn't controversial nor disputed, and therefore does not have the burden of proof.

I am not talking about whether ubiquity satisfies a burden of proof, but rather that ubiquity establishes the non-existence of a burden of proof.

(I think you are still misunderstanding my position. I would advise reading further into the thread.)

 

[variant]

You yourself said that the burden of proof applies to controversial claims. Merriam Webster uses the word "disputed." If a claim is not controversial or disputed then it doesn't have the burden of proof.

And the reason the claims are not in dispute is because the burden has already been met. The only time a claim doesn't have a burden is if it is already in evidence. In that case the burden is just satisfied. It's not the agreement that makes it so though, the agreement is secondary.

If the burden is not met, consent that is lacking in proof is an appeal to popularity. So, either way, uninteresting.

When the other poster told you that all claims carry it regardless they likely mean that the burden must be met regardless. This is neither absurd nor difficult, and only requires you to understand the issue.

I think ubiquitous consent is relevant to the burden of proof. I think that if a claim commands ubiquitous consent, then it isn't controversial nor disputed, and therefore does not have the burden of proof.

It did though. That is where you are wrong. Before people believed it, it would have had to be demonstrated somehow.

Ubiquitous consent as you term it might apply to the problem but not in an interesting way.

I am not talking about whether ubiquity satisfies a burden of proof, but rather that ubiquity establishes the non-existence of a burden of proof.

The only way to remove the burden of proof is to prove something. If something is obviously true then it has already met the burden.

(I think you are still misunderstanding my position. I would advise reading further into the thread.)

I really don't think so, please explain if you still feel this way.

On an unrelated note. The reasoning behind the burden of proof is at least in part practical in that it is very hard to prove a negative, so it generally falls on those making the positive claim to defend their position and show it to be true rather than relying on everyone else to show why it isn't.

"My claim is true because you can't show it isn't" in any form, is the appeal to ignorance.

 

[variant]

When will you atheists give up the hokey "baby knows best" argument?

Perhaps when theists stop persisting in indoctrinating small and very impressionable children.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It doesn't matter what people accept as truth, it matters what they can show to be true.

Proof isn't related to what people believe, but what the facts are.

..."proof"? As in "Proof the Magic Dragon"? Yeah.....proof has 'nothing' in relation to what people believe, that's why there as so many positions one can take in epistemology and as to how and to what extent ideas can be justified as true.

Now, I've got that song stuck in my head....and I have "proof" that's it's your fault, variant.

 

[KCfromNC]

"God is not worthy of belief" is not a claim about the internal mental state of the claimant

You said that every atheist believed this - how is that not a claim about the mental state of non-believers? Did you not want to talk about what atheists believe when you mentioned what you think they all believe? Why bring it up?

It could be rendered in various ways

How about talking about the ways it is actually "rendered" by actual non-believers rather than trying to put words in their mouth?

 

[variant]

Now, I've got that song stuck in my head....and I have "proof" that's it's your fault, variant.

You will get no apologies from me on that one.

 

[variant]

Yeah.....proof has 'nothing' in relation to what people believe, that's why there as so many positions one can take in epistemology and as to how and to what extent ideas can be justified as true.

Well not all epistemological positions are valid either.

The smarter people are perfectly capable of cloaking shaky claims in philosophical language to try to make them seem more grounded.

Just the positions that actually help sort true from false are particularly helpful.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well not all epistemological positions are valid either.

The smarter people are perfectly capable of cloaking shaky claims in philosophical language to try to make them seem more grounded.

Just the positions that actually help sort true from false are particularly helpful.

Actually, I tend to take the view that all epistemological structures we concoct are not fully realizable or workable, so what ends up happening in reality is that we use our intelligence to try to be consistent in our thinking (e.g. which is a good thing when building things or when doing brain surgery). So, we never fully work within any actual epistemology...we just like to think we do.

 

[variant]

Actually, I tend to take the view that all epistemological structures we concoct are not fully realizable or workable, so what ends up happening in reality is that we use our intelligence to try to be consistent in our thinking (e.g. which is a good thing when building things or when doing brain surgery). So, we never fully work within any actual epistemology...we just like to think we do.

My point of view is that all theoretical constructs are going to be wrong to a degree regardless because thinking is a descriptive process that is not mirrored in a reality which has no real boundary or limitation.

However, there isn't really an alternative to thinking, and it works best when it tries to emulate it's subject matter.

The reason for attempted consistency for instance is because of the observed consistency of the physical universe.

Is that going to lead us down some incorrect paths? Well yes (probably).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My point of view is that all theoretical constructs are going to be wrong to a degree regardless because thinking is a descriptive process that is not mirrored in a reality which has no real boundary or limitation.

However, there isn't really an alternative to thinking, and it works best when it tries to emulate it's subject matter.

The reason for attempted consistency for instance is because of the observed consistency of the physical universe.

Well then...we basically agree (?) So....that would mean we don't handle the Bible in some stock, woodenly literal fashion....like many are prone to do.

(Caveat: However, it probably would be beneficial for Christians to realize that God does have some input into the epistemological process that makes it possible for a person to 'become a Christian.' I do see many Christians who seem to exhibit an assumption that assenting to the Christian faith is just all a matter of logical deliberation; I tend to think it is only partially so. Thus, we shouldn't be beating non-believers up because they are intellectual stalwarts... )

 

[variant]

Well then...we basically agree (?) So....that would mean we don't handle the Bible in some stock, woodenly literal fashion....like many are prone to do.

I find religion unhelpful for metaphysics in that it seems to be trying to grasp subject matter that is clearly beyond it.

(Caveat: However, it probably would be beneficial for Christians to realize that God does have some input into the epistemological process that makes it possible for a person to 'become a Christian.' I do see many Christians who seem to exhibit an assumption that assenting to the Christian faith is just all a matter of logical deliberation; I tend to think it is only partially so. Thus, we shouldn't be beating non-believers up because they are intellectual stalwarts... )

That's one of those assumptions that you need to have to be religious.

The kind that sows great doubt in the process for me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I find religion unhelpful for metaphysics in that it seems to be trying to grasp subject matter that is clearly beyond it.



That's one of those assumptions that you need to have to be religious.

The kind that sows great doubt in the process for me.

And I can understand why that would be the case, actually. So, I don't place unnecessary blame on you for not believing. It is difficult to do so. Believe it or not, I find it difficult, too, which is why I study philosophy (but by which I mean the various fields, such as Philosophy of Science or Philosophy of History, etc., etc.)

So, on a personal level, I actually do feel some compassion for you guys who don't believe. It's just that I don't enjoy being castigated for 'having believed.' And when other individuals come at me to try to defrock me of my faith in an overly assertive manner, then I'm going to bring out every consideration that I can muster which my education enables to do. (So, maybe I am wrong, but I'm not going to be a push-over.)

 

[variant]

And I can understand why that would be the case, actually. So, I don't place unnecessary blame on you for not believing. It is difficult to do so. Believe it or not, I find it difficult, too, which is why I study philosophy (but by which I mean the various fields, such as Philosophy of Science or Philosophy of History, etc., etc.)

I found the study of those things to be particularly unhelpful in maintaining religious beliefs. In fact I find the study of things like philosophy quite humbling in that you start to realize exactly how difficult things are when you give some serious thought to them.

So, on a personal level, I actually do feel some compassion for you guys who don't believe. It's just that I don't enjoy being castigated for 'having believed.' And when other individuals come at me to try to defrock me of my faith in an overly assertive manner, then I'm going to bring out every consideration that I can muster which my education enables to do. (So, maybe I am wrong, but I'm not going to be a push-over.)

It happens, people get defensive when questioned. It's also pretty easy to become irritated during the process of explaining things to people who don't seem to be listening.

I know why I think things and I am sure there are intelligent people who disagree with me.

I get called arrogant and closed minded a lot, which is surprising to me given the actual time I've spent on these problems trying to understand where I differ from people like you.