zippy2006
Dragonsworn
- Nov 9, 2013
- 7,744
- 3,879
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
Okay. Further, given two propositions:
- God is worthy of belief.
- God is not worthy of belief.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, I claim that "God is not worthy of belief."
You want justification for my opinion?Okay. Further, given two propositions:
In America it is the atheist who has the burden of proof, since he is the one challenging the status quo from the perspective of the Western and American societal narrative of the ubiquity of religion. The burden of proof in Europe may be legitimately different.
- God is worthy of belief.
- God is not worthy of belief.
Of course, it's incumbent on the one making a positive claim.
Seriously, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?
Both of the claims in question are assertions of fact. According to your own definition, you hold to two positive assertions.
I am claiming that the burden of proof is not simply on a positive claim. It is rather on the divergent claim.
Often, two disputants are both making positive and contradictory claims. Would you say that they both have the burden of proof? For example, given claims (1) and (2) above, how do we discern who has the burden of proof?
What about positive claims such as, "The Earth is round," "Objects fall due to gravity," "Australia is an island." Do we really think that the person making these has the burden of proof?
Okay. Further, given two propositions:
In America it is the atheist who has the burden of proof, since he is the one challenging the status quo from the perspective of the Western and American societal narrative of the ubiquity of religion. The burden of proof in Europe may be legitimately different.
- God is worthy of belief.
- God is not worthy of belief.
You conveniently didn't quote the part where I said: "non acceptance of that claim is not a positive claim in and of itself"
Regardless, even if I grant you that they were positive claims, do you disagree with my conclusions?
I really don't see a need for such an arbitrary distinction.I am claiming that the burden of proof is not simply on a positive claim. It is rather on the divergent claim.
Sure, one might say Allah is god, some might say Jesus is god.Often, two disputants are both making positive and contradictory claims.
Absolutely.Would you say that they both have the burden of proof?
You asked two questions, I answered. What claims are you referring to?For example, given claims (1) and (2) above, how do we discern who has the burden of proof?
Of course.What about positive claims such as, "The Earth is round," "Objects fall due to gravity," "Australia is an island." Do we really think that the person making these has the burden of proof?
That's because that part of your definition is arbitrary and therefore illegitimate. "A positive claim is an assertion of fact. Except when you're responding to a positive claim; in that case it doesn't count!" That makes no sense. You can't just arbitrarily exclude responses from the species of positive claims.
The way I see it, the positive claims were your conclusions and the additional arguments were supports to those conclusions. Naturally I disagree with the claim that God is not worthy of belief.
Posts 207 and 208 have been addressed at various points in the thread. I don't feel like re-hashing the same arguments.
Sure, one might say Allah is god, some might say Jesus is god.
I completely agree with you, which is why I'm trying to parse this out with him so he understands.The problem is, the person saying Jesus is god in reply is not addressing the claim Allah is god directly. He's raising a separate point. I would agree both are positive claims, but that's not what we're really talking about in this thread.
If the Muslim says Allah is god and the Christian replies "I don't believe you", that is not a positive claim. Likewise, if the Christian says Jesus is god and the Muslim replies "I don't believe you", that is also not a positive claim. On that note, if an Atheist said "I know for certain that no god exists", that's also a positive claim. If either the Muslim or Christian challenges the Atheist, then the Atheist would have the burden of proof in that case.
He's trying to turn rejecting a claim into something that requires a burden of proof, when it simply isn't.
Of course.
Then we differ, but keep in mind this challenge. You think that the claim, "The Earth is round," has the burden of proof. Next time you hear this claim mentioned in conversation, wait and see whether justification is given for the Earth's roundness. If the person who mentions the Earth's roundness provides justification for their claim then it would seem they are in agreement with you in saying that such a claim has the burden of proof. If they do not provide justification then they clearly disagree that such a claim has the burden of proof.
Suppose I gave you $10 every time someone justifies that claim. Would you become a rich man?
Or I could give you $100 every time someone justifies the claim, "The Pope is Catholic!" which is commonly used as a joke insofar as it inverts the burden of proof (it is too obvious to even need stating).
Why would I require justification for a claim we both would accept as true?Then we differ, but keep in mind this challenge. You think that the claim, "The Earth is round," has the burden of proof. Next time you hear this claim mentioned in conversation, wait and see whether justification is given for the Earth's roundness. If the person who mentions the Earth's roundness provides justification for their claim then it would seem they are in agreement with you in saying that such a claim has the burden of proof. If they do not provide justification then they clearly disagree that such a claim has the burden of proof.
Suppose I gave you $10 every time someone justifies that claim. Would you become a rich man?
Or I could give you $100 every time someone justifies the claim, "The Pope is Catholic!" which is commonly used as a joke insofar as it inverts the burden of proof (it is too obvious to even need stating).
Why would I require justification for a claim we both would accept as true?
If you say "Claim X" and I say I don't believe you, the fact I don't believe you is not a positive claim. That's basic logic.
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.
"Claim ~X" is a response and a claim; therefore not all responses are non-claims.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?