Christianity and the Burden of Proof

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

It's not about "knowing best".

It's about what defines someone as a theist. Whenever a person doesn't fit the definition of a theist, that person is automatically an atheist.

You either have a positive belief in gods or you do not.
An infant does not.

A-theist: without-theism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An undisputed claim does not have the burden of proof.

The claims of religion X are being disputed by those people not buying into religion X.

That's what the definition says. Are you disputing this?

Actually, yes, I do.

Let's say you have bare claim X.
Everybody just accepts X, no questions asked, for whatever reason.

X, being a claim, has a burden of proof. This burden wasn't met.
The only thing here, is that nobody is calling you out on it. Nobody is demanding you to meet your burden. So you're not bothering.

But the principles don't change.
Claim X has a burden of proof and it hasn't been met.
Just because 100% of people don't seem to care about it, and just believe X anyway, doesn't change that. At all.

If so, provide your own new definition.

Every positive claim has a burden of proof.

Easy.

The burden of proof and the principle of sufficient reason are related in some ways, but they certainly aren't the same thing.

Indeed they aren't the same thing.
But how do you gain "sufficient reason", if not through evidence?
And how do you decide who should bring said evidence, if not the one with the burden of proof?

In other words, how could I have "sufficient reason" to rationally accept claim X, if not through being presented with such sufficient reason? And who's responsability is it, to provide this sufficient reason - if not the one who actually makes the positive claim? Hmmm?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There may be a slight difference if you are actually committed to defining the burden of proof as something unproven rather than disputed, but this subtlety is probably not a fundamental difference.

Quick question....

Do you consider it possible for someone to make a completely false claim that has no evidence at all in support of it and have nobody dispute it and instead, just accept it by default?

 

[zippy2006]

An undisputed claim does not have the burden of proof. That's what the definition says. Are you disputing this? If so, provide your own new definition.

Every positive claim has a burden of proof.

Easy.

"Every positive claim has a burden of proof" is itself a positive claim, which therefore has the burden of proof. This means you are obliged to satisfy the burden of proof for such a claim. So let's hear it.

(We ignore for the moment the fact that another atheist has blatantly contradicted the definition of "burden of proof" and thus moved into lala land.)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Every positive claim has a burden of proof" is itself a positive claim, which therefore has the burden of proof. This means you are obliged to satisfy the burden of proof for such a claim. So let's hear it.

If it is possible for a claim to not have a burden of proof, then such a claim is entirely useless and meaningless, since such a claim can't be differentiated from a false claim.

It's through reasonable argumentation and/or evidence that you support a claim.
Supporting a claim is another way of saying "meeting the burden of proof".

Therefor, for an accurate claim to be distinguished from a false claim, one requires supportive evidence.

This is why claims have a burden proof. To provide a mechanism/method to differentiate accurate claims from false claims.

This is basic logic. If you claim X, your claim isn't accepted/acceptable by default. Claims fall and stand by their own merrit, not by the number of people that believe them.

(We ignore for the moment the fact that another atheist has blatantly contradicted the definition of "burden of proof" and thus moved into lala land.)

What are you talking about?

 

[KCfromNC]

"Every positive claim has a burden of proof" is itself a positive claim, which therefore has the burden of proof. This means you are obliged to satisfy the burden of proof for such a claim. So let's hear it.

The fact is that accepting positive claims that don't meet a burden of proof has a long track record of leading to bad conclusions. You seem to agree, given that you're also asking for a positive claims to be supported.

(We ignore for the moment the fact that another atheist has blatantly contradicted the definition of "burden of proof" and thus moved into lala land.)

You'll have to show your work here since I have no idea what you think your point is.

 

[zippy2006]

If it is possible for a claim to not have a burden of proof, then such a claim is entirely useless and meaningless, since such a claim can't be differentiated from a false claim.

That's false. I give 13 claims here that are not useless or meaningless and can easily be differentiated from false claims, even if we suppose that they do not have the burden of proof. No one who utters such phrases is thought to have a duty to give arguments for their veracity.

It's through reasonable argumentation and/or evidence that you support a claim.
Supporting a claim is another way of saying "meeting the burden of proof".

The question is whether every claim needs support, not how to support a claim.

Therefor, for an accurate claim to be distinguished from a false claim, one requires supportive evidence.

False, see above.

You've failed to satisfy the burden of proof for your claim, "Every positive claim has a burden of proof."

You seem to agree, given that you're also asking for a positive claims to be supported.

I'm asking for consistency. To assert that "Every positive claim has a burden of proof" without at the same time satisfying the burden of proof for this claim is to commit a performative self-contradiction.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm asking for consistency. To assert that "Every positive claim has a burden of proof" without at the same time satisfying the burden of proof for this claim is to commit a performative self-contradiction.

The evidence that the person making the claim has the burden of proof lies in the fact that the negation of this, the requirement that positions are proved wrong, requires evidence that may not be available. An inability to prove a position wrong does not in any way prove it to be correct.

 

[zippy2006]

The evidence that the person making the claim has the burden of proof lies in the fact that the negation of this, the requirement that positions are proved wrong, requires evidence that may not be available. An inability to prove a position wrong does not in any way prove it to be correct.

Those two simply aren't the only two options, and no one is claiming "the requirement that positions are proved wrong." The third option is obvious, and is the definition of the burden of proof, "the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge." The burden of proof naturally attaches to claims, but it doesn't follow that every claim has the burden of proof.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Those two simply aren't the only two options, and no one is claiming "the requirement that positions are proved wrong." The third option is obvious, and is the definition of the burden of proof, "the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge." The burden of proof naturally attaches to claims, but it doesn't follow that every claim has the burden of proof.

You're not addressing my post in relation to the post I was replying to. You said:

"To assert that "Every positive claim has a burden of proof" without at the same time satisfying the burden of proof for this claim is to commit a performative self-contradiction."

I gave evidence as to why the burden of proof (the obligation to prove one's assertion).
is on the claimant. Whether the claim is in dispute or not, we can assume a dispute to show the burden of proof necessary. That is, unless you can make any claim that I can't dispute...

 

[zippy2006]

You're not addressing my post in relation to the post I was replying to. You said:

"To assert that "Every positive claim has a burden of proof" without at the same time satisfying the burden of proof for this claim is to commit a performative self-contradiction."

And what does your post have to do with this? It doesn't seem to relate to my point in any way whatsoever.

I gave evidence as to why the burden of proof (the obligation to prove one's assertion).
is on the claimant.

And I said:

...no one is claiming "the requirement that positions are proved wrong."

The burden of proof naturally attaches to claims, but it doesn't follow that every claim has the burden of proof.

You're arguing against strawmen.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

And what does your post have to do with this? It doesn't seem to relate to my point in any way whatsoever.



And I said:





You're arguing against strawmen.

Of course I'm not.

Give me an example of a claim that doesn't have a burden of proof.

 

[zippy2006]

Of course I'm not.

Give me an example of a claim that doesn't have a burden of proof.

Why don't you try actually reading the post you responded to. Not only will it help you to avoid strawmen in the future, it will also provide you with the examples you seek.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Why don't you try actually reading the post you responded to. Not only will it help you to avoid strawmen in the future, it will also provide you with the examples you seek.

Ah, I see. Sorry I didn't follow your link.

I dispute all those claims.

 

[zippy2006]

Ah, I see. Sorry I didn't follow your link.

Not a problem.

I dispute all those claims.

That means that this is a collection of your beliefs:

• The Earth does not exist
• Humans do not need water to live
• The Sun is not hot
• Hydrogen is not combustible
• 2 + 2 != 4
• Lions are not predators
• "I perceive nothing"
  
• Nothing exists
  
• "I do not exist"
• The Earth is not round
  
• Objects do not fall due to gravity
  
• Australia is not an island

This thread has been a wonderful picture of the intellectual dishonesty found in atheists, but you've really trumped the other examples!

Since conversation requires a certain minimum level of rationality to proceed, and I don't think you have met this minimum, I am afraid I have nothing more to say to you. Good day. Best of luck with your strange beliefs.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Not a problem.



That means that this is a collection of your beliefs:

• The Earth does not exist
• Humans do not need water to live
• The Sun is not hot
• Hydrogen is not combustible
• 2 + 2 != 4
• Lions are not predators
• "I perceive nothing"
  
• Nothing exists
  
• "I do not exist"
• The Earth is not round
  
• Objects do not fall due to gravity
  
• Australia is not an island

I didn't say I believed any of these things. Talk about being intellectually dishonest! Or could it be the case that you don't understand that questioning a claim doesn't mean you believe its opposite?

This thread has been a wonderful picture of the intellectual dishonesty found in atheists, but you've really trumped the other examples!

Seems like you're the only one being dishonest.

 

[zippy2006]

I didn't say I believed any of these things.

You said you disputed the originals. Do you know what "dispute" means?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You said you disputed the originals. Do you know what "dispute" means?

I do. Do you realize that disputing a claim doesn't mean you believe it's opposite?

 

[zippy2006]

I do. Do you realize that disputing a claim doesn't mean you believe it's opposite?

Dispute -

1 Argue about (something)
1.1 Question whether (a statement or alleged fact) is true or valid.
​

To argue with, disagree with, or question the truth of is by definition to take up the contradictory opposite of the thing which you are disputing. The only way you can dispute something is to take up its contradictory opposite.

Jim: The Earth is round
Bob: I dispute that!
Jim: The Earth is round because x, y, and z
Bob: I'm not claiming that the Earth isn't round!
Jim: Then you aren't disputing the claim that the Earth is round!​

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Dispute -

1 Argue about (something)
1.1 Question whether (a statement or alleged fact) is true or valid.
​

To argue with, disagree with, or question the truth of is by definition to take up the contradictory opposite of the thing which you are disputing. The only way you can dispute something is to take up its contradictory opposite.

Jim: The Earth is round
Bob: I dispute that!
Jim: The Earth is round because x, y, and z
Bob: I'm not claiming that the Earth isn't round!
Jim: Then you aren't disputing the claim that the Earth is round!​

You're still incorrect.

If you dispute a proposition, you're simply questioning its veracity. It does not mean you're asserting your own conclusion. Using the OP's example, if you assert that the jar has an even number of gumballs and I dispute that, it doesn't not in any way mean I believe that the jar has an odd number of gumballs.

I'm hoping you see the difference, because getting this is pretty important if you're going to be discussing what's basically Philosophy with atheists.