Christianity and the Burden of Proof

[zippy2006]

You're still incorrect.

If you dispute a proposition, you're simply questioning its veracity.

By questioning its veracity you question its truth, and by questioning its truth you imply its falsity. If something is not true, it's false, and contradictory opposites have no middle. It is impossible to disagree with X and not at the same time agree with ~X.

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.

It does mean that. There is no other option. It is the law of the excluded middle.

What else do you think you mean? "Not even" is the same as "odd." Even means divisible by two; odd means not divisible by two.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

By questioning its veracity you question its truth,

Yep

and by questioning its truth you imply its falsity. If something is not true, its false, and contradictory opposites have no middle. It is impossible to disagree with X and not at the same time agree with ~X.

Absolutely wrong. I'm not sure how you're not getting this...

If I say that I dispute your claim that the jar has an even number of gumballs, I'm not saying anything at all about the number of gumballs in the jar. The number could be even, or it could be odd. Saying you don't believe the claim only means that the claim itself is in dispute and needs to be justified, which gets back to the burden of proof that started all this.

Do you understand now?

 

[Dave Ellis]

It is a response. "Claim ~X" is a response to "Claim X." I've stipulated that it is a response. Therefore there are responses that are also claims. Therefore not all responses are non-claims. Therefore your so-called "definition" fails.

What on earth are you talking about? That makes no sense at all

 

[zippy2006]

Absolutely wrong. I'm not sure how you're not getting this...

If I say that I dispute your claim that the jar has an even number of gumballs, I'm not saying anything at all about the number of gumballs in the jar. The number could be even, or it could be odd. Saying you don't believe the claim only means that the claim itself is in dispute and needs to be justified, which gets back to the burden of proof that started all this.

Do you understand now?

The only two possibilities are even or odd. When you dispute the claim that there is an even number of gumballs, you are disagreeing that there is an even number. But if you think there is not an even number, then you think there is an odd number. "Not even" is the same as "odd." Even means divisible by two; odd means not divisible by two.

To dispute claim X is to say, "Not X." But "not X" is ~X, it is the contradictory opposite.

If I say that I dispute your claim that the jar has an even number of gumballs, I'm not saying anything at all about the number of gumballs in the jar.

Yes you are.

Zip: $10 says there is an even number of gumballs in the jar.
Todd: I dispute that.
Zip: How much do you want to wager on odd?
Todd: I don't think there is an odd number of gumballs!
Zip: So you think there is not an even number, but you don't think there is an odd number? Do you know what the words "odd" and "even" mean?​

 

[Dave Ellis]

By questioning its veracity you question its truth,

Correct

and by questioning its truth you imply its falsity.

WRONG

This is where you're making your mistake, not accepting a claim as true does not mean you believe it's false. You can simply be unconvinced due to a lack of evidence. That doesn't mean you think it's false, you just haven't seen enough to commit to the idea being true.

If something is not true, it's false, and contradictory opposites have no middle. It is impossible to disagree with X and not at the same time agree with ~X.

Again, you're completely wrong here.

To go back to the OP, if we have that jar of gumballs, and we have absolutely no way to determine if there's an even or odd number of gumballs in the jar. If I make the claim that there's definitely an even number in the jar, you have no reason to believe my claim to be true. I have no evidence, I'm just taking a guess on a 50/50 bet.

So, if you say you don't accept my claim, that does not mean you are claiming there isn't an even number of gumballs in the jar, you just haven't seen enough evidence to warrant believing there is.

Hence, you can challenge the truth value of a claim without implying that the claim is false. In that case, you'd know there's a 50/50 chance I'm right. However, there is not enough evidence either way to justify a belief may it be even or odd.

It does mean that. There is no other option. It is the law of the excluded middle.

What else do you think you mean? "Not even" is the same as "odd." Even means divisible by two; odd means not divisible by two.

There is another option, that option is saying "I don't know" and withholding belief. That doesn't imply you believe the claims are false, however you haven't yet been convinced they are true.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The only two possibilities are even or odd. When you dispute the claim that there is an even number of gumballs, you are disagreeing that there is an even number. But if you think there is not an even number, then you think there is an odd number. "Not even" is the same as "odd." Even means divisible by two; odd means not divisible by two.

To dispute claim X is to say, "Not X." But "not X" is ~X, it is the contradictory opposite.

Yes you are.

Zip: $10 says there is an even number of gumballs in the jar.
Todd: I dispute that.
Zip: How much do you want to wager on odd?
Todd: I don't think there is an odd number of gumballs!
Zip: So you think there is not an even number, but you don't think there is an odd number? Do you know what the words "odd" and "even" mean?​

You're still not getting it. I think you're confusing yourself with pseudo Philosophy. I'll try one last time, then maybe someone else can take a shot at it.

If I say that I dispute your claim that the jar has an even number of gumballs, I'm saying this:

"The jar could have an even number or an odd number of gumballs. I do not know. But I dispute the fact that you claim to know that it's even, until such time as you fulfill your burden of proof and demonstrate that you have evidence that the jar has an even number of gumballs."

Notice that I'm not saying that I'm taking any position at all about the number of gumballs.

Do you finally get it?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

There is another option, that option is saying "I don't know" and withholding belief. That doesn't imply you believe the claims are false, however you haven't yet been convinced they are true.

I see a disturbing number of people that just can't get this concept.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The hypothetical doesn't require concrete instantiation to function as an argument, but nevertheless, I can give a number of examples:

• The Earth exists
• Humans need water to live
• The Sun is hot
• Hydrogen is combustible
• 2 + 2 = 4
• Lions are predators
• etc.

Earlier in the thread (71 & 97) I gave others:

• I perceive (something)
  
• Something exists rather than nothing
  
• I exist

(These were given as examples of things that have never had the burden of proof)

I also provided weaker examples that serve a more general argument:

• The Earth is round
  
• Objects fall due to gravity
  
• Australia is an island

And as we said multiple times, all those claims have the burden of proof if challenged. The reason why they aren't challenged is because most people will accept them.

I brought up the example if I said the earth is round to a flat earther, I would need to back up my claim. Luckily, the evidence is plentiful and easy to present.

 

[zippy2006]

WRONG

This is where you're making your mistake, not accepting a claim as true does not mean you believe it's false.

As usual, you fail to read carefully and understand the conversation. "Not accepting" is not the same as disputing. You commit the fallacy of equivocation.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

As usual, you fail to read carefully and understand the conversation. "Not accepting" is not the same as disputing. You commit the fallacy of equivocation.

"Not accepting" is the same as disputing. No fallacy here. Move along folks...

 

[zippy2006]

"The jar could have an even number or an odd number of gumballs. I do not know. But I dispute the fact that you claim to know that it's even,...

Then you're disputing my claim to know that it's even, not the claim that it is even. A claim about knowledge is different from a claim about reality. A claim about knowledge of the number of gumballs is different from a claim about the number of gumballs. You've moved the goalposts.

Notice that your disputation still implies the contradictory opposite:

• I dispute the claim, "Zippy knows there are an even number of gumballs in the jar."
• This implies the contradictory opposite, "Zippy does not know there are an even number of gumballs in the jar."

You cannot dispute the first without implying the second, just like you can't dispute that there is an even number without implying that there is an odd number. To dispute is to disagree, and to disagree with "even" is to agree with "odd."

 

[zippy2006]

"Not accepting" is the same as disputing. No fallacy here. Move along folks...

False. Consider an infant. Having no beliefs, the infant does not accept the existence of Santa Claus. This does not mean that they dispute the existence of Santa Claus. This is obvious.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Then you're disputing my claim to know that it's even, not the claim that it is even. A claim about knowledge is different from a claim about reality. A claim about knowledge of the number of gumballs is different from a claim about the number of gumballs. You've moved the goalposts.

Notice that your disputation still implies the contradictory opposite:

• I dispute the claim, "Zippy knows there are an even number of gumballs in the jar."
• This implies the contradictory opposite, "Zippy does not know there are an even number of gumballs in the jar."

You cannot dispute the first without implying the second, just like you can't dispute that there is an even number without implying that there is an odd number. To dispute is to disagree, and to disagree with "even" is to agree with "odd."

Yeah... you're just not getting it. You seem to be living in a world where the phrase "I don't know" doesn't exist.

I'll leave other people to try and get this through to you, since you're clearly not understanding my explanation...

 

[zippy2006]

Yeah... you're just not getting it. You seem to be living in a world where the phrase "I don't know" doesn't exist.

Clearly you can't refute the points I've given. You seem to be living in a world where the phrase, "I was wrong" doesn't exist. This strange world also seems to be a place where you can say "Not even" and not mean "Odd."

...and of course "I dispute X" is different from "I don't know if X is true." Another equivocation.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The only two possibilities are even or odd. When you dispute the claim that there is an even number of gumballs, you are disagreeing that there is an even number. But if you think there is not an even number, then you think there is an odd number. "Not even" is the same as "odd." Even means divisible by two; odd means not divisible by two.

To dispute claim X is to say, "Not X." But "not X" is ~X, it is the contradictory opposite.

Again, you are not getting it.

If you dispute the claim there's an even number that just means you haven't accepted there is an even number. That doesn't mean you think there's an odd number. In that situation there's a 50/50 chance either way, and without evidence you're not justified in claiming either one.

Both claims would be unjustified, therefore the only justifiable position would be to claim you don't know either way. You could dispute someone who is claiming there's an even number and someone who claims there's an odd number at the same time, for the same reasons. Neither one of them has met their burden of proof, although one of them is ultimately correct on blind luck.

Yes you are.

Zip: $10 says there is an even number of gumballs in the jar.
Todd: I dispute that.
Zip: How much do you want to wager on odd?
Todd: I don't think there is an odd number of gumballs!
Zip: So you think there is not an even number, but you don't think there is an odd number? Do you know what the words "odd" and "even" mean?​

In that case someone would be perfectly justified in saying there is either an odd or even amount, however they don't know which one is true. In fact, barring evidence that's the only justifiable position someone can hold.

 

[Dave Ellis]

As usual, you fail to read carefully and understand the conversation. "Not accepting" is not the same as disputing. You commit the fallacy of equivocation.

Of course it is. If I don't accept your claim, then there is a dispute between us on this matter.

 

[Dave Ellis]

False. Consider an infant. Having no beliefs, the infant does not accept the existence of Santa Claus. This does not mean that they dispute the existence of Santa Claus. This is obvious.

This is irrelevant to the topic at hand. We are discussing someone making a claim to another person, where that person does not accept said claim.

We are not discussing talking to an infant who can't understand the concept of a claim.

 

[zippy2006]

If you dispute the claim there's an even number that just means you haven't accepted there is an even number.

Look up the word "dispute" and try to find a definition--in any dictionary--that says "To not accept."

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Clearly you can't refute the points I've given. You seem to be living in a world where the phrase, "I was wrong" doesn't exist.

Whatever makes you feel better about yourself dude.

You should call The Atheist Experience sometime with this version of 'logic' you have. It would be entertaining.

 

[ToddNotTodd]