Christianity and the Burden of Proof

[Dave Ellis]

If you are right then it will be easy to fulfill my challenge. So let's see it.



Then feel free to substitute them for each other in my statement, as I noted.

I'm not sure what you're asking me to do? Did you not already substitute them in your three examples? What else would I be substituting?

 

[zippy2006]

I'm not sure what you're asking me to do? Did you not already substitute them in your three examples? What else would I be substituting?

Nevermind, it seems the challenge is over your head. Let's just return to the original point:

Zippy: To not accept something is not the same as to dispute it.
Dave: If you don't agree with someone, then you disagree with them.​

The question is whether "not accepting something as true" is the same as "not agreeing with someone." To not agree with someone is to disagree with them, which is to have a differing opinion than they do on the matter. But one can "not accept something as true" without having a differing opinion.

For example, if someone disagrees with a creationist then they have a differing opinion, perhaps evolution. Yet if someone does "not accept" creationism, they may be waiting for more evidence rather than actually holding a differing opinion. They may simply be uncertain.

But you've helped prove my point. To dispute is to disagree, and to disagree is (by definition) to hold a differing opinion, namely an opinion which contradicts the opinion of the person you are disagreeing with. Therefore to dispute is to hold a contradictory opinion.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Says the fellow who claims to be unable to comprehend the word "nothing."

Ah, once again dishonestly putting words in my mouth, I see. Do you have any shame at all?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You're not getting my point.... my point is saying:

Zippy: Yes, but we are talking about whether non-acceptance implies dispute, not whether non-agreement implies disagreement.

Is akin to saying:

Zippy: Yes, but we are talking about whether an apple is red, not whether an apple is red.

If a dispute is a disagreement, you're talking about the same thing. Your rebuttal is nonsensical.

I'm still holding out that he's not a native English speaker. It at least gives him some ethical leeway in all the semantic gymnastics.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Nevermind, it seems the challenge is over your head. Let's just return to the original point:

You said substitute dispute and disagreement in some lines, then listed a number of lines where you had already substituted those words in a way that all three sentences meant the same thing. I'm not sure what substituting those words in the same examples would have accomplished, they'd have still meant the same thing.

Zippy: To not accept something is not the same as to dispute it.
Dave: If you don't agree with someone, then you disagree with them.​

The question is whether "not accepting something as true" is the same as "not agreeing with someone." To not agree with someone is to disagree with them, which is to have a differing opinion than they do on the matter. But one can "not accept something as true" without having a differing opinion.

How many times does this have to be explained to you? You can not accept something as true by saying "I don't know". You don't have to take up a contradictory position on the matter to not accept a claim.

For example, if someone disagrees with a creationist then they have a differing opinion, perhaps evolution. Yet if someone does "not accept" creationism, they may be waiting for more evidence rather than actually holding a differing opinion. They may simply be uncertain.

You can disagree with a creationist if the whole "god created everything" story doesn't check out when critically examined, however you may have no idea what actually happened. This would have described virtually everyone on the planet who didn't accept creationism in the era before ideas like abiogenesis and evolution were even proposed.

But you've helped prove my point. To dispute is to disagree, and to disagree is (by definition) to hold a differing opinion, namely an opinion which contradicts the opinion of the person you are disagreeing with. Therefore to dispute is to hold a contradictory opinion.

Again, no. There's two positions one can take on a given proposal, "A" or "Not A", those are actual logical negations. If you disagree with "A", that means you currently have not been convinced, and you have to rely on the default position of "not A". The problem is you are mistaking "not A" with "claim B", and they aren't the same thing.

So to go back to the creationist example, if the claims of a creationist don't hold up, then your position is not creationist (pending further evidence that may be convincing of course). Not accepting a claim doesn't mean you are arguing on behalf of another claim.

For example, if you dispute the claims a creationist made that does not mean you believe in evolution, abiogenesis, or any other idea someone has had to explain how life got here. If you have no idea how life got here however the claims made by a creationist don't stand up to scrutiny, then you don't know what happened, but you disagree with the claims the creationist made because they are not evidently true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's false. I give 13 claims here that are not useless or meaningless and can easily be differentiated from false claims,

If they can be differentiated from false claims, then that means that they can meet the burden of proof.

That is exactly what "differentiating from false claims" means.
To differentiate = to support = to meet the burden of proof.

even if we suppose that they do not have the burden of proof

Except that they do.

No one who utters such phrases is thought to have a duty to give arguments for their veracity.

As I explained at length already, just because nobody challenges a claim, doesn't mean that the claim doesn't have a burden of proof in principle.

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

Without support, it can't be differentiated from false claims.

False, see above.

True, see above.

How do you differentiate a true claim from a false claim, if not through supportive evidence?

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

I explained why. I supported the claim.

I'm asking for consistency.

"Every truth-claim has a burden of proof" - seems pretty consistent.

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 did support that claim. I explained why truth-claims have a burden of proof.
For the simple reason that without supportive evidence, a true claim can't be differentiated from a false claim.

So, to determine if claim X is true or accurate, one requires supportive evidence.
And who's responsibility is it to come up with this evidence, if not the person who makes the claim?


And as Todd mentioned, it doesn't work in the opposite direction. That's just basic logic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

the definition of the burden of proof, "the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge."

Let's run with this one for the sake of argument.

As an atheist, I dispute the claims of theism.
Would you agree then, that the theist has a burden of proof concerning theistic claims?.

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

Except that it does. Through the premise, ironically, that the burden of proof naturally attaches to claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

It rather sounds like you don't understand what "dispute" means.

Remember my secret coin toss?

Answering "no" to the question "do you believe it is heads" does NOT, in ANY way, imply that you would answer "yes" to the question "do you believe it is tails"...

"I don't believe X is true"
is NOT the same as saying
"I believe X is false" or "I believe ~X is true".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

by questioning its truth you imply its falsity.

No.

As said: "I don't believe X" is NOT the equivalent of "I believe X is false".

If something is not true, it's false,

Yes. But saying "I don't believe X is true" does not mean "I believe X is false".
Saying "X is not true" would be the equivalent of saying that X is false.

Do you really not understand the difference?

and contradictory opposites have no middle

Sure. But nobody is make truth statements or expressing any particular position here.
One only questions the veracity of a specific proposition.

Remember the secret coin toss.
Not accepting the claim "it is heads" as true, does not mean that you will accept the claim "it is tails" as true.

It is impossible to disagree with X and not at the same time agree with ~X.

Except that it is.
Again: secret coin toss.

Do you accept it's heads? No.
Do you accept it's tails? No.
Then what do you accept? Nothing at this point, I lack the required information to take a stance.

Same with gods.
A god either exists or he doesn't.

A theist claims god(s) exist.
An atheist doesn't accept such as a true-ism.

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

You're still stuck in the black and white thinking.
You're still confusing claims with responses to claims.

What else do you think you mean? "Not even" is the same as "odd."

And is answering "no" to the question "do you believe my secret dice toss resulted in an even number?" also the same as claiming that it resulted in an uneven number instead?

I hope you realise by now, that it is not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Dispute means a disagreement, argument or debate.

Can you give an example of a disagreement, argument or debate that occurs between two people, where both people completely accept the others claims?

Disagreement implies non-acceptance, but this does not mean that non-acceptance implies disagreement. Now you're committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Ok. Then can you give an example of where person A does not accept the claims of person B, yet agrees with person B's claims?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let me ask you a question in all seriousness. Do you actually believe that someone can legitimately dispute that a number is odd and not at the same time think it is even?

Yes.

Secret dice roll.
Result is a number from one to six. 3 odd, 3 even.

A rolls the dice.
Neither A or B get to see the result.

A claims "it is an even number".
B says "I don't accept that claim as true. So I dispute your claim. What evidence can you present to support your claim?".

This does not, in any way, imply that B believes that the result was an odd number.
In fact, if A would turn around and change his claim to "it is an odd number", B's response would be exactly the same.

 

[Khalliqa]

I'm reading this dialogue with great interest the idea of "negation/rejection = belief" is a commonly held thought among theists and seems to be difficult to break free from this type of thinking. It's a fundamental logical flaw and I don't understand it. I'm kinda hoping there is a way to assist in understanding. I thought the coin toss example would be clear but alas..

 

[AV1611VET]

How would you refute that Christianity can't be properly proven or the specifics of what Wikipedia said?

In the case of Christianity, the jar of gumballs comes with a label on it that says: CONTAINS AN EVEN NUMBER OF GUMBALLS.

Failure to believe that is an argument from foolishness: and a fallacy of fools.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm still holding out that he's not a native English speaker. It at least gives him some ethical leeway in all the semantic gymnastics.

The defense mechanisms are working overtime and scramble mode has ensued.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm reading this dialogue with great interest the idea of "negation/rejection = belief" is a commonly held thought among theists and seems to be difficult to break free from this type of thinking. It's a fundamental logical flaw and I don't understand it. I'm kinda hoping there is a way to assist in understanding. I thought the coin toss example would be clear but alas..

Some folks have to create that strawman, to protect their belief.

 

[High Fidelity]

Keep it civil guys or don't post at all.

The OP is a valuable proposition for discussion between both camps, let's keep it civil.

 

[KCfromNC]

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...

There's a relatively easy explanation. It is much harder to argue with people who say they don't know if god exists. At least with [straw]people who claim to know gods don't exist you can play games and pretend that the god is just really good at hiding and you can't know for sure. If you let people get away with telling you that they don't know then you end up in the uncomfortable position of having to present evidence for something which is by definition taken on faith.

 

[KCfromNC]

The defense mechanisms are working overtime and scramble mode has ensued.

Yes, I can't help but notice the number of times posts contain claims that other people are not intelligent enough to understand the discussion. That's not a sign of a strong argument.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

In the case of Christianity, the jar of gumballs comes with a label on it that says: CONTAINS AN EVEN NUMBER OF GUMBALLS.

Failure to believe that is an argument from foolishness: and a fallacy of fools.

And then someone else comes along and says:

"In the case of [INSERT OTHER RELIGION HERE], the jar of gumballs comes with a label on it that says: CONTAINS AN ODD NUMBER OF GUMBALLS."

"Failure to believe that is an argument from foolishness: and a fallacy of fools."

And we're back where we started...

 

[AV1611VET]

And then someone else comes along and says:

"In the case of [INSERT OTHER RELIGION HERE], the jar of gumballs comes with a label on it that says: CONTAINS AN ODD NUMBER OF GUMBALLS."

"Failure to believe that is an argument from foolishness: and a fallacy of fools."

And we're back where we started...

Then read the label yourself. LOL