Is it wrong to demand evidence?

[Aldebaran]

The 'burden' of proof always falls on the believer to prove the belief, not the non believer to disprove the believer's belief.

If the belief you refer to is in God, which require faith and conviction rather than proof, then it's up to the hearer to accept it by faith, not on the basis of proof.

 

[Deidre32]

If the belief you refer to is in God, which require faith and conviction rather than proof, then it's up to the hearer to accept it by faith, not on the basis of proof.

Now that I believe in God again, I'm with you on that point. But, for those who don't believe, the burden of 'proof' (actual proof)...will be for the believer to supply to the non believer. This only comes into play if a believer insists that his/her faith can be supported by objective evidence. The Bible for example, isn't objective evidence, it's not a history book. If that makes sense?

 

[variant]

No, you are skeptical of the burden of proof precisely because you've looked it up and investigated it rationally. That simple.

No, I am a generally skeptical (read inquisitive) person who isn't skeptical about the burden.

I'm making an observation along the lines I stated in my last post: people want justification for everything, but they all too often don't given a lack of justification for their "justification-for-everything-o-meter" (the burden of proof being one example).

The burden is just a general rule for how claims are dealt with based upon how we deal with epistemological claims logically.

It reminds me of consistency. Glad to hear you had a brain in high school, though. This guy was too busy playing a saxophone and pretending he was someone else.

It's more a question of how I am best amused.

Now the burden is on you, lol.

Not really no.

 

[Gottservant]

What noun (person place idea or set of ideas) would relevant be attached as an adjective to if it appeared in the sentence I quoted.

Oh, so you don't know what the question is?

Because if you knew what the question was you would have given me a subject, not a placeholder for a subject (like "noun")

We can discuss meta-lingual theory if you want, but I doubt that it would be as relevant as the word "relevant" you are using would suggest that you want

 

[agua]

You can't absolutely, because what constitutes sufficient evidence is totally relative to the individual's, and/or the individual's interlocutor's, criteria for evidence.

But I'm not talking about the content demanded by the burden of proof. I'm pointing out how people who appeal to the burden of proof have disdain for irrational justifications (including, as variant pointed out, an appeal to ignorance), but don't question how appealing to the burden of proof is rationally necessary.

Yes I agree.

 

[Received]

No, I am a generally skeptical (read inquisitive) person who isn't skeptical about the burden.

If you're not skeptical, this means you accept it. So you accept the burden without questioning it? 1) How is this not fallacious (i.e., without rational justification)? 2) How is it not inconsistent, in that you demand people provide rational justification by appealing to the burden but you yourself have no rational justification for the burden? 3) You just provided a rational justification for the burden, so I don't understand how you can say you haven't had skepticism (doubt) toward the burden, or else what would have motivated you checking it out to see if it's rationally justified as an argumentative rule?

Not really no.

Because?

 

[Aldebaran]

Now that I believe in God again, I'm with you on that point. But, for those who don't believe, the burden of 'proof' (actual proof)...will be for the believer to supply to the non believer. This only comes into play if a believer insists that his/her faith can be supported by objective evidence. The Bible for example, isn't objective evidence, it's not a history book. If that makes sense?

The unbeliever can become a believer in the same way you did. Did you receive actual proof in order to believe again? I think there are many things to "support" our belief, but not enough (according to my experience on this forum) that can convince someone who requires concrete proof.

 

[Deidre32]

The unbeliever can become a believer in the same way you did. Did you receive actual proof in order to believe again? I think there are many things to "support" our belief, but not enough (according to my experience on this forum) that can convince someone who requires concrete proof.

True, you're right, but I don't need any proof to believe in God. But, if I were to tell people that there is proof as to the existence of a deity, those people would want said proof. I know many religious people who turn to their holy books in an attempt to use them as proof for the existence of God. Think the communication between believers and non believers would turn out smoother, if more religious people would admit that their views and beliefs are based on faith of things not seen or proven. Because in essence, that is precisely what faith is about.

 

[variant]

Oh, so you don't know what the question is?

Because if you knew what the question was you would have given me a subject, not a placeholder for a subject (like "noun")

We can discuss meta-lingual theory if you want, but I doubt that it would be as relevant as the word "relevant" you are using would suggest that you want

No I really was just asking for clarification for what that sentence meant which can't be had for what the noun was that that adjective attached to.

 

[variant]

If you're not skeptical, this means you accept it. So you accept the burden without questioning it? 1) How is this not fallacious (i.e., without rational justification)? 2) How is it not inconsistent, in that you demand people provide rational justification by appealing to the burden but you yourself have no rational justification for the burden? 3) You just provided a rational justification for the burden, so I don't understand how you can say you haven't had skepticism (doubt) toward the burden, or else what would have motivated you checking it out to see if it's rationally justified as an argumentative rule?

I accept it after questioning it but that doesn't mean I am currently skeptical of it.

 

[Aldebaran]

True, you're right, but I don't need any proof to believe in God. But, if I were to tell people that there is proof as to the existence of a deity, those people would want said proof. I know many religious people who turn to their holy books in an attempt to use them as proof for the existence of God. Think the communication between believers and non believers would turn out smoother, if more religious people would admit that their views and beliefs are based on faith of things not seen or proven. Because in essence, that is precisely what faith is about.

Would you agree that there are things found in nature that at least support the existence of God (things that point in the direction of God's existence)?

 

[TheBibleMan]

Most faith systems demand blind obedience and blind trust in its god, precepts, doctrines, and commandments ... would you say it is wrong for an individual to demand personally verifiable evidence for a faith system?

It all depends upon the motive of your heart.

 

[Deidre32]

Would you agree that there are things found in nature that at least support the existence of God (things that point in the direction of God's existence)?

Yes, totally. That is one of the components of Deism...

But, it is still only my belief based on how I choose to see nature, and that it has/had a Creator. Do you agree?

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, totally. That is one of the components of Deism...

But, it is still only my belief based on how I choose to see nature, and that it has/had a Creator. Do you agree?

I guess so. I'm not sure since it's late and I'm tired. For me, it's not only nature, but maybe even looking at humanity, the complexity and patterns to it all, and personal experiences.

 

[agua]

We not be certain of anything according to that model ? The first girl I fell in love with ... I didn't have a book telling me anything about her. I didn't base it off the accounts of others. I fell in love with her, on our own. I didn't need to verify her name first. Her name was largely irrelevant to me, although I liked it. There were things about her I liked, things I didn't like ... but I fell in love nonetheless. There were many things I am essentially certain of (barring solipsism) that we experienced together, yada yada. What we felt for each other, etc ... certain ? Essentially unfalsifiable. Our actions and choices ? I'm fairly certain we existed in reality and the events happened, even if I may not remember every detail of every moment. Regardless of what others thought of her, my personal experience with her stood on it's own, I drew my own conclusions, etc.

If a being showed up and claimed to be Yahweh, or anyone name for that matter, one could draw their own conclusions based on personal experience with that being as well.

Concerning your last statement ... would you like to share some examples of your methods and what you've discovered using them which lead you to conclude what you've concluded concerning Yahweh as well as what you've concluded concerning yourself ?

Hmm, I'm not questioning if you love, or not, but that if the object of your love is Yahweh, or not. We can love for any number of reasons and this in no way substantiates the object of our love, or its nobility. For instance many people fall in love with evil people. We can create our own Yahweh, one of our choosing, and love Him, of course; which is what many people do because they don't love the Biblical Yahweh, at all.

I'll give you my methodology for discerning accurate representations of Yahweh. I've formed a relationship with Yahweh over many years of searching for who He is, His characteristics, and what he wants from me. Prayfully I ask/seek in all situations in my life ( pray always ) and day by day he guides me into good and correct thinking, in all life matters I ask. He also pursuades me in areas I don't seek him on ( I often don't know what is best for me and therefor don't ask ) and in areas where I think I'm acting correctly, but aren't. Interestingly this model fits precisely with the Biblical model and intuitivley fits with the model of a good Father teaching a child.

Now inside this method of teaching, Yahweh gives extra help, according to the humility and need of the child ( and also according to the ability of the child ), in the form of spirit gifts. I have some spirit gifts which are helpful in communicating my needs and discerning situations.

I'm not going to give you exact descriptions of events in this matter, for several reasons.

ETA. Oh dear I omitted something very important that may not be readily understood. The Spirit of Jesus enters the Christian, once Born Again, and this creates an inevitable change into His likeness, over time, if we endure to the end. ( I'm actually a PoS person )

 

[Deidre32]

I guess so. I'm not sure since it's late and I'm tired. For me, it's not only nature, but maybe even looking at humanity, the complexity and patterns to it all, and personal experiences.

You'd make a great Deist.

 

[Aldebaran]

You'd make a great Deist.

Well......
I took my faith in a creator and applied it to what is said in scripture, and it made a lot of sense to me to apply it there as well. I figure that if God actually exists and created the universe, then there is a purpose, along with explanations for why things are now the way they are.

 

[TillICollapse]

Hmm, I'm not questioning if you love, or not, but that if the object of your love is Yahweh, or not. We can love for any number of reasons and this in no way substantiates the object of our love, or its nobility. For instance many people fall in love with evil people. We can create our own Yahweh, one of our choosing, and love Him, of course; which is what many people do because they don't love the Biblical Yahweh, at all.

My point with the love analogy was to show that a person may base their conclusions on experience, to where the identification and claims made by others may largely be irrelevant.

I'll give you my methodology for discerning accurate representations of Yahweh. I've formed a relationship with Yahweh over many years of searching for who He is, His characteristics, and what he wants from me. Prayfully I ask/seek in all situations in my life ( pray always ) and day by day he guides me into good and correct thinking, in all life matters I ask. He also pursuades me in areas I don't seek him on ( I often don't know what is best for me and therefor don't ask ) and in areas where I think I'm acting correctly, but aren't. Interestingly this model fits precisely with the Biblical model and intuitivley fits with the model of a good Father teaching a child.

Now inside this method of teaching, Yahweh gives extra help, according to the humility and need of the child ( and also according to the ability of the child ), in the form of spirit gifts. I have some spirit gifts which are helpful in communicating my needs and discerning situations.

I'm not going to give you exact descriptions of events in this matter, for several reasons.

ETA. Oh dear I omitted something very important that may not be readily understood. The Spirit of Jesus enters the Christian, once Born Again, and this creates an inevitable change into His likeness, over time, if we endure to the end. ( I'm actually a PoS person )

Did this entity you are describing tell you specifically that it's name was Yahweh ?

 

[agua]

My point with the love analogy was to show that a person may base their conclusions on experience, to where the identification and claims made by others may largely be irrelevant.

Experiencing love doesn't qualify the recipient, at all. It merely establishes that we love something.

Did this entity you are describing tell you specifically that it's name was Yahweh ?

Not specifically no. The writers of the Bible did ( and I believe them ) and the Jewish Oral tradition denotes His name as YHWH.( although unspoken )

Are you suggesting that I cannot know someones name unless they tell me personally ? I think this would make it difficult to know any historically recorded figure by name.

 

[TillICollapse]

Experiencing love doesn't qualify the recipient, at all. It merely establishes that we love something.

That's exactly right, I would agree. This is deviating from the love analogy ... but take Dennis Rodman and the leader of NK. If I recall, he claimed he was now one of his "best" friends ? That doesn't qualify Kim Jong-un or Dennis Rodman as good/bad/indifferent/etc (well lol ...) it shows Rodman has apparently positive thoughts about Un. It doesn't take away from what he may or may not be responsible for, etc.

Not specifically no. The writers of the Bible did ( and I believe them ) and the Jewish Oral tradition denotes His name as YHWH.( although unspoken )

Are you suggesting that I cannot know someones name unless they tell me personally ? I think this would make it difficult to know any historically recorded figure by name.

Thank you for your honesty.

No I wasn't suggesting that actually, I was wanting to know specifically what I had asked, and you answered it.