Is it wrong to demand evidence?

[agua]

If you're asking me if it actually historically occurred ? Idk. I'm not all or nothing when it comes to the scriptures, and I don't tend to dwell on validating the historicity of one book or scripture over another in general, though I will at times.

Ok. So do you allow that people will take the same suspicion when handling the veracity of modern accounts ?

This doesn't match with my own example of the neighbors.

If a being showed up and said, "I'm Yahweh. Nothing said about me in those books and accounts is accurate," this being could still be Yahweh, and it's the accounts that got everything wrong. The truth about Yahweh is one thing, what the accounts say or don't say is another. They could match, they could be off, they could match in parts but be off in others, etc.

Ok sure. If you don't accept Biblical Christianity is an veracious account of Yahweh's attributes then sure, you may decide what is on your own.

According to this model though we can't be certain, of anything, really. Personally my investigative methods ( and spirit gifts ) granted to me by Yahweh haven't steered me wrong, yet.

 

[Gottservant]

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?

Christians don't promise that Jesus will give you evidence, we promise that Jesus saved us.

But if you really want evidence, the question is "when" (do you want evidence) not "how"?

If you ask "how" do you want evidence, you are leaving open the prior question that it may be for nothing.

 

[variant]

Christians don't promise that Jesus will give you evidence, we promise that Jesus saved us.

But if you really want evidence, the question is "when" (do you want evidence) not "how"?

If you ask "how" do you want evidence, you are leaving open the prior question that it may be for nothing.

No the issue is when. Religions demand faith now for evidence later so it is definitely a temporal thing.

 

[TillICollapse]

Ok. So do you allow that people will take the same suspicion when handling the veracity of modern accounts ?

Yes I allow for it lol

Ok sure. If you don't accept Biblical Christianity is an veracious account of Yahweh's attributes then sure, you may decide what is on your own.

According to this model though we can't be certain, of anything, really. Personally my investigative methods ( and spirit gifts ) granted to me by Yahweh haven't steered me wrong, yet.

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 ?

 

[Gottservant]

No the issue is when. Religions demand faith now for evidence later so it is definitely a temporal thing.

Religions demand faith now, because by deduction that evidence is not necessarily relevant, faith must be.

You are presuming that because religions ask for faith "now" that evidence asked for in the same manner will be just as relevant, but since that is not a deduction, it does not hold

sorry.

 

[variant]

Religions demand faith now, because by deduction that evidence is not necessarily relevant, faith must be.

You are presuming that because religions ask for faith "now" that evidence asked for in the same manner will be just as relevant, but since that is not a deduction, it does not hold

sorry.

I think you have an interesting idea on what the word deduction means and how deductions are used in arguments.

You don't get to speak for what I presume until you learn how to use the language in a somewhat similar manner to me.

 

[Gottservant]

I think you have an interesting idea on what the word deduction means and how deductions are used in arguments.

You don't get to speak for what I presume until you learn how to use the language in a somewhat similar manner to me.

No because I am different to most people, I can tell where you are coming from

Even if I am wrong, it is quite sound to deal with presumption because in a worst case scenario, you will just presume I am wrong, in which case at least I know what you think the subject is (your presumption)

the fact is, you are assuming evidence is as relevant as faith, on grounds that only apply to faith.

 

[variant]

the fact is, you are assuming evidence is as relevant as faith, on grounds that only apply to faith.

Relevant to what?

 

[Gottservant]

Relevant to what?

What is the question?

 

[Received]

The reasoning behind the burden of proof is evident enough that I think most people grasp it.

Specifically I often see when people question the burden a direct and frank explanation of why it is reasonable, not an appeal to authority.

Can it be done as an appeal to authority? Yes, but it is also an appeal to a proper authority.

There's nothing wrong with an appeal to authority, so long as you recognize it as such. However, all I've seen is throwing down the appeal to the burden of proof without a philosophical skepticism about this burden, hence the contradiction.

 

[variant]

There's nothing wrong with an appeal to authority, so long as you recognize it as such. However, all I've seen is throwing down the appeal to the burden of proof without a philosophical skepticism about this burden, hence the contradiction.

As the philosophic burden of proof has a very simple straightforward argument attached, to be skeptical you need to be able to make a good case against the burden and it's implicit argument, have you seen one of those?

 

[Received]

How will you determine if an individual's burden upon evidence is reasonable ie. by your terms justified ?

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.

 

[Received]

As the philosophic burden of proof has a very simple straightforward argument attached, to be skeptical you need to be able to make a good case against the burden and it's implicit argument, have you seen one of those?

No, to be skeptical you need to question the vehicle you're using, here being the burden. I haven't seen this, pretty much ever. This doesn't mean that many people don't have an inkling as to how the burden could have rational justification, but that still isn't what I'm looking for.

I'm just making sure people are consistent: those who demand rational justification should be justified in their demand for rational justification through their use of the burden of proof.

 

[variant]

What is the question?

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.

 

[variant]

No, to be skeptical you need to question the vehicle you're using, here being the burden. I haven't seen this, pretty much ever. This doesn't mean that many people have an inkling as to how the burden could have rational justification, but that still isn't what I'm looking for.

Um, well I gave you the argument directly for how it is justified, to be skeptical that is what you have to question. If people don't know how the burden is justified they should definitely go look up the reasoning and poke it out for themselves.

I'm not skeptical of it because it appears to be a very solid argument that I don't see any flaws in.

It is remarkably odd that you feel people should be more often skeptical of an idea that you are not actually presenting an argument against.

This is fun though, the constant demand that arguments be held to their own standards that you present remind me of me in high school.

I'm just making sure people are consistent: those who demand rational justification should be justified in their demand for rational justification through their use of the burden of proof.

You can demand consistency all you like, but you haven't demonstrated inconsistency in any specific cases.

 

[Deidre32]

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

 

[variant]

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

Can you articulate why exactly?

 

[Received]

Um, well I gave you the argument directly for how it is justified, to be skeptical that is what you have to question. If people don't know how the burden is justified they should definitely go look up the reasoning and poke it out for themselves.

I'm not skeptical of it because it appears to be a very solid argument that I don't see any flaws in.

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

It is remarkably odd that you feel people should be more often skeptical of an idea that you are not actually presenting an argument against.

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).

This is fun though, the constant demand that arguments be held to their own standards that you present remind me of me in high school.

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.

You can demand consistency all you like, but you haven't demonstrated inconsistency in any specific cases.

Now the burden is on you, lol.

 

[Received]

Can you articulate why exactly?

Now you're sounding like me.

 

[variant]

Now you're sounding like me.

I am an avid empiricist.