Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Where the Burden of Proof Really Lies

ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 3:37:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The rules for BoP are quite simple, I can't understand why no one bothers to learn them. Anything else but what I am about to summarize are faulty standards build for specific circumstances. Only these are universally consistent with rational epistemology or practical discourse. 1 and 2 are just different sides of the same coin.

1. The BoP is on the party that asserts X exists, that X occurred, that X has implications Y. The BoP is on the positive position, regardless of who made the first assertion.

2. The 'default' positions for logic are always X does not exist, X did not occur, X does not logically imply or require Y.

3. A counter argument imposes a BoP only if it uses positive premises or logic.

1 and 2 are required since anything else implies that people are called upon to prove a negative. One of the most common forms of this is known as appeal to ignorance fallacy.

3 is just the application of 1 and 2 in case somebody would mistake BoP for a game of tag.

Applying these SIMPLE rules to the creationist vs evolutionist debate produces a very SIMPLE and CLEAR BoP pattern:

Evolutionist have a BoP to establish evolution, that is they need the evidence and they need the logic. They may not substitute the BoP failure of ID for their own evidence. They may not evade dealing with counter-arguments or rebuttals to their positive arguments.

Creationist and IDers have a BoP to establish ID, that is they need the evidence and they need the logic. They may not substitute the BoP failure of evolution for their own evidence. They may not evade dealing with counter-arguments or rebuttals to their positive arguments.

The only position that has no BoP is someone who claims to be ignorant of the origins of life and its subsequent advancement.

There is only one mechanism by which negative statements may be used to support positive ones. That mechanism is when there are known to be a finite number of potential truths. When you eliminate all but one, it must be the truth. The simplest such 'pure either' case is called a dichotomy, either X is true or Y is true, they cannot both be true nor can they both be false.

There exists no such dichotomy between Darwinism and ID. There does between natural and unnatural origins, however neither of those can be established since creationism isn't the only unnatural origin possible nor is Darwinism the only possible natural origin possible.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 4:16:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 3:37:42 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
The rules for BoP are quite simple, I can't understand why no one bothers to learn them. Anything else but what I am about to summarize are faulty standards build for specific circumstances. Only these are universally consistent with rational epistemology or practical discourse. 1 and 2 are just different sides of the same coin.

1. The BoP is on the party that asserts X exists, that X occurred, that X has implications Y. The BoP is on the positive position, regardless of who made the first assertion.

2. The 'default' positions for logic are always X does not exist, X did not occur, X does not logically imply or require Y.

3. A counter argument imposes a BoP only if it uses positive premises or logic.

1 and 2 are required since anything else implies that people are called upon to prove a negative. One of the most common forms of this is known as appeal to ignorance fallacy.

3 is just the application of 1 and 2 in case somebody would mistake BoP for a game of tag.

Applying these SIMPLE rules to the creationist vs evolutionist debate produces a very SIMPLE and CLEAR BoP pattern:

Evolutionist have a BoP to establish evolution, that is they need the evidence and they need the logic. They may not substitute the BoP failure of ID for their own evidence. They may not evade dealing with counter-arguments or rebuttals to their positive arguments.

Creationist and IDers have a BoP to establish ID, that is they need the evidence and they need the logic. They may not substitute the BoP failure of evolution for their own evidence. They may not evade dealing with counter-arguments or rebuttals to their positive arguments.

The only position that has no BoP is someone who claims to be ignorant of the origins of life and its subsequent advancement.

There is only one mechanism by which negative statements may be used to support positive ones. That mechanism is when there are known to be a finite number of potential truths. When you eliminate all but one, it must be the truth. The simplest such 'pure either' case is called a dichotomy, either X is true or Y is true, they cannot both be true nor can they both be false.

There exists no such dichotomy between Darwinism and ID. There does between natural and unnatural origins, however neither of those can be established since creationism isn't the only unnatural origin possible nor is Darwinism the only possible natural origin possible.

Very nice clarification. Although I would just add that although Darwinism and ID is not a true dichotomy, it is realistically so in the sense that most individuals who don't believe in Darwinism believe in ID and vice versa. Thus if someone bashes on ID, it does seem to give more credence to Darwinism doesn't it? (Because Darwinism is the most likely alternative).
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 4:19:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 3:37:42 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
The rules for BoP are quite simple, I can't understand why no one bothers to learn them. Anything else but what I am about to summarize are faulty standards build for specific circumstances. Only these are universally consistent with rational epistemology or practical discourse. 1 and 2 are just different sides of the same coin.

1. The BoP is on the party that asserts X exists, that X occurred, that X has implications Y. The BoP is on the positive position, regardless of who made the first assertion.

2. The 'default' positions for logic are always X does not exist, X did not occur, X does not logically imply or require Y.

3. A counter argument imposes a BoP only if it uses positive premises or logic.

1 and 2 are required since anything else implies that people are called upon to prove a negative. One of the most common forms of this is known as appeal to ignorance fallacy.

3 is just the application of 1 and 2 in case somebody would mistake BoP for a game of tag.

Applying these SIMPLE rules to the creationist vs evolutionist debate produces a very SIMPLE and CLEAR BoP pattern:

Evolutionist have a BoP to establish evolution, that is they need the evidence and they need the logic. They may not substitute the BoP failure of ID for their own evidence. They may not evade dealing with counter-arguments or rebuttals to their positive arguments.

Creationist and IDers have a BoP to establish ID, that is they need the evidence and they need the logic. They may not substitute the BoP failure of evolution for their own evidence. They may not evade dealing with counter-arguments or rebuttals to their positive arguments.

The only position that has no BoP is someone who claims to be ignorant of the origins of life and its subsequent advancement.

There is only one mechanism by which negative statements may be used to support positive ones. That mechanism is when there are known to be a finite number of potential truths. When you eliminate all but one, it must be the truth. The simplest such 'pure either' case is called a dichotomy, either X is true or Y is true, they cannot both be true nor can they both be false.

There exists no such dichotomy between Darwinism and ID. There does between natural and unnatural origins, however neither of those can be established since creationism isn't the only unnatural origin possible nor is Darwinism the only possible natural origin possible.

So you are saying that the claim "God does not exist" doesn't carry a BoP, but the claim "God exists" does?
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 10:34:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 4:16:55 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Very nice clarification. Although I would just add that although Darwinism and ID is not a true dichotomy, it is realistically so in the sense that most individuals who don't believe in Darwinism believe in ID and vice versa. Thus if someone bashes on ID, it does seem to give more credence to Darwinism doesn't it? (Because Darwinism is the most likely alternative).

No, their credibilities are independent, if you choose one over the other you are saying you believe one to have more credibility which is not to say their respective credibilities are functions of each other.

For instance, if we found something right now that convinced most people evolution was a bunch of BS, a logical atheist could easily say ignorance is more attractive proposition than the contradictory proposition of most ID variants.

At 2/4/2014 4:19:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So you are saying that the claim "God does not exist" doesn't carry a BoP, but the claim "God exists" does?

Yes, "god does not exist" should be taken as a denial of the implied assertion that God does exist.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 10:36:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 10:34:10 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/4/2014 4:16:55 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Very nice clarification. Although I would just add that although Darwinism and ID is not a true dichotomy, it is realistically so in the sense that most individuals who don't believe in Darwinism believe in ID and vice versa. Thus if someone bashes on ID, it does seem to give more credence to Darwinism doesn't it? (Because Darwinism is the most likely alternative).

No, their credibilities are independent, if you choose one over the other you are saying you believe one to have more credibility which is not to say their respective credibilities are functions of each other.

For instance, if we found something right now that convinced most people evolution was a bunch of BS, a logical atheist could easily say ignorance is more attractive proposition than the contradictory proposition of most ID variants.

At 2/4/2014 4:19:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So you are saying that the claim "God does not exist" doesn't carry a BoP, but the claim "God exists" does?

Yes, "god does not exist" should be taken as a denial of the implied assertion that God does exist.

Well, what evidence do you have that God doesn't exist? It is like someone saying Aliens don't exist. That requires a BoP.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 10:40:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 3:37:42 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
The rules for BoP are quite simple, I can't understand why no one bothers to learn them. Anything else but what I am about to summarize are faulty standards build for specific circumstances. Only these are universally consistent with rational epistemology or practical discourse. 1 and 2 are just different sides of the same coin.

1. The BoP is on the party that asserts X exists, that X occurred, that X has implications Y. The BoP is on the positive position, regardless of who made the first assertion.

2. The 'default' positions for logic are always X does not exist, X did not occur, X does not logically imply or require Y.

3. A counter argument imposes a BoP only if it uses positive premises or logic.

1 and 2 are required since anything else implies that people are called upon to prove a negative. One of the most common forms of this is known as appeal to ignorance fallacy.

3 is just the application of 1 and 2 in case somebody would mistake BoP for a game of tag.

Applying these SIMPLE rules to the creationist vs evolutionist debate produces a very SIMPLE and CLEAR BoP pattern:

Evolutionist have a BoP to establish evolution, that is they need the evidence and they need the logic. They may not substitute the BoP failure of ID for their own evidence. They may not evade dealing with counter-arguments or rebuttals to their positive arguments.

Creationist and IDers have a BoP to establish ID, that is they need the evidence and they need the logic. They may not substitute the BoP failure of evolution for their own evidence. They may not evade dealing with counter-arguments or rebuttals to their positive arguments.

The only position that has no BoP is someone who claims to be ignorant of the origins of life and its subsequent advancement.

There is only one mechanism by which negative statements may be used to support positive ones. That mechanism is when there are known to be a finite number of potential truths. When you eliminate all but one, it must be the truth. The simplest such 'pure either' case is called a dichotomy, either X is true or Y is true, they cannot both be true nor can they both be false.

There exists no such dichotomy between Darwinism and ID. There does between natural and unnatural origins, however neither of those can be established since creationism isn't the only unnatural origin possible nor is Darwinism the only possible natural origin possible.

That may be the case for "professional" debate, but then some professional debate likes to just shout out as many facts as they can as quickly as they can and call it a victory if the opponent cannot counter them all in sufficient time.

In the real world, the BoP falls on the individual attempting to change someone's opinion.

Making the claim, "God does not exist" does not require any proof if you are talking to those that already believe that. Just like making the claim "God does exist" does not require any proof if you are talking to those that believe it. An atheist cannot go to a theist and say "God doesn't exist, and you have to accept that because I hold no burden of proof" and expect the theist to agree.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 10:43:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 10:36:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/4/2014 10:34:10 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/4/2014 4:19:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So you are saying that the claim "God does not exist" doesn't carry a BoP, but the claim "God exists" does?

Yes, "god does not exist" should be taken as a denial of the implied assertion that God does exist.

Well, what evidence do you have that God doesn't exist?

Well the God of most monotheistic religions produces irreconcilable contradictions. That is irrelevant though. I don't need evidence to deny he exists.

It is like someone saying Aliens don't exist. That requires a BoP.

No BoP is on the party that says they do exist. Yes I know technically saying "you don't know if aliens exist" is more accurate but that is a pointless semantic distinction. What someone means when they say "aliens don't exist" is "there is no reason to believe aliens exist", same with God or whatever else you would care to stick in.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 10:43:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 4:19:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/4/2014 3:37:42 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
The rules for BoP are quite simple, I can't understand why no one bothers to learn them. Anything else but what I am about to summarize are faulty standards build for specific circumstances. Only these are universally consistent with rational epistemology or practical discourse. 1 and 2 are just different sides of the same coin.

1. The BoP is on the party that asserts X exists, that X occurred, that X has implications Y. The BoP is on the positive position, regardless of who made the first assertion.

2. The 'default' positions for logic are always X does not exist, X did not occur, X does not logically imply or require Y.

3. A counter argument imposes a BoP only if it uses positive premises or logic.

1 and 2 are required since anything else implies that people are called upon to prove a negative. One of the most common forms of this is known as appeal to ignorance fallacy.

3 is just the application of 1 and 2 in case somebody would mistake BoP for a game of tag.

Applying these SIMPLE rules to the creationist vs evolutionist debate produces a very SIMPLE and CLEAR BoP pattern:

Evolutionist have a BoP to establish evolution, that is they need the evidence and they need the logic. They may not substitute the BoP failure of ID for their own evidence. They may not evade dealing with counter-arguments or rebuttals to their positive arguments.

Creationist and IDers have a BoP to establish ID, that is they need the evidence and they need the logic. They may not substitute the BoP failure of evolution for their own evidence. They may not evade dealing with counter-arguments or rebuttals to their positive arguments.

The only position that has no BoP is someone who claims to be ignorant of the origins of life and its subsequent advancement.

There is only one mechanism by which negative statements may be used to support positive ones. That mechanism is when there are known to be a finite number of potential truths. When you eliminate all but one, it must be the truth. The simplest such 'pure either' case is called a dichotomy, either X is true or Y is true, they cannot both be true nor can they both be false.

There exists no such dichotomy between Darwinism and ID. There does between natural and unnatural origins, however neither of those can be established since creationism isn't the only unnatural origin possible nor is Darwinism the only possible natural origin possible.

So you are saying that the claim "God does not exist" doesn't carry a BoP, but the claim "God exists" does?

Under such a belief, I can claim "You do not exist." It is impossible to prove any existence other than your own to yourself. So since you cannot meet the BoP for your own existence, does that mean I should be obligated to believe that you do not exist?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 10:49:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 10:40:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/4/2014 3:37:42 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
The rules for BoP are quite simple, I can't understand why no one bothers to learn them.
That may be the case for "professional" debate, but then some professional debate likes to just shout out as many facts as they can as quickly as they can and call it a victory if the opponent cannot counter them all in sufficient time.

I refer to the rules of logic, this is context independent.

In the real world, the BoP falls on the individual attempting to change someone's opinion.

I live in the real world and around here it doesn't because someone's opinion does not alter the truth one iota.

Making the claim, "God does not exist" does not require any proof if you are talking to those that already believe that. Just like making the claim "God does exist" does not require any proof if you are talking to those that believe it. An atheist cannot go to a theist and say "God doesn't exist, and you have to accept that because I hold no burden of proof" and expect the theist to agree.

Whether the theist agrees or not is irrelevant to the burden of proof. If you want a proper a priori understanding of the social dynamic it is ignorant people being told God does exist and then denying it as they might deny the earth is round or toaster ovens exist.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 10:53:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 10:43:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/4/2014 4:19:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So you are saying that the claim "God does not exist" doesn't carry a BoP, but the claim "God exists" does?

Under such a belief, I can claim "You do not exist." It is impossible to prove any existence other than your own to yourself.

That claim carries a lot of epistemological baggage with it. Under the same structure the alternative means it is impossible to disbelieve any existence even when they contradict... which is a logical contradiction so 'my' rules still hold.

So since you cannot meet the BoP for your own existence, does that mean I should be obligated to believe that you do not exist?

I can meet the BoP for my own existence, but if someone couldn't give you a reason to believe I existed you would be rationally obligated to consider me non-existent until such time as new reasons present themselves.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 11:11:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 10:49:50 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/4/2014 10:40:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/4/2014 3:37:42 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
The rules for BoP are quite simple, I can't understand why no one bothers to learn them.
That may be the case for "professional" debate, but then some professional debate likes to just shout out as many facts as they can as quickly as they can and call it a victory if the opponent cannot counter them all in sufficient time.

I refer to the rules of logic, this is context independent.

rules of logic do not determine what is fact. They determine what is logical. The two are not one and the same.


In the real world, the BoP falls on the individual attempting to change someone's opinion.

I live in the real world and around here it doesn't because someone's opinion does not alter the truth one iota.

logic =/= truth.


Making the claim, "God does not exist" does not require any proof if you are talking to those that already believe that. Just like making the claim "God does exist" does not require any proof if you are talking to those that believe it. An atheist cannot go to a theist and say "God doesn't exist, and you have to accept that because I hold no burden of proof" and expect the theist to agree.

Whether the theist agrees or not is irrelevant to the burden of proof. If you want a proper a priori understanding of the social dynamic it is ignorant people being told God does exist and then denying it as they might deny the earth is round or toaster ovens exist.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 11:13:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 10:53:48 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/4/2014 10:43:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/4/2014 4:19:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So you are saying that the claim "God does not exist" doesn't carry a BoP, but the claim "God exists" does?

Under such a belief, I can claim "You do not exist." It is impossible to prove any existence other than your own to yourself.

That claim carries a lot of epistemological baggage with it. Under the same structure the alternative means it is impossible to disbelieve any existence even when they contradict... which is a logical contradiction so 'my' rules still hold.

So since you cannot meet the BoP for your own existence, does that mean I should be obligated to believe that you do not exist?

I can meet the BoP for my own existence, but if someone couldn't give you a reason to believe I existed you would be rationally obligated to consider me non-existent until such time as new reasons present themselves.

You cannot meet the BoP of your own existence to anyone. You cannot logically prove to anyone that you exist. Does this mean that we, logically, should accept that you do not exist? Do you believe I exist?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 2:56:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 10:34:10 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/4/2014 4:16:55 PM, Orangatang wrote:
Very nice clarification. Although I would just add that although Darwinism and ID is not a true dichotomy, it is realistically so in the sense that most individuals who don't believe in Darwinism believe in ID and vice versa. Thus if someone bashes on ID, it does seem to give more credence to Darwinism doesn't it? (Because Darwinism is the most likely alternative).

No, their credibilities are independent, if you choose one over the other you are saying you believe one to have more credibility which is not to say their respective credibilities are functions of each other.

For instance, if we found something right now that convinced most people evolution was a bunch of BS, a logical atheist could easily say ignorance is more attractive proposition than the contradictory proposition of most ID variants.

At 2/4/2014 4:19:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So you are saying that the claim "God does not exist" doesn't carry a BoP, but the claim "God exists" does?

Yes, "god does not exist" should be taken as a denial of the implied assertion that God does exist.

Both claims are equal knowledge claims that require some justification. We still need some reasons for thinking the non-existence of God is tre. Otherwise you take atheism by blind faith or without reason.
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 2:58:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 10:53:48 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/4/2014 10:43:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/4/2014 4:19:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So you are saying that the claim "God does not exist" doesn't carry a BoP, but the claim "God exists" does?

Under such a belief, I can claim "You do not exist." It is impossible to prove any existence other than your own to yourself.

That claim carries a lot of epistemological baggage with it. Under the same structure the alternative means it is impossible to disbelieve any existence even when they contradict... which is a logical contradiction so 'my' rules still hold.

So since you cannot meet the BoP for your own existence, does that mean I should be obligated to believe that you do not exist?

I can meet the BoP for my own existence, but if someone couldn't give you a reason to believe I existed you would be rationally obligated to consider me non-existent until such time as new reasons present themselves.

Yes, but there are + reaons for thinking you exist. You don't say you exist because you exist. You have some deductions from reality that you can conclude are reasonable for you in order to exist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 7:26:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 11:11:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/4/2014 10:49:50 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/4/2014 10:40:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/4/2014 3:37:42 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
The rules for BoP are quite simple, I can't understand why no one bothers to learn them.
That may be the case for "professional" debate, but then some professional debate likes to just shout out as many facts as they can as quickly as they can and call it a victory if the opponent cannot counter them all in sufficient time.

I refer to the rules of logic, this is context independent.

rules of logic do not determine what is fact. They determine what is logical. The two are not one and the same.

Nice logic. The problem is that if we accept it, then we cannot say that what you are saying is true, just because it is logical. What you are saying is self-refuting.



In the real world, the BoP falls on the individual attempting to change someone's opinion.

I live in the real world and around here it doesn't because someone's opinion does not alter the truth one iota.

logic =/= truth.


Making the claim, "God does not exist" does not require any proof if you are talking to those that already believe that. Just like making the claim "God does exist" does not require any proof if you are talking to those that believe it. An atheist cannot go to a theist and say "God doesn't exist, and you have to accept that because I hold no burden of proof" and expect the theist to agree.

Whether the theist agrees or not is irrelevant to the burden of proof. If you want a proper a priori understanding of the social dynamic it is ignorant people being told God does exist and then denying it as they might deny the earth is round or toaster ovens exist.
KnightArtorias
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 11:16:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 10:43:05 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
No BoP is on the party that says they do exist. Yes I know technically saying "you don't know if aliens exist" is more accurate but that is a pointless semantic distinction. What someone means when they say "aliens don't exist" is "there is no reason to believe aliens exist", same with God or whatever else you would care to stick in.

You are confusing what BoP means. Let's clear something up here real quick. Burden of proof isn't really a proper phrase to be using anyway, as you can't ever really "prove" anything. A burden of proof therefore is a term more properly reserved for things like mathematical proofs and such. In debate, when we say one has a burden of proof, what we mean is they have a burden of evidence. They have a duty to provide evidence sufficiently convincing for their claim.

Everyone has a burden of evidence, no matter what your claim is. Now, not all burdens will be equal. When it comes to the question of the existence of a deity, the theist certainly has a much loftier burden of evidence. But an atheist cannot simply sit there and say "God doesn't exist, and I don't have to demonstrate how". You provided no reason, no evidence for your assertion.

However small, an atheist does indeed have a burden of evidence for the claims they make.
"Within us all, we are burdened. Hidden away. A murmur of the dark. Always seek the light of reason. Lest you slip and be devoured by the Abyss."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 1:03:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 7:26:16 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/4/2014 11:11:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/4/2014 10:49:50 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/4/2014 10:40:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/4/2014 3:37:42 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
The rules for BoP are quite simple, I can't understand why no one bothers to learn them.
That may be the case for "professional" debate, but then some professional debate likes to just shout out as many facts as they can as quickly as they can and call it a victory if the opponent cannot counter them all in sufficient time.

I refer to the rules of logic, this is context independent.

rules of logic do not determine what is fact. They determine what is logical. The two are not one and the same.

Nice logic. The problem is that if we accept it, then we cannot say that what you are saying is true, just because it is logical. What you are saying is self-refuting.

Failure to prove true, does not equal proven false.

Clear example.

2 + 2 = 4 because my teacher told me so.

2 + 2 = 4 is factually correct, however the statement is a logic fallacy (appeal to authority). If you disagree, please answer the question I asked at the bottom that you ignored.

Please provide a logical proof for your existence to me and everyone else.




In the real world, the BoP falls on the individual attempting to change someone's opinion.

I live in the real world and around here it doesn't because someone's opinion does not alter the truth one iota.

logic =/= truth.


Making the claim, "God does not exist" does not require any proof if you are talking to those that already believe that. Just like making the claim "God does exist" does not require any proof if you are talking to those that believe it. An atheist cannot go to a theist and say "God doesn't exist, and you have to accept that because I hold no burden of proof" and expect the theist to agree.

Whether the theist agrees or not is irrelevant to the burden of proof. If you want a proper a priori understanding of the social dynamic it is ignorant people being told God does exist and then denying it as they might deny the earth is round or toaster ovens exist.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 1:30:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 11:11:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/4/2014 10:49:50 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
I refer to the rules of logic, this is context independent.

rules of logic do not determine what is fact. They determine what is logical. The two are not one and the same.

True, but the means by which they may diverge are well known; namely faulty premises. You may have a valid argument that has a false conclusion but not a sound one. The rules of logic + axioms + observable facts (to serve as starting premises) are the only consistent means of inferring truth.

You can have an invalid argument having a true conclusion; However that is just a coincidence. The argument still fails to support the conclusion.

The rules I stated are the only ones that are consistent with the rules of logic. Regardless of the truth in any circumstance that is why they must be adopted. As I have already shown (to a small degree) by the comments here ignoring these rules produces contradictory BoP situations such as being called upon to prove a negative (such as appeal to ignorance).

In the real world, the BoP falls on the individual attempting to change someone's opinion.

I live in the real world and around here it doesn't because someone's opinion does not alter the truth one iota.

logic =/= truth.

logic + evidence = truth. More importantly though opinion != truth | logic.

At 2/4/2014 11:13:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/4/2014 10:53:48 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/4/2014 10:43:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/4/2014 4:19:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So you are saying that the claim "God does not exist" doesn't carry a BoP, but the claim "God exists" does?

Under such a belief, I can claim "You do not exist." It is impossible to prove any existence other than your own to yourself.

That claim carries a lot of epistemological baggage with it. Under the same structure the alternative means it is impossible to disbelieve any existence even when they contradict... which is a logical contradiction so 'my' rules still hold.

So since you cannot meet the BoP for your own existence, does that mean I should be obligated to believe that you do not exist?

I can meet the BoP for my own existence, but if someone couldn't give you a reason to believe I existed you would be rationally obligated to consider me non-existent until such time as new reasons present themselves.

You cannot meet the BoP of your own existen-ce to anyone. You cannot logically prove to anyone that you exist.

Yes I can, provided they have accepted a few axioms. If they haven't, you can't prove to them existence exists (or that proof exists).

Does this mean that we, logically, should accept that you do not exist?
Yes, except it's not true.

Do you believe I exist?
Yes, your statements here are proof it it.

At 2/4/2014 4:19:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So you are saying that the claim "God does not exist" doesn't carry a BoP, but the claim "God exists" does?

Yes, "god does not exist" should be taken as a denial of the implied assertion that God does exist.

Both claims are equal knowledge claims that require some justification. We still need some reasons for thinking the non-existence of God is tre.

No we don't, the evidence one would expect to see when something does not exist is exactly 0. The non-existent entity does not leave evidence of it's non-existence.

The undiscovered and the non-existent have exactly the same evidential pattern. That is precisely why the BoP revolves around the positive assertion because we all must treat the undiscovered and the non-existent the same in order to escape bias and remain logically consistent.

Otherwise you take atheism by blind faith or without reason.

There is a reason, without reason there is no reason to believe something exists. Saying something doesn't exist is not saying it can't. You can say 'there may be a flying spaghetti monster' but you don't treat it as real because consciously or unconsciously you are holding to the only logical BoP system.

At 2/5/2014 11:16:08 AM, KnightArtorias wrote:
At 2/4/2014 10:43:05 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
No BoP is on the party that says they do exist. Yes I know technically saying "you don't know if aliens exist" is more accurate but that is a pointless semantic distinction. What someone means when they say "aliens don't exist" is "there is no reason to believe aliens exist", same with God or whatever else you would care to stick in.

You are confusing what BoP means. Let's clear something up here real quick. Burden of proof isn't really a proper phrase to be using anyway, as you can't ever really "prove" anything.

The word 'proof' just a joke then?

A burden of proof therefore is a term more properly reserved for things like mathematical proofs and such.

Then I suppose you can prove mathematics, which is something...

In debate, when we say one has a burden of proof, what we mean is they have a burden of evidence. They have a duty to provide evidence sufficiently convincing for their claim.

Not just evidence, logic connecting that evidence to their positive assertion as well.

Everyone has a burden of evidence, no matter what your claim is.

Incorrect, if the claim is non-existence the theoretically expected evidence is zilch. There cannot be a burden of evidence.

Now, not all burdens will be equal. When it comes to the question of the existence of a deity, the theist certainly has a much loftier burden of evidence. But an atheist cannot simply sit there and say "God doesn't exist, and I don't have to demonstrate how". You provided no reason, no evidence for your assertion.

All that is required is "God does not exist because there is no reason to believe he does."

However small, an atheist does indeed have a burden of evidence for the claims they make.

Only if the claims are positive. Since we are on the topic of proofs and logic, I want to point out an extremely common mistake that many people make when thinking. The presumption of magnitude. So much in life and reality has a magnitude, many things also have a direction (yay vectors). Many people thus presume that everything has a finite magnitude even if they cannot measure it.

Here you make the same mistake, you referred to unequal burdens and the 'smallness' of the atheist's BoP. Can you define what determines the size of a BoP?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 1:57:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 1:30:19 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/4/2014 11:11:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/4/2014 10:49:50 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
I refer to the rules of logic, this is context independent.

rules of logic do not determine what is fact. They determine what is logical. The two are not one and the same.

True, but the means by which they may diverge are well known; namely faulty premises. You may have a valid argument that has a false conclusion but not a sound one. The rules of logic + axioms + observable facts (to serve as starting premises) are the only consistent means of inferring truth.

axioms become tricky because they are things that are merely "accepted" as truth, without being proven truth. If you accept the right axioms, anything can be "truth." It all depends on what you choose to accept.

The point of this, however, was merely to show that just because something isn't logically sound, does not mean that it is factually false. So if you accept that the BoP is part of a logically sound requirement, failure to meet it does not prove that the thing in question is false.


You can have an invalid argument having a true conclusion; However that is just a coincidence. The argument still fails to support the conclusion.

The rules I stated are the only ones that are consistent with the rules of logic. Regardless of the truth in any circumstance that is why they must be adopted. As I have already shown (to a small degree) by the comments here ignoring these rules produces contradictory BoP situations such as being called upon to prove a negative (such as appeal to ignorance).

In the real world, the BoP falls on the individual attempting to change someone's opinion.

I live in the real world and around here it doesn't because someone's opinion does not alter the truth one iota.

logic =/= truth.

logic + evidence = truth. More importantly though opinion != truth | logic.

At 2/4/2014 11:13:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/4/2014 10:53:48 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/4/2014 10:43:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/4/2014 4:19:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
So you are saying that the claim "God does not exist" doesn't carry a BoP, but the claim "God exists" does?

Under such a belief, I can claim "You do not exist." It is impossible to prove any existence other than your own to yourself.

That claim carries a lot of epistemological baggage with it. Under the same structure the alternative means it is impossible to disbelieve any existence even when they contradict... which is a logical contradiction so 'my' rules still hold.

So since you cannot meet the BoP for your own existence, does that mean I should be obligated to believe that you do not exist?

I can meet the BoP for my own existence, but if someone couldn't give you a reason to believe I existed you would be rationally obligated to consider me non-existent until such time as new reasons present themselves.

You cannot meet the BoP of your own existen-ce to anyone. You cannot logically prove to anyone that you exist.

Yes I can, provided they have accepted a few axioms. If they haven't, you can't prove to them existence exists (or that proof exists).

So provided that they accept some things as true, even if those things are not logically proven? That sounds like failed logic.


Does this mean that we, logically, should accept that you do not exist?
Yes, except it's not true.

If you are unable to meet the BoP, what should we do? Wouldn't believing you exist without the BoP being met be just as illogical as believing in a creator without the BoP being met?

As for the BoP for claiming non-existence, there is a BoP as that is a claim. Denying the claim that something exists =/= claiming that it doesn't (and vise versa). Rather than God, lets talk about aliens.

Do aliens exist (we are referring to intelligent life on other planets with this question)? As you said early, logic + axioms + observable fact = truth (though it should really be = "what is accepted as truth" since new observable facts could change it, but whatever). We have no observable facts, and the "logic" is all easily challenged. Does that mean the truth is that there are no aliens?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 4:15:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 8:27:40 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
Here is the continuation of the Philosophical discussion from the Evolution on Trial discussion.

I disagree with ADreamofLiberty. The BOP lies on the one making the assertion.

If I assert "God exists" I have the BoP.

If I assert "God does not exist" then I have the BoP.

The problem is that cowardly New Atheists claim that saying "God does not exist" is just the denial of "God exists." But if you hold that "God exists" is a false proposition, then you must hold that the contrary proposition "God does not exist" is true.

So if you hold any proposition to be true, and want people to think that, the BoP is on you.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 4:18:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 11:11:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/4/2014 10:49:50 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/4/2014 10:40:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/4/2014 3:37:42 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
The rules for BoP are quite simple, I can't understand why no one bothers to learn them.
That may be the case for "professional" debate, but then some professional debate likes to just shout out as many facts as they can as quickly as they can and call it a victory if the opponent cannot counter them all in sufficient time.

I refer to the rules of logic, this is context independent.

rules of logic do not determine what is fact. They determine what is logical. The two are not one and the same.


In the real world, the BoP falls on the individual attempting to change someone's opinion.

I live in the real world and around here it doesn't because someone's opinion does not alter the truth one iota.

logic =/= truth.


Elaborating on this point a bit...

"Logic and truth, as a matter of fact, have very little to do with each other. Logic is concerned merely with the fidelity and accuracy with which a certain process is performed, a process which can be performed with any materials, with any assumption. You can be as logical about griffins and basilisks as about sheep and pigs. On the assumption that a man has two ears, it is good logic that three men have six ears, but on the assumption that a man has four ears, it is equally good logic that three men have twelve. And the power of seeing how many ears the average man, as a fact, possesses, the power of counting a gentleman's ears accurately and without mathematical confusion, is not a logical thing but a primary and direct experience, like a physical sense, like a religious vision. The power of counting ears may be limited by a blow on the head; it may be disturbed and even augmented by two bottles of champagne; but it cannot be affected by argument. Logic has again and again been expended, and expended most brilliantly and effectively, on things that do not exist at all. There is far more logic, more sustained consistency of the mind, in the science of heraldry than in the science of biology. There is more logic in Alice in Wonderland than in the Statute Book or the Blue Books. The relations of logic to truth depend, then, not upon its perfection as logic, but upon certain pre-logical faculties and certain pre-logical discoveries, upon the possession of those faculties, upon the power of making those discoveries. If a man starts with certain assumptions, he may be a good logician and a good citizen, a wise man, a successful figure. If he starts with certain other assumptions, he may be an equally good logician and a bankrupt, a criminal, a raving lunatic. Logic, then, is not necessarily an instrument for finding truth; on the contrary, truth is necessarily an instrument for using logic"for using it, that is, for the discovery of further truth and for the profit of humanity. Briefly, you can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it." -GK Chesterton
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 5:56:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 1:57:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/5/2014 1:30:19 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
The rules of logic + axioms + observable facts (to serve as starting premises) are the only consistent means of inferring truth.

axioms become tricky because they are things that are merely "accepted" as truth, without being proven truth. If you accept the right axioms, anything can be "truth." It all depends on what you choose to accept.

There are a finite number of premises that are truly axioms. Axiom does not mean something you just refuse to support, it means something that you must accept in order to deny. a contradiction. It is truth independent of evidence (but not logic) and that's what makes it different from the rest.

The point of this, however, was merely to show that just because something isn't logically sound, does not mean that it is factually false. So if you accept that the BoP is part of a logically sound requirement, failure to meet it does not prove that the thing in question is false.

Ceded, truth is truth even if no one ever understands or proves it. BoP is not the requirement on reality to be real, but the requirement on minds to be intellectually honest in their thinking (and debating with others).

You cannot meet the BoP of your own existen-ce to anyone. You cannot logically prove to anyone that you exist.

Yes I can, provided they have accepted a few axioms. If they haven't, you can't prove to them existence exists (or that proof exists).

So provided that they accept some things as true, even if those things are not logically proven? That sounds like failed logic.

It isn't, no one can prove axioms from other premises by definition. If you do not try there can be no failed logic.

Does this mean that we, logically, should accept that you do not exist?
Yes, except it's not true.

If you are unable to meet the BoP, what should we do? Wouldn't believing you exist without the BoP being met be just as illogical as believing in a creator without the BoP being met?

Yes, but do not presume I am the only one who can meet the BoP. You have a duty to yourself to seek the truth, debate with others is not necessary.

As for the BoP for claiming non-existence, there is a BoP as that is a claim.
Denying the claim that something exists =/= claiming that it doesn't (and vise versa).

Afraid it does, you need only to look the meaning of denial. In order for a claim of existence to be false the existence must be false. I already explained that when people say something doesn't exist what they almost always mean is that the truth of the matter is unknown so the other guy shouldn't be going around expecting everyone to assume they're right.

Rather than God, lets talk about aliens.

Do aliens exist (we are referring to intelligent life on other planets with this question)? As you said early, logic + axioms + observable fact = truth (though it should really be = "what is accepted as truth" since new observable facts could change it, but whatever).

No, new facts do not change the truth they add to our knowledge of it.

We have no observable facts, and the "logic" is all easily challenged. Does that mean the truth is that there are no aliens?

It means that for all we know there are no aliens so we should act like there are no aliens.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 7:12:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 4:15:09 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/2/2014 8:27:40 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
Here is the continuation of the Philosophical discussion from the Evolution on Trial discussion.

I disagree with ADreamofLiberty. The BOP lies on the one making the assertion.

If I assert "God exists" I have the BoP.

If I assert "God does not exist" then I have the BoP.

The problem is that cowardly New Atheists claim that saying "God does not exist" is just the denial of "God exists." But if you hold that "God exists" is a false proposition, then you must hold that the contrary proposition "God does not exist" is true.

So if you hold any proposition to be true, and want people to think that, the BoP is on you.

100% agree with you
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 7:36:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 5:56:49 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/5/2014 1:57:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 2/5/2014 1:30:19 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
The rules of logic + axioms + observable facts (to serve as starting premises) are the only consistent means of inferring truth.

axioms become tricky because they are things that are merely "accepted" as truth, without being proven truth. If you accept the right axioms, anything can be "truth." It all depends on what you choose to accept.

There are a finite number of premises that are truly axioms. Axiom does not mean something you just refuse to support, it means something that you must accept in order to deny. a contradiction. It is truth independent of evidence (but not logic) and that's what makes it different from the rest.

The point of this, however, was merely to show that just because something isn't logically sound, does not mean that it is factually false. So if you accept that the BoP is part of a logically sound requirement, failure to meet it does not prove that the thing in question is false.

Ceded, truth is truth even if no one ever understands or proves it. BoP is not the requirement on reality to be real, but the requirement on minds to be intellectually honest in their thinking (and debating with others).

You cannot meet the BoP of your own existen-ce to anyone. You cannot logically prove to anyone that you exist.

Yes I can, provided they have accepted a few axioms. If they haven't, you can't prove to them existence exists (or that proof exists).

So provided that they accept some things as true, even if those things are not logically proven? That sounds like failed logic.

It isn't, no one can prove axioms from other premises by definition. If you do not try there can be no failed logic.

Does this mean that we, logically, should accept that you do not exist?
Yes, except it's not true.

If you are unable to meet the BoP, what should we do? Wouldn't believing you exist without the BoP being met be just as illogical as believing in a creator without the BoP being met?

Yes, but do not presume I am the only one who can meet the BoP. You have a duty to yourself to seek the truth, debate with others is not necessary.

I cannot met the BoP that you exist. I can only know that I (as in my mind) exist, and nothing else.


As for the BoP for claiming non-existence, there is a BoP as that is a claim.
Denying the claim that something exists =/= claiming that it doesn't (and vise versa).

Afraid it does, you need only to look the meaning of denial. In order for a claim of existence to be false the existence must be false. I already explained that when people say something doesn't exist what they almost always mean is that the truth of the matter is unknown so the other guy shouldn't be going around expecting everyone to assume they're right.

Rather than God, lets talk about aliens.

Do aliens exist (we are referring to intelligent life on other planets with this question)? As you said early, logic + axioms + observable fact = truth (though it should really be = "what is accepted as truth" since new observable facts could change it, but whatever).

No, new facts do not change the truth they add to our knowledge of it.

New facts change what we perceive as truth (all "truth" is merely what is "perceived as truth" so the two can be used interchangeably). For the longest time, Newton's equations for gravity were "truth." They logically matched with what we measured in the real world. Eventually, our measurements became better and more accurate to realize that his was merely an approximation. As our "observable facts" increased or improved, our "truth" adjusted.


We have no observable facts, and the "logic" is all easily challenged. Does that mean the truth is that there are no aliens?

It means that for all we know there are no aliens so we should act like there are no aliens.

How does that impose a moral "ought?" (should meaning ought). If a failure to met the BoP implies a moral ought, does that mean I "ought" to act like you don't exist? And you "ought" to act like no one else exists?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 8:02:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The New Atheists want to establish a world without religion. And they claim that they are the givers of "Rationality and reason". But when asked about the reason for thinking that God does not exist, they simply fail to give evidence.

I just love the intellectuall hypocrisy of their position. If were going to believe that the Judeo-Christian worldview is false, then give us some reasons for thinking that atheism is true. Otherwise the atheist has no right to judge religion as false, when their ownworldview can't establish itself.

Atheism is philosophically bankrupt. It has to borrow from Theism in order to establish Morality, Meaning, purpose and value.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 8:26:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 7:36:51 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I cannot met the BoP that you exist. I can only know that I (as in my mind) exist, and nothing else.

Yes you can and no you can know more than that. You are missing some axioms. For instance, why are you talking to me if I don't exist?

No, new facts do not change the truth they add to our knowledge of it.

New facts change what we perceive as truth

That could very well happen, a bonk on the head can change that.

(all "truth" is merely what is "perceived as truth" so the two can be used interchangeably).

If you believe that you should just quit right now since that would make the only reason to debate, to change the perception of others, and my perception isn't going to be changed by saying truth is perception of truth :p

For the longest time, Newton's equations for gravity were "truth."

They are still truth.

They logically matched with what we measured in the real world. Eventually, our measurements became better and more accurate to realize that his was merely an approximation. As our "observable facts" increased or improved, our "truth" adjusted.

We realized that the assumption of constant space-time was wrong, relativity was derived ultimately derived from Newtonian laws.

How does that impose a moral "ought?" (should meaning ought). If a failure to met the BoP implies a moral ought, does that mean I "ought" to act like you don't exist? And you "ought" to act like no one else exists?

You ought to act rationally and consistently. It is inconsistent to treat some hypothetical entities different from others despite the fact that the evidential pattern is identical.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 8:30:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 8:02:24 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
The New Atheists want to establish a world without religion. And they claim that they are the givers of "Rationality and reason". But when asked about the reason for thinking that God does not exist, they simply fail to give evidence.

The reason is the lack of evidence.


I just love the intellectuall hypocrisy of their position. If were going to believe that the Judeo-Christian worldview is false, then give us some reasons for thinking that atheism is true.

Atheism is simply the lack of the religious world view. It is the negative while religion is the positive.

Otherwise the atheist has no right to judge religion as false, when their ownworldview can't establish itself.

Looks like I'm going to have to illustrate why the rules of BoP are this way. Ok if atheist must establish their world view, what evidence would they need to find or present to do so?

Atheism is philosophically bankrupt. It has to borrow from Theism in order to establish Morality, Meaning, purpose and value.

I have absolute principled morality without any God.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.