Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Burden of Proof

SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 7:47:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies or questions the claim. Onus probandi is when the burden of proof is shifted on the person defending against the assertion. It's a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, Argumentum ad ignorantiam is assuming that a claim is true/false because it has not been or cannot be proven false/true.

I'd like to see someone try to argue why the burden of proof, particularly in matters of religion, should be put on the person rejecting an assertion.

If you agree that the burden of proof falls on the person rejecting an assertion, then are your views consistent? For example, does the burden of proof fall on alien abduction deniers, Loch Ness Moster deniers, astral projection deniers, etc.?

Under this warped understanding of 'the burden of proof', everything is true until proven false. This means that Russell's teapot is as existent as the one in my kitchen, the FSM and the god of Abraham both exist and are equally real, and all unfalsifiable claims will forever be true.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 8:37:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 7:47:02 AM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies or questions the claim. Onus probandi is when the burden of proof is shifted on the person defending against the assertion. It's a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, Argumentum ad ignorantiam is assuming that a claim is true/false because it has not been or cannot be proven false/true.

I'd like to see someone try to argue why the burden of proof, particularly in matters of religion, should be put on the person rejecting an assertion.

If you agree that the burden of proof falls on the person rejecting an assertion, then are your views consistent? For example, does the burden of proof fall on alien abduction deniers, Loch Ness Moster deniers, astral projection deniers, etc.?

Under this warped understanding of 'the burden of proof', everything is true until proven false. This means that Russell's teapot is as existent as the one in my kitchen, the FSM and the god of Abraham both exist and are equally real, and all unfalsifiable claims will forever be true.

Rejecting a claim still puts a burden of proof on you. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 8:48:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 8:37:30 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/26/2014 7:47:02 AM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies or questions the claim. Onus probandi is when the burden of proof is shifted on the person defending against the assertion. It's a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, Argumentum ad ignorantiam is assuming that a claim is true/false because it has not been or cannot be proven false/true.

I'd like to see someone try to argue why the burden of proof, particularly in matters of religion, should be put on the person rejecting an assertion.

If you agree that the burden of proof falls on the person rejecting an assertion, then are your views consistent? For example, does the burden of proof fall on alien abduction deniers, Loch Ness Moster deniers, astral projection deniers, etc.?

Under this warped understanding of 'the burden of proof', everything is true until proven false. This means that Russell's teapot is as existent as the one in my kitchen, the FSM and the god of Abraham both exist and are equally real, and all unfalsifiable claims will forever be true.

Rejecting a claim still puts a burden of proof on you. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I agree. If the atheist is saying there is no god, then the burden of proof is on him. If he says he doesn't believe in a god because he doesn't see sufficient evidence it's a different story.

These 2 things seem the same, but they are not.
SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 9:14:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 8:37:30 AM, Installgentoo wrote:

Rejecting a claim still puts a burden of proof on you. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If what you say is true, then the FSM is real until you can prove that he isn't.

Wylted already said this, but there's a difference between saying "I don't accept X's existence" and "I accept that X doesn't exist". The former is not an assertion, but the latter is. I don't believe that there isn't a god, but I don't believe there is one. I hold this opinion for all unfalsifiable assertions.

I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I would never assert that it is.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 11:59:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 9:14:52 AM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 1/26/2014 8:37:30 AM, Installgentoo wrote:

Rejecting a claim still puts a burden of proof on you. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If what you say is true, then the FSM is real until you can prove that he isn't.

Wylted already said this, but there's a difference between saying "I don't accept X's existence" and "I accept that X doesn't exist". The former is not an assertion, but the latter is.
I don't believe that there isn't a god, but I don't believe there is one.

This position makes me laugh every time.

I hold this opinion for all unfalsifiable assertions.

Do you think the claim of the existence of the Christian God is an unfalsifiable claim?

I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I would never assert that it is.
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:13:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 11:59:50 AM, stubs wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:14:52 AM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 1/26/2014 8:37:30 AM, Installgentoo wrote:

Rejecting a claim still puts a burden of proof on you. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If what you say is true, then the FSM is real until you can prove that he isn't.

Wylted already said this, but there's a difference between saying "I don't accept X's existence" and "I accept that X doesn't exist". The former is not an assertion, but the latter is.
I don't believe that there isn't a god, but I don't believe there is one.

This position makes me laugh every time.

I hold this opinion for all unfalsifiable assertions.

Do you think the claim of the existence of the Christian God is an unfalsifiable claim?

Can YOU give any ways the Christian God can be falsified?

I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I would never assert that it is.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:13:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 11:59:50 AM, stubs wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:14:52 AM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 1/26/2014 8:37:30 AM, Installgentoo wrote:

Rejecting a claim still puts a burden of proof on you. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If what you say is true, then the FSM is real until you can prove that he isn't.

Wylted already said this, but there's a difference between saying "I don't accept X's existence" and "I accept that X doesn't exist". The former is not an assertion, but the latter is.
I don't believe that there isn't a god, but I don't believe there is one.

This position makes me laugh every time.

I hold this opinion for all unfalsifiable assertions.

Do you think the claim of the existence of the Christian God is an unfalsifiable claim?

I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I would never assert that it is.

I don't know why the position would confuse you. It's the same thing as saying I don't know if there is a god or not. atheists typically assign a higher probability to no god, but even if you assign a 90% probability of no God then your still in a state of " I don't know "

If the Christian God is a falsifiable claim that should definitely be demonstrated so people can either be saved from an eternity in hell or stop wasting their life suppressing the very desires that make them human.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:40:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:13:57 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:59:50 AM, stubs wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:14:52 AM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 1/26/2014 8:37:30 AM, Installgentoo wrote:

Rejecting a claim still puts a burden of proof on you. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If what you say is true, then the FSM is real until you can prove that he isn't.

Wylted already said this, but there's a difference between saying "I don't accept X's existence" and "I accept that X doesn't exist". The former is not an assertion, but the latter is.
I don't believe that there isn't a god, but I don't believe there is one.

This position makes me laugh every time.

I hold this opinion for all unfalsifiable assertions.

Do you think the claim of the existence of the Christian God is an unfalsifiable claim?

Can YOU give any ways the Christian God can be falsified?


Problem of evil? Problem of divine hiddenness? Jesus didn't exist? Global naturalism/physicalism is true? Moral realism is false? Etc. It's really that not that hard to think up of ways.
I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I would never assert that it is.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:44:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:40:07 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:13:57 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:59:50 AM, stubs wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:14:52 AM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 1/26/2014 8:37:30 AM, Installgentoo wrote:

Rejecting a claim still puts a burden of proof on you. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If what you say is true, then the FSM is real until you can prove that he isn't.

Wylted already said this, but there's a difference between saying "I don't accept X's existence" and "I accept that X doesn't exist". The former is not an assertion, but the latter is.
I don't believe that there isn't a god, but I don't believe there is one.

This position makes me laugh every time.

I hold this opinion for all unfalsifiable assertions.

Do you think the claim of the existence of the Christian God is an unfalsifiable claim?

Can YOU give any ways the Christian God can be falsified?


1. Problem of evil? 2. Problem of divine hiddenness? 3. Jesus didn't exist? 4. Global naturalism/physicalism is true? 5. Moral realism is false? Etc. It's really that not that hard to think up of ways.
1. That's already been rationalized by christians as "Gods incomprehensible plan."
2. Same as above.
4. Impossible to prove.
5. Impossible to prove.
Please try something that hasn't already been rationalized and can be proven.

I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I would never assert that it is.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:46:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 11:59:50 AM, stubs wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:14:52 AM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 1/26/2014 8:37:30 AM, Installgentoo wrote:

Rejecting a claim still puts a burden of proof on you. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If what you say is true, then the FSM is real until you can prove that he isn't.

Wylted already said this, but there's a difference between saying "I don't accept X's existence" and "I accept that X doesn't exist". The former is not an assertion, but the latter is.
I don't believe that there isn't a god, but I don't believe there is one.

This position makes me laugh every time.

Red herring fallacy. What about that position makes you laugh?

I hold this opinion for all unfalsifiable assertions.

Do you think the claim of the existence of the Christian God is an unfalsifiable claim?
The claim of the existence of the Christian god is an unfalsifiable claim. How do you propose the Christian god could be falsified?

I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I would never assert that it is.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:47:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:44:08 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:40:07 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:13:57 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:59:50 AM, stubs wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:14:52 AM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 1/26/2014 8:37:30 AM, Installgentoo wrote:

Rejecting a claim still puts a burden of proof on you. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If what you say is true, then the FSM is real until you can prove that he isn't.

Wylted already said this, but there's a difference between saying "I don't accept X's existence" and "I accept that X doesn't exist". The former is not an assertion, but the latter is.
I don't believe that there isn't a god, but I don't believe there is one.

This position makes me laugh every time.

I hold this opinion for all unfalsifiable assertions.

Do you think the claim of the existence of the Christian God is an unfalsifiable claim?

Can YOU give any ways the Christian God can be falsified?


1. Problem of evil? 2. Problem of divine hiddenness? 3. Jesus didn't exist? 4. Global naturalism/physicalism is true? 5. Moral realism is false? Etc. It's really that not that hard to think up of ways.
1. That's already been rationalized by christians as "Gods incomprehensible plan."
2. Same as above.
4. Impossible to prove.
5. Impossible to prove.
Please try something that hasn't already been rationalized and can be proven.


Any thing can be rationalized if a person is so motivated. That doesn't mean it can't be falsified or at least given strong reasons against it's favor.

And your 1) and 2) are gross mischaracterizations btw.

I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I would never assert that it is.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:51:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:47:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:44:08 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:40:07 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:13:57 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:59:50 AM, stubs wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:14:52 AM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 1/26/2014 8:37:30 AM, Installgentoo wrote:

Rejecting a claim still puts a burden of proof on you. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If what you say is true, then the FSM is real until you can prove that he isn't.

Wylted already said this, but there's a difference between saying "I don't accept X's existence" and "I accept that X doesn't exist". The former is not an assertion, but the latter is.
I don't believe that there isn't a god, but I don't believe there is one.

This position makes me laugh every time.

I hold this opinion for all unfalsifiable assertions.

Do you think the claim of the existence of the Christian God is an unfalsifiable claim?

Can YOU give any ways the Christian God can be falsified?


1. Problem of evil? 2. Problem of divine hiddenness? 3. Jesus didn't exist? 4. Global naturalism/physicalism is true? 5. Moral realism is false? Etc. It's really that not that hard to think up of ways.
1. That's already been rationalized by christians as "Gods incomprehensible plan."
2. Same as above.
4. Impossible to prove.
5. Impossible to prove.
Please try something that hasn't already been rationalized and can be proven.


Any thing can be rationalized if a person is so motivated. That doesn't mean it can't be falsified or at least given strong reasons against it's favor.

Well in that case God has been disproven because of the problem of evil and divine hiddenness.

And your 1) and 2) are gross mischaracterizations btw.


I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I would never assert that it is.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:57:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 7:47:02 AM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies or questions the claim. Onus probandi is when the burden of proof is shifted on the person defending against the assertion. It's a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, Argumentum ad ignorantiam is assuming that a claim is true/false because it has not been or cannot be proven false/true.

I'd like to see someone try to argue why the burden of proof, particularly in matters of religion, should be put on the person rejecting an assertion.

If you agree that the burden of proof falls on the person rejecting an assertion, then are your views consistent? For example, does the burden of proof fall on alien abduction deniers, Loch Ness Moster deniers, astral projection deniers, etc.?


I see this strategy all the time - arguing from paradigm cases - and I struggle to see what the appeal is. It seems obviously flawed to me. It's really a game of intuition pumps by appealing to (apparently) absurd examples of someone asserting something. The thing is, two can play that game: mereological nihilism, elitminative matierialism, idealism, solipsism/external world skepticism, other mind skepticism hard incompatibilism, scientific anti-realism, etc all elicit different intutions about who has the burden of proof. Guess what? They all deny something. In the case of mereological nihilism it denies the existence of composite objects (ie. rocks, stars, trees, tables, etc). So all the mereological nilists do is have to sit back, cross their arms, and say "Okay all you non-merelogical nihilists - prove that there are composite objects." Can you PROVE that their composite objects and do you agree that they have absolutely no need to give considerations for mereological nihilism until one an come up with an argument for, say, mereological universalism?

Under this warped understanding of 'the burden of proof', everything is true until proven false. This means that Russell's teapot is as existent as the one in my kitchen, the FSM and the god of Abraham both exist and are equally real, and all unfalsifiable claims will forever be true.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 12:58:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:51:33 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:47:49 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:44:08 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:40:07 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:13:57 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
At 1/26/2014 11:59:50 AM, stubs wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:14:52 AM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 1/26/2014 8:37:30 AM, Installgentoo wrote:

Rejecting a claim still puts a burden of proof on you. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If what you say is true, then the FSM is real until you can prove that he isn't.

Wylted already said this, but there's a difference between saying "I don't accept X's existence" and "I accept that X doesn't exist". The former is not an assertion, but the latter is.
I don't believe that there isn't a god, but I don't believe there is one.

This position makes me laugh every time.

I hold this opinion for all unfalsifiable assertions.

Do you think the claim of the existence of the Christian God is an unfalsifiable claim?

Can YOU give any ways the Christian God can be falsified?


1. Problem of evil? 2. Problem of divine hiddenness? 3. Jesus didn't exist? 4. Global naturalism/physicalism is true? 5. Moral realism is false? Etc. It's really that not that hard to think up of ways.
1. That's already been rationalized by christians as "Gods incomprehensible plan."
2. Same as above.
4. Impossible to prove.
5. Impossible to prove.
Please try something that hasn't already been rationalized and can be proven.


Any thing can be rationalized if a person is so motivated. That doesn't mean it can't be falsified or at least given strong reasons against it's favor.

Well in that case God has been disproven because of the problem of evil and divine hiddenness.


Nope.

And your 1) and 2) are gross mischaracterizations btw.


I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I would never assert that it is.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 1:00:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:57:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2014 7:47:02 AM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies or questions the claim. Onus probandi is when the burden of proof is shifted on the person defending against the assertion. It's a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, Argumentum ad ignorantiam is assuming that a claim is true/false because it has not been or cannot be proven false/true.

I'd like to see someone try to argue why the burden of proof, particularly in matters of religion, should be put on the person rejecting an assertion.

If you agree that the burden of proof falls on the person rejecting an assertion, then are your views consistent? For example, does the burden of proof fall on alien abduction deniers, Loch Ness Moster deniers, astral projection deniers, etc.?


I see this strategy all the time - arguing from paradigm cases - and I struggle to see what the appeal is. It seems obviously flawed to me. It's really a game of intuition pumps by appealing to (apparently) absurd examples of someone asserting something. The thing is, two can play that game: mereological nihilism, elitminative matierialism, idealism, solipsism/external world skepticism, other mind skepticism hard incompatibilism, scientific anti-realism, etc all elicit different intutions about who has the burden of proof. Guess what? They all deny something. In the case of mereological nihilism it denies the existence of composite objects (ie. rocks, stars, trees, tables, etc). So all the mereological nilists do is have to sit back, cross their arms, and say "Okay all you non-merelogical nihilists - prove that there are composite objects." Can you PROVE that their composite objects and do you agree that they have absolutely no need to give considerations for mereological nihilism until one an come up with an argument for, say, mereological universalism?

Under this warped understanding of 'the burden of proof', everything is true until proven false. This means that Russell's teapot is as existent as the one in my kitchen, the FSM and the god of Abraham both exist and are equally real, and all unfalsifiable claims will forever be true.

Meant to add: all this shows is that there isn't any principled way to deal with the issue and we have to go case by case.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 1:01:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Christianity is unfalsifiable. It doesn't matter how much suffering you point out in the world, the theist always has a story. It doesn't matter how hidden God is, the theist has an ad hoc story. The idea that Christianity is falsifiable is a joke. The theist can always make up some story. Even if God was caught raping babies, that wouldn't convince the Christian.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 1:06:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I didn't want to get too into it but Christianity can be falsified.

Here's how

Tearing down the wailing wall.

Having the leader of the EU sign a 7 year peace treaty with Israel and see if it sparks those prophecies in revelation to start.

Confirming the deaths of any one of Jesus's disciples.

Have faith that you can move a mountain and then attempt it.

Ask for something ridiculous and see if you recieve it.

Cast your bread upon the water and see if it returns after several days. Ecclesiastes 11:1
SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 1:09:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 12:40:07 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

Can YOU give any ways the Christian God can be falsified?


Problem of evil? Problem of divine hiddenness? Jesus didn't exist? Global naturalism/physicalism is true? Moral realism is false? Etc. It's really that not that hard to think up of ways.

Human interpretation of evil exists. Nothing about its existence could falsify the Christian god.

Jesus' existence can't be falsified. Christians could claim the possibility of his existence even if he weren't mentioned in the Bible.

Naturalism is the belief that there isn't anything outside of the natural world. It isn't a claim; it's a default position. Naturalism is the position for a lack of acceptance that there is a supernatural world. The existence of a supernatural world is just another unfalsifiable claim.

The argument for moral realism faces the same hurdles as the argument for a supernatural worlds' existence. Moral realism is also unfalsifiable.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 1:12:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 1:01:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Christianity is unfalsifiable. It doesn't matter how much suffering you point out in the world, the theist always has a story. It doesn't matter how hidden God is, the theist has an ad hoc story. The idea that Christianity is falsifiable is a joke. ,The theist can always make up some story. Even if God was caught raping babies, that wouldn't convince the Christian.

How is that any different from a naturalist like Colin McGinn who sees that naturalistic theories of consciousness are obviously terrible but then plays the mysterianistic card? So naturalism is unfalsifiable now right?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Or...y'know...it just shows that anyone so motivated can "make up some story" and offer rationalizations. This isn't anything unique nor more ubiquitous to Christianity/Christians or religions in general.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 1:17:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 1:06:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
I didn't want to get too into it but Christianity can be falsified.

Here's how

Tearing down the wailing wall.

Having the leader of the EU sign a 7 year peace treaty with Israel and see if it sparks those prophecies in revelation to start.

Confirming the deaths of any one of Jesus's disciples.

Have faith that you can move a mountain and then attempt it.

Ask for something ridiculous and see if you recieve it.

Cast your bread upon the water and see if it returns after several days. Ecclesiastes 11:1

These things would only falsify the literal interpretation of the Bible. Most Christians pick and choose which parts to accept as literal. Then again, there are people who believe that dinosaur fossils were put millions of years deep in the ground by the devil to mislead humans. If someone is going to dismiss reality and reason when it conflicts with their beliefs, then anything can be true.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 1:17:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 1:12:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2014 1:01:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Christianity is unfalsifiable. It doesn't matter how much suffering you point out in the world, the theist always has a story. It doesn't matter how hidden God is, the theist has an ad hoc story. The idea that Christianity is falsifiable is a joke. ,The theist can always make up some story. Even if God was caught raping babies, that wouldn't convince the Christian.

How is that any different from a naturalist like Colin McGinn who sees that naturalistic theories of consciousness are obviously terrible but then plays the mysterianistic card? So naturalism is unfalsifiable now right?

No. All you have to do is show a ghost to falsify naturalism.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

Or...y'know...it just shows that anyone so motivated can "make up some story" and offer rationalizations. This isn't anything unique nor more ubiquitous to Christianity/Christians or religions in general.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 1:21:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 1:09:14 PM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 1/26/2014 12:40:07 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

Can YOU give any ways the Christian God can be falsified?


Problem of evil? Problem of divine hiddenness? Jesus didn't exist? Global naturalism/physicalism is true? Moral realism is false? Etc. It's really that not that hard to think up of ways.

Human interpretation of evil exists.

What does that even mean?

Nothing about its existence could falsify the Christian god.

Jesus' existence can't be falsified. Christians could claim the possibility of his existence even if he weren't mentioned in the Bible.


That's silly. The fact that Jesus could "possibly" exist does nothing for Christianity. It's his actual existence that does.

Naturalism is the belief that there isn't anything outside of the natural world. It isn't a claim; it's a default position.

Yeah, no. Not even close.

Naturalism is the position for a lack of acceptance that there is a supernatural world. The existence of a supernatural world is just another unfalsifiable claim.


Nope. Obviously it can't be "unfalsifiable" if naturalism is true. That would, by definition, make supernaturalism false.

The argument for moral realism faces the same hurdles as the argument for a supernatural worlds' existence. Moral realism is also unfalsifiable.

No it doesn't. Obviously you haven't encountered any of the arguments for moral realism in the literature. Because that obviously mischaracterizes an argument like the one from deliberative indispensibility.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 1:23:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 1:17:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 1:12:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2014 1:01:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Christianity is unfalsifiable. It doesn't matter how much suffering you point out in the world, the theist always has a story. It doesn't matter how hidden God is, the theist has an ad hoc story. The idea that Christianity is falsifiable is a joke. ,The theist can always make up some story. Even if God was caught raping babies, that wouldn't convince the Christian.

How is that any different from a naturalist like Colin McGinn who sees that naturalistic theories of consciousness are obviously terrible but then plays the mysterianistic card? So naturalism is unfalsifiable now right?

No. All you have to do is show a ghost to falsify naturalism.


And naturalists would rationalize it as a "yet unexplained scientfic phenomenom, yet still wholly natural". Why would that falsify naturalism, btw?

Some naturalists are card carrying dualists so they aren't even opposed (in principle) to immaterial entities.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

Or...y'know...it just shows that anyone so motivated can "make up some story" and offer rationalizations. This isn't anything unique nor more ubiquitous to Christianity/Christians or religions in general.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 1:24:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 1:23:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2014 1:17:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 1:12:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2014 1:01:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Christianity is unfalsifiable. It doesn't matter how much suffering you point out in the world, the theist always has a story. It doesn't matter how hidden God is, the theist has an ad hoc story. The idea that Christianity is falsifiable is a joke. ,The theist can always make up some story. Even if God was caught raping babies, that wouldn't convince the Christian.

How is that any different from a naturalist like Colin McGinn who sees that naturalistic theories of consciousness are obviously terrible but then plays the mysterianistic card? So naturalism is unfalsifiable now right?

No. All you have to do is show a ghost to falsify naturalism.


And naturalists would rationalize it as a "yet unexplained scientfic phenomenom, yet still wholly natural". Why would that falsify naturalism, btw?

Some naturalists are card carrying dualists so they aren't even opposed (in principle) to immaterial entities.

Actually this is a good point. Michael Tooley and David Chalmers are both naturalistic dualists.



http://en.wikipedia.org...

Or...y'know...it just shows that anyone so motivated can "make up some story" and offer rationalizations. This isn't anything unique nor more ubiquitous to Christianity/Christians or religions in general.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 1:26:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 1:17:39 PM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 1/26/2014 1:06:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
I didn't want to get too into it but Christianity can be falsified.

Here's how

Tearing down the wailing wall.

Having the leader of the EU sign a 7 year peace treaty with Israel and see if it sparks those prophecies in revelation to start.

Confirming the deaths of any one of Jesus's disciples.

Have faith that you can move a mountain and then attempt it.

Ask for something ridiculous and see if you recieve it.

Cast your bread upon the water and see if it returns after several days. Ecclesiastes 11:1

These things would only falsify the literal interpretation of the Bible. Most Christians pick and choose which parts to accept as literal. Then again, there are people who believe that dinosaur fossils were put millions of years deep in the ground by the devil to mislead humans. If someone is going to dismiss reality and reason when it conflicts with their beliefs, then anything can be true.

Well I tried.
SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 1:26:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 1:12:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2014 1:01:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Christianity is unfalsifiable. It doesn't matter how much suffering you point out in the world, the theist always has a story. It doesn't matter how hidden God is, the theist has an ad hoc story. The idea that Christianity is falsifiable is a joke. ,The theist can always make up some story. Even if God was caught raping babies, that wouldn't convince the Christian.

How is that any different from a naturalist like Colin McGinn who sees that naturalistic theories of consciousness are obviously terrible but then plays the mysterianistic card? So naturalism is unfalsifiable now right?

Naturalism is a default position. Naturalism doesn't claim anything to be true; it simply doesn't claim other things to be true.

For the sake of argument, however, let's say that naturalism is unfalsifiable. That still doesn't prove any other worldview. It's not "If A isn't true, then B is". The new default position of not accepting the natural or supernatural world would have to be named.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Or...y'know...it just shows that anyone so motivated can "make up some story" and offer rationalizations. This isn't anything unique nor more ubiquitous to Christianity/Christians or religions in general.

I agree. It isn't unique to anything other than its definition. There are plenty of unfalsifiable claims that don't deal with the supernatural.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 1:29:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 1:23:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2014 1:17:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 1:12:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2014 1:01:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Christianity is unfalsifiable. It doesn't matter how much suffering you point out in the world, the theist always has a story. It doesn't matter how hidden God is, the theist has an ad hoc story. The idea that Christianity is falsifiable is a joke. ,The theist can always make up some story. Even if God was caught raping babies, that wouldn't convince the Christian.

How is that any different from a naturalist like Colin McGinn who sees that naturalistic theories of consciousness are obviously terrible but then plays the mysterianistic card? So naturalism is unfalsifiable now right?

No. All you have to do is show a ghost to falsify naturalism.


And naturalists would rationalize it as a "yet unexplained scientfic phenomenom, yet still wholly natural". Why would that falsify naturalism, btw?

Some naturalists are card carrying dualists so they aren't even opposed (in principle) to immaterial entities.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

Or...y'know...it just shows that anyone so motivated can "make up some story" and offer rationalizations. This isn't anything unique nor more ubiquitous to Christianity/Christians or religions in general.

One could also argue that "naturalism" is meaningless if you allow ghosts. I mean, how does one even define natrual in that situation?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 1:36:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 1:26:57 PM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 1/26/2014 1:12:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2014 1:01:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Christianity is unfalsifiable. It doesn't matter how much suffering you point out in the world, the theist always has a story. It doesn't matter how hidden God is, the theist has an ad hoc story. The idea that Christianity is falsifiable is a joke. ,The theist can always make up some story. Even if God was caught raping babies, that wouldn't convince the Christian.

How is that any different from a naturalist like Colin McGinn who sees that naturalistic theories of consciousness are obviously terrible but then plays the mysterianistic card? So naturalism is unfalsifiable now right?

Naturalism is a default position.

No it isn't. See: you're asserting something. I'm denying it. The BOP is on you to prove it. Sound familiar?

Naturalism doesn't claim anything to be true;

Yes it does. Witness: all that exists in the natural world or alternatively we can only know things about the natural world.

it simply doesn't claim other things to be true.

For the sake of argument, however, let's say that naturalism is unfalsifiable. That still doesn't prove any other worldview. It's not "If A isn't true, then B is". The new default position of not accepting the natural or supernatural world would have to be named.


That's not my point. My point is that that you guys keep on essentially saying that "Christanity is unfalsfiable because Christians can come up with any any story to rationalize/reconcile their crazy beliefs with reality thus making it unfalsifiable" and what what I'm saying is how is that any different form any other belief system? Anyone so motivated can do that. It's an uninteresting point that would make every belief system ever conceived unfalsifiable. So it'd be a problem for everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Or...y'know...it just shows that anyone so motivated can "make up some story" and offer rationalizations. This isn't anything unique nor more ubiquitous to Christianity/Christians or religions in general.

I agree. It isn't unique to anything other than its definition. There are plenty of unfalsifiable claims that don't deal with the supernatural.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 1:37:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 1:29:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 1:23:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2014 1:17:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/26/2014 1:12:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/26/2014 1:01:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Christianity is unfalsifiable. It doesn't matter how much suffering you point out in the world, the theist always has a story. It doesn't matter how hidden God is, the theist has an ad hoc story. The idea that Christianity is falsifiable is a joke. ,The theist can always make up some story. Even if God was caught raping babies, that wouldn't convince the Christian.

How is that any different from a naturalist like Colin McGinn who sees that naturalistic theories of consciousness are obviously terrible but then plays the mysterianistic card? So naturalism is unfalsifiable now right?

No. All you have to do is show a ghost to falsify naturalism.


And naturalists would rationalize it as a "yet unexplained scientfic phenomenom, yet still wholly natural". Why would that falsify naturalism, btw?

Some naturalists are card carrying dualists so they aren't even opposed (in principle) to immaterial entities.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

Or...y'know...it just shows that anyone so motivated can "make up some story" and offer rationalizations. This isn't anything unique nor more ubiquitous to Christianity/Christians or religions in general.

One could also argue that "naturalism" is meaningless if you allow ghosts. I mean, how does one even define natrual in that situation?

I agree, but I'm assuming for the sake of argument that naturalism meaningfulness wouldn't break down at that point.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 2:06:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 7:47:02 AM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies or questions the claim. Onus probandi is when the burden of proof is shifted on the person defending against the assertion. It's a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, Argumentum ad ignorantiam is assuming that a claim is true/false because it has not been or cannot be proven false/true.

A: The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim.
B: I disagree.
A: Reason?
B: Do you think I should have any reason/proof to rebut or to be disagreed with your statement?
A: Oh no.

May be I'm not sure about what I'm saying but this topic is really circular.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~