Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Burden of Proof

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 8:36:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
<rant>

I think Philochristos and Rationalthinker_9119 have the right idea about burden of proof in a practical sense. It's rather simple, the burden of proof is on the party to convince the opposing party of their position.

Theists are going to remain theists, and atheists are going to remain atheists until they are given reasons to believe otherwise, and both parties will have reasons why they believe (or disbelieve) as they do. It seems to me that squabbling over who has the BoP simply misses the point. Yes it is a valid philosophical proposal, that there is a default position if belief that is rational (opus propandus), much like there is a court trial, but if you feel the opus is in the wrong side in the opposition's mind, then it is your job to demonstrate it to be false, rather than just state it to be so.

Moreover both theists and atheists will often have reasons they feel accomplishes their burden of proof even if they did have it, hence whichever side of the argument you are on, if you are trying to convince your opponent, then YOU shoulder the burden of proof to convince them otherwise.

</rant>
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 8:49:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 8:36:06 AM, Envisage wrote:
<rant>

I think Philochristos and Rationalthinker_9119 have the right idea about burden of proof in a practical sense. It's rather simple, the burden of proof is on the party to convince the opposing party of their position.

Theists are going to remain theists, and atheists are going to remain atheists until they are given reasons to believe otherwise, and both parties will have reasons why they believe (or disbelieve) as they do. It seems to me that squabbling over who has the BoP simply misses the point. Yes it is a valid philosophical proposal, that there is a default position if belief that is rational (opus propandus), much like there is a court trial, but if you feel the opus is in the wrong side in the opposition's mind, then it is your job to demonstrate it to be false, rather than just state it to be so.

Moreover both theists and atheists will often have reasons they feel accomplishes their burden of proof even if they did have it, hence whichever side of the argument you are on, if you are trying to convince your opponent, then YOU shoulder the burden of proof to convince them otherwise.

</rant>

I actually agree with Envy here. Cats and Dogs must also be getting along now ...
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 10:23:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Though your rant is understandable, in the case of subjects like science or mathematics, one can show proof in most cases. Because it is a physical matter usually in the hands of men to demonstrate, but the same approach doesn"t seem to apply, if the debate is focused on the existence of a Creator and Judge. If some one wants to convey information about person A and their experience of knowing person A, the hearer can"t experience the same without meeting person A. So either the hearer cares about the same experience and finds out how to meet person A, believes the witness but has no interest in meeting person A. Or doesn"t believe the witness and might take exception to the words of the witness about person A. I"m sure there are more possibilities, but these seem to prevail including those who seek some other way to meet person A.

You see, the witness can"t make person A come to meet the hearer, though the witness has met and known person A.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 10:29:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What people forget is that the burden of proof is a methodological thing rather than a philosophical principle. It does not automatically rest on one side or another in a debate, rather it descends on which person proposes that something exists.

If a theist asks an atheist why the universe is fine-tuned and the atheist says a Multiverse explains it, he has the burden of proof.
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 10:47:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 10:29:55 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
What people forget is that the burden of proof is a methodological thing rather than a philosophical principle. It does not automatically rest on one side or another in a debate, rather it descends on which person proposes that something exists.

If a theist asks an atheist why the universe is fine-tuned and the atheist says a Multiverse explains it, he has the burden of proof.

I reject the claim made by man that gods exists. If you are one of those who claim that gods exist then it is incumbent upon you to support that claim.

If you do not claim that gods exist then we have no argument and we agree that god's do not exist.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 12:18:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 8:36:06 AM, Envisage wrote:
<rant>

I think Philochristos and Rationalthinker_9119 have the right idea about burden of proof in a practical sense. It's rather simple, the burden of proof is on the party to convince the opposing party of their position.

Theists are going to remain theists, and atheists are going to remain atheists until they are given reasons to believe otherwise, and both parties will have reasons why they believe (or disbelieve) as they do. It seems to me that squabbling over who has the BoP simply misses the point. Yes it is a valid philosophical proposal, that there is a default position if belief that is rational (opus propandus), much like there is a court trial, but if you feel the opus is in the wrong side in the opposition's mind, then it is your job to demonstrate it to be false, rather than just state it to be so.

Moreover both theists and atheists will often have reasons they feel accomplishes their burden of proof even if they did have it, hence whichever side of the argument you are on, if you are trying to convince your opponent, then YOU shoulder the burden of proof to convince them otherwise.

</rant>

"Yes it is a valid philosophical proposal, that there is a default position if belief that is rational (opus propandus), much like there is a court trial"

How is a Default position a valid philosophical proposal?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 4:25:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 12:18:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 8:36:06 AM, Envisage wrote:
<rant>

I think Philochristos and Rationalthinker_9119 have the right idea about burden of proof in a practical sense. It's rather simple, the burden of proof is on the party to convince the opposing party of their position.

Theists are going to remain theists, and atheists are going to remain atheists until they are given reasons to believe otherwise, and both parties will have reasons why they believe (or disbelieve) as they do. It seems to me that squabbling over who has the BoP simply misses the point. Yes it is a valid philosophical proposal, that there is a default position if belief that is rational (opus propandus), much like there is a court trial, but if you feel the opus is in the wrong side in the opposition's mind, then it is your job to demonstrate it to be false, rather than just state it to be so.

Moreover both theists and atheists will often have reasons they feel accomplishes their burden of proof even if they did have it, hence whichever side of the argument you are on, if you are trying to convince your opponent, then YOU shoulder the burden of proof to convince them otherwise.

</rant>

"Yes it is a valid philosophical proposal, that there is a default position if belief that is rational (opus propandus), much like there is a court trial"

How is a Default position a valid philosophical proposal?

Because if the default position was to accept the existence of things, or accept claims a priori, then we would be in a position to be believing in a plethora of contradictory claims.

And that is where madness lies.

Only a finite, or smaller infinite number of propositions can be true, and an infinitely larger number false. Ergo, before looking at the evidence it's more rational to disbelieve than it is to believe.

Or in logical form:

A: It is more rational to believe than disbelieve (assumption)
1. If A is true, then it's rational to believe all propositions a1, a2, a3...
2. a1 is mutually exclusive to a2, a3... etc.
3. a2 is mutually exclusive to a1, a3... etc.
... Ad infinitum
C. A entails a contradiction (2&3 ad infinitum), therefore A is false

That's the reason we don't presume guilt in courtroom trials.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 5:26:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 4:25:30 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/10/2014 12:18:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 8:36:06 AM, Envisage wrote:
<rant>

I think Philochristos and Rationalthinker_9119 have the right idea about burden of proof in a practical sense. It's rather simple, the burden of proof is on the party to convince the opposing party of their position.

Theists are going to remain theists, and atheists are going to remain atheists until they are given reasons to believe otherwise, and both parties will have reasons why they believe (or disbelieve) as they do. It seems to me that squabbling over who has the BoP simply misses the point. Yes it is a valid philosophical proposal, that there is a default position if belief that is rational (opus propandus), much like there is a court trial, but if you feel the opus is in the wrong side in the opposition's mind, then it is your job to demonstrate it to be false, rather than just state it to be so.

Moreover both theists and atheists will often have reasons they feel accomplishes their burden of proof even if they did have it, hence whichever side of the argument you are on, if you are trying to convince your opponent, then YOU shoulder the burden of proof to convince them otherwise.

</rant>

"Yes it is a valid philosophical proposal, that there is a default position if belief that is rational (opus propandus), much like there is a court trial"

How is a Default position a valid philosophical proposal?

Because if the default position was to accept the existence of things, or accept claims a priori, then we would be in a position to be believing in a plethora of contradictory claims.

And that is where madness lies.

Only a finite, or smaller infinite number of propositions can be true, and an infinitely larger number false. Ergo, before looking at the evidence it's more rational to disbelieve than it is to believe.

Or in logical form:

A: It is more rational to believe than disbelieve (assumption)
1. If A is true, then it's rational to believe all propositions a1, a2, a3...
2. a1 is mutually exclusive to a2, a3... etc.
3. a2 is mutually exclusive to a1, a3... etc.
... Ad infinitum
C. A entails a contradiction (2&3 ad infinitum), therefore A is false

That's the reason we don't presume guilt in courtroom trials.

So we switch evidential stardards? Science doesn't presume either existence or nonexistence. Courts do not presume guilt or innocent, but state that the burden for guilt must be established to wither greater than 50% (Civil) or beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal). Very rarely is the existence of the crime itself even debated.

The real test here is what we would think of a lawyer who walked into court room and listened to the prosecution lay out strong case for the civil violation at hand, with elopquence and passion, and when the defense stood up to rebut said ... Phbt! 'I" amd not convinced and the prosecution has the burden of proof anyway! Let me define defense for you as the disbelief that crime has even been committed! And then sat down.

Said lawyer would not only be fired, but the case presented would be an assault on the defandants rights and the legal profession that anyone acting in such a manner would likely face disbarrment too boot.

That is why BOTH prosecution and defense very often create evidence based narratives in court cases.

Witness Pistorius. The Defense is not merely disagreeing with the prosecutions claim, it is making an actual counter-argument that the death was accidental.

Would Pistorius be well served at all by the claim that the defense was merely unconvinced by the prosecution's narrative?

And terein lies the rub and the reality of teh BOP belonging to BOTH sides.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 6:30:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 5:26:23 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 4:25:30 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/10/2014 12:18:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 8:36:06 AM, Envisage wrote:
<rant>

I think Philochristos and Rationalthinker_9119 have the right idea about burden of proof in a practical sense. It's rather simple, the burden of proof is on the party to convince the opposing party of their position.

Theists are going to remain theists, and atheists are going to remain atheists until they are given reasons to believe otherwise, and both parties will have reasons why they believe (or disbelieve) as they do. It seems to me that squabbling over who has the BoP simply misses the point. Yes it is a valid philosophical proposal, that there is a default position if belief that is rational (opus propandus), much like there is a court trial, but if you feel the opus is in the wrong side in the opposition's mind, then it is your job to demonstrate it to be false, rather than just state it to be so.

Moreover both theists and atheists will often have reasons they feel accomplishes their burden of proof even if they did have it, hence whichever side of the argument you are on, if you are trying to convince your opponent, then YOU shoulder the burden of proof to convince them otherwise.

</rant>

"Yes it is a valid philosophical proposal, that there is a default position if belief that is rational (opus propandus), much like there is a court trial"

How is a Default position a valid philosophical proposal?

Because if the default position was to accept the existence of things, or accept claims a priori, then we would be in a position to be believing in a plethora of contradictory claims.

And that is where madness lies.

Only a finite, or smaller infinite number of propositions can be true, and an infinitely larger number false. Ergo, before looking at the evidence it's more rational to disbelieve than it is to believe.

Or in logical form:

A: It is more rational to believe than disbelieve (assumption)
1. If A is true, then it's rational to believe all propositions a1, a2, a3...
2. a1 is mutually exclusive to a2, a3... etc.
3. a2 is mutually exclusive to a1, a3... etc.
... Ad infinitum
C. A entails a contradiction (2&3 ad infinitum), therefore A is false

That's the reason we don't presume guilt in courtroom trials.

So we switch evidential stardards? Science doesn't presume either existence or nonexistence. Courts do not presume guilt or innocent, but state that the burden for guilt must be established to wither greater than 50% (Civil) or beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal). Very rarely is the existence of the crime itself even debated.

The real test here is what we would think of a lawyer who walked into court room and listened to the prosecution lay out strong case for the civil violation at hand, with elopquence and passion, and when the defense stood up to rebut said ... Phbt! 'I" amd not convinced and the prosecution has the burden of proof anyway! Let me define defense for you as the disbelief that crime has even been committed! And then sat down.

Said lawyer would not only be fired, but the case presented would be an assault on the defandants rights and the legal profession that anyone acting in such a manner would likely face disbarrment too boot.

That is why BOTH prosecution and defense very often create evidence based narratives in court cases.

Witness Pistorius. The Defense is not merely disagreeing with the prosecutions claim, it is making an actual counter-argument that the death was accidental.

Would Pistorius be well served at all by the claim that the defense was merely unconvinced by the prosecution's narrative?

And terein lies the rub and the reality of teh BOP belonging to BOTH sides.

You simply are not addressing the crust crux of the argument, if the default position is to believe claims are true, then you are in a position to believe contradictory (and therefore innumerable false) things.

That is why the default position in courtroom trials is to disbelieve.

The Pistorus trial is a red herring to this, as evidence has already been seen, we already know he was the killer, the goalposts have now shifted.

Besides the argument appears logically valid and you have not attacked the form of it...

We can debate this if you want...
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 9:35:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 10:47:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/9/2014 10:29:55 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
What people forget is that the burden of proof is a methodological thing rather than a philosophical principle. It does not automatically rest on one side or another in a debate, rather it descends on which person proposes that something exists.

If a theist asks an atheist why the universe is fine-tuned and the atheist says a Multiverse explains it, he has the burden of proof.

I reject the claim made by man that gods exists. If you are one of those who claim that gods exist then it is incumbent upon you to support that claim.

If you do not claim that gods exist then we have no argument and we agree that god's do not exist.

But wouldn"t it be true that as long as mankind worships gods that can be images, statues, imaginary, and other people like Pharaohs and Roman Emperors, then gods exist. It all depends on what a god is claimed to be a god of, even if its horse dump. Anything can be a god as long as it is worshiped, respected and honored as a god. So your claim that there is no god has to be bogus. As much as you may want to you can"t eliminate men"s need to have favor of powers beyond their own.

In many cases the god exists because it is worshiped.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 11:29:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 6:30:23 AM, Envisage wrote:

I think Philochristos and Rationalthinker_9119 have the right idea about burden of proof in a practical sense. It's rather simple, the burden of proof is on the party to convince the opposing party of their position.

Theists are going to remain theists, and atheists are going to remain atheists until they are given reasons to believe otherwise, and both parties will have reasons why they believe (or disbelieve) as they do. It seems to me that squabbling over who has the BoP simply misses the point. Yes it is a valid philosophical proposal, that there is a default position if belief that is rational (opus propandus), much like there is a court trial, but if you feel the opus is in the wrong side in the opposition's mind, then it is your job to demonstrate it to be false, rather than just state it to be so.

Moreover both theists and atheists will often have reasons they feel accomplishes their burden of proof even if they did have it, hence whichever side of the argument you are on, if you are trying to convince your opponent, then YOU shoulder the burden of proof to convince them otherwise.

</rant>

"Yes it is a valid philosophical proposal, that there is a default position if belief that is rational (opus propandus), much like there is a court trial"

How is a Default position a valid philosophical proposal?

Because if the default position was to accept the existence of things, or accept claims a priori, then we would be in a position to be believing in a plethora of contradictory claims.

And that is where madness lies.

Only a finite, or smaller infinite number of propositions can be true, and an infinitely larger number false. Ergo, before looking at the evidence it's more rational to disbelieve than it is to believe.

Or in logical form:

A: It is more rational to believe than disbelieve (assumption)
1. If A is true, then it's rational to believe all propositions a1, a2, a3...
2. a1 is mutually exclusive to a2, a3... etc.
3. a2 is mutually exclusive to a1, a3... etc.
... Ad infinitum
C. A entails a contradiction (2&3 ad infinitum), therefore A is false

That's the reason we don't presume guilt in courtroom trials.

So we switch evidential stardards? Science doesn't presume either existence or nonexistence. Courts do not presume guilt or innocent, but state that the burden for guilt must be established to wither greater than 50% (Civil) or beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal). Very rarely is the existence of the crime itself even debated.

The real test here is what we would think of a lawyer who walked into court room and listened to the prosecution lay out strong case for the civil violation at hand, with elopquence and passion, and when the defense stood up to rebut said ... Phbt! 'I" amd not convinced and the prosecution has the burden of proof anyway! Let me define defense for you as the disbelief that crime has even been committed! And then sat down.

Said lawyer would not only be fired, but the case presented would be an assault on the defandants rights and the legal profession that anyone acting in such a manner would likely face disbarrment too boot.

That is why BOTH prosecution and defense very often create evidence based narratives in court cases.

Witness Pistorius. The Defense is not merely disagreeing with the prosecutions claim, it is making an actual counter-argument that the death was accidental.

Would Pistorius be well served at all by the claim that the defense was merely unconvinced by the prosecution's narrative?

And terein lies the rub and the reality of teh BOP belonging to BOTH sides.

You simply are not addressing the crust crux of the argument, if the default position is to believe claims are true, then you are in a position to believe contradictory (and therefore innumerable false) things.

That is why the default position in courtroom trials is to disbelieve.

The Pistorus trial is a red herring to this, as evidence has already been seen, we already know he was the killer, the goalposts have now shifted.

Besides the argument appears logically valid and you have not attacked the form of it...

We can debate this if you want...

There is no default position ... ALL claims require support.

It's Chris Hitchens: That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If the entirety of atheism is that is just a default position, then it is quite literally the embrace of ignorance. All that Christian stuff? It doesn't require study, examination, and actual reason to reject it - much less present the evidence in a way that better supports my conclusion ... its just a default.

There is nothing to debate with a default.

And yes Envy, you position has been attacked and utterly refuted. No one would pay a lawyer to make that of 'logical' assumption, and indeed, advocating it would be considered professional misconduct.

If your 'logical' proof would result in professional misconduct, within the very framework it is supposed to be tested in, then I don't have to go and refute it in a logical proof - I simply have to point out that is misconduct because it would result in repeated miscarriages of justice - precisely because it doesn't actually deal with evidence to support a claim.

There is no default position.

We are not a pre-civilization humanity attempting to figure out whether there is a God or nor. There are literally thousands of years of debate and evidence to draw upon, and that atheists waste time attempting to avoid an evidenced based discussion? Its an affront to simple logic.

"Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).

There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true."

http://www.nizkor.org...

Your reasoning is fallacious because it attempts to exempt your position from the realities of logical argumentation. Its the fallacy of special pleading.

Its also just wrong. The default position in a court room is not disbelief its not guilty. B the time it reaches trail, ALL sides acknowledge that there is a body of evidence that a crime MAY HAVE BEEN committed.

There is a body of evidence that MAY indicate a God. Disbelief is not a default - its the deliberate avoidance of evidence and its critical examination - in court? That is grounds for disbarment, not celebration.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 11:49:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

That's the reason we don't presume guilt in courtroom trials.

So we switch evidential stardards? Science doesn't presume either existence or nonexistence. Courts do not presume guilt or innocent, but state that the burden for guilt must be established to wither greater than 50% (Civil) or beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal). Very rarely is the existence of the crime itself even debated.

The real test here is what we would think of a lawyer who walked into court room and listened to the prosecution lay out strong case for the civil violation at hand, with elopquence and passion, and when the defense stood up to rebut said ... Phbt! 'I" amd not convinced and the prosecution has the burden of proof anyway! Let me define defense for you as the disbelief that crime has even been committed! And then sat down.

Said lawyer would not only be fired, but the case presented would be an assault on the defandants rights and the legal profession that anyone acting in such a manner would likely face disbarrment too boot.

That is why BOTH prosecution and defense very often create evidence based narratives in court cases.

Witness Pistorius. The Defense is not merely disagreeing with the prosecutions claim, it is making an actual counter-argument that the death was accidental.

Would Pistorius be well served at all by the claim that the defense was merely unconvinced by the prosecution's narrative?

And terein lies the rub and the reality of teh BOP belonging to BOTH sides.

You simply are not addressing the crust crux of the argument, if the default position is to believe claims are true, then you are in a position to believe contradictory (and therefore innumerable false) things.

That is why the default position in courtroom trials is to disbelieve.

The Pistorus trial is a red herring to this, as evidence has already been seen, we already know he was the killer, the goalposts have now shifted.

Besides the argument appears logically valid and you have not attacked the form of it...

We can debate this if you want...

There is no default position ... ALL claims require support.

There is claim x, and no evidence has been given to support or deny it. There is a rational position on that claim. And my argument addresses this specific situation.

Which if I can restate to be as follows:

A: It is more rational to believe than disbelieve (assumption)
1. If A is true, then it's rational to believe all propositions a1, a2, a3...
2. a1 is mutually exclusive to a2, a3... etc.
3. a2 is mutually exclusive to a1, a3... etc.
... Ad infinitum
4. A entails believing contradictory claims
5. Believing contradictory claims is irrational
C. A & 5 form a contradiction (both rational and irrational), therefore A is false.

This is a reducio as absurdum of the position taken if you choose to believe rather than disbelieve claims before you see the evidence.

It's Chris Hitchens: That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Just provided it in the syllogism.

If the entirety of atheism is that is just a default position

Not true, it's just that God can be defined in many ways, so that positive arguments can't be made against all of them.

There is nothing to debate with a default.

You need to provide evidence to fulfil your claim to the opposition, that is true for philosophical and pragmatic reasons. I have provided the former in this post and the latter in the OP.

And yes Envy, you position has been attacked and utterly refuted. No one would pay a lawyer to make that of 'logical' assumption, and indeed, advocating it would be considered professional misconduct.

You can dance around and declare yourself the winner, nobody is going to take you seriously. All sound arguments have a valid logical basis. I have shown logically that assuming a position of guilt is unsound.

There is no default position.

Then what is then? Because there are an infinite number of claims out there, and we need a way of dealing with claims which have no evidence to support or refute them. What about loop quantum gravity? Which has not been falsified by anything, nor has it been proved by anything? What position do we assume on the innumerable theories of everything.

It would be very hard to both prove or disprove any of them, and clearly they cannot all be right.

There are literally thousands of years of debate and evidence to draw upon, and that atheists waste time attempting to avoid an evidenced based discussion?

I love having those discussions, but this topic is about the burden of proof. And right now we are talking about the philosophical sound position of belief without evidence.

Your reasoning is fallacious because it attempts to exempt your position from the realities of logical argumentation. Its the fallacy of special pleading.

That's not an argument, that's a non-sequitur, and a false one at that.

There is no 'position' of mine except that on where the philosophical BoP lies, which I have shown is one of disbelief. You have yet it actually attack the argument, so III presume that means you concede the argument.

Your appeals to disbarment etc are completely irrelevant to the discussion of the truth of the matter. I could make similar statements about you and how you would be laughed out of any scientific of philosophical conference with that type of reasoning, it doesn't further my case, and neither does yours.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 1:38:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 11:49:38 AM, Envisage wrote:

That's the reason we don't presume guilt in courtroom trials.

So we switch evidential stardards? Science doesn't presume either existence or nonexistence. Courts do not presume guilt or innocent, but state that the burden for guilt must be established to wither greater than 50% (Civil) or beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal). Very rarely is the existence of the crime itself even debated.

The real test here is what we would think of a lawyer who walked into court room and listened to the prosecution lay out strong case for the civil violation at hand, with elopquence and passion, and when the defense stood up to rebut said ... Phbt! 'I" amd not convinced and the prosecution has the burden of proof anyway! Let me define defense for you as the disbelief that crime has even been committed! And then sat down.

Said lawyer would not only be fired, but the case presented would be an assault on the defandants rights and the legal profession that anyone acting in such a manner would likely face disbarrment too boot.

That is why BOTH prosecution and defense very often create evidence based narratives in court cases.

Witness Pistorius. The Defense is not merely disagreeing with the prosecutions claim, it is making an actual counter-argument that the death was accidental.

Would Pistorius be well served at all by the claim that the defense was merely unconvinced by the prosecution's narrative?

And terein lies the rub and the reality of teh BOP belonging to BOTH sides.

You simply are not addressing the crust crux of the argument, if the default position is to believe claims are true, then you are in a position to believe contradictory (and therefore innumerable false) things.

That is why the default position in courtroom trials is to disbelieve.

The Pistorus trial is a red herring to this, as evidence has already been seen, we already know he was the killer, the goalposts have now shifted.

Besides the argument appears logically valid and you have not attacked the form of it...

We can debate this if you want...

There is no default position ... ALL claims require support.

There is claim x, and no evidence has been given to support or deny it. There is a rational position on that claim. And my argument addresses this specific situation.

Which if I can restate to be as follows:

A: It is more rational to believe than disbelieve (assumption)
1. If A is true, then it's rational to believe all propositions a1, a2, a3...
2. a1 is mutually exclusive to a2, a3... etc.
3. a2 is mutually exclusive to a1, a3... etc.
... Ad infinitum
4. A entails believing contradictory claims
5. Believing contradictory claims is irrational
C. A & 5 form a contradiction (both rational and irrational), therefore A is false.

This is a reducio as absurdum of the position taken if you choose to believe rather than disbelieve claims before you see the evidence.

It's Chris Hitchens: That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Just provided it in the syllogism.

If the entirety of atheism is that is just a default position

Not true, it's just that God can be defined in many ways, so that positive arguments can't be made against all of them.

There is nothing to debate with a default.

You need to provide evidence to fulfil your claim to the opposition, that is true for philosophical and pragmatic reasons. I have provided the former in this post and the latter in the OP.

And yes Envy, you position has been attacked and utterly refuted. No one would pay a lawyer to make that of 'logical' assumption, and indeed, advocating it would be considered professional misconduct.

You can dance around and declare yourself the winner, nobody is going to take you seriously. All sound arguments have a valid logical basis. I have shown logically that assuming a position of guilt is unsound.

There is no default position.

Then what is then? Because there are an infinite number of claims out there, and we need a way of dealing with claims which have no evidence to support or refute them. What about loop quantum gravity? Which has not been falsified by anything, nor has it been proved by anything? What position do we assume on the innumerable theories of everything.

It would be very hard to both prove or disprove any of them, and clearly they cannot all be right.

There are literally thousands of years of debate and evidence to draw upon, and that atheists waste time attempting to avoid an evidenced based discussion?

I love having those discussions, but this topic is about the burden of proof. And right now we are talking about the philosophical sound position of belief without evidence.

Your reasoning is fallacious because it attempts to exempt your position from the realities of logical argumentation. Its the fallacy of special pleading.

That's not an argument, that's a non-sequitur, and a false one at that.

There is no 'position' of mine except that on where the philosophical BoP lies, which I have shown is one of disbelief. You have yet it actually attack the argument, so III presume that means you concede the argument.

Your appeals to disbarment etc are completely irrelevant to the discussion of the truth of the matter. I could make similar statements about you and how you would be laughed out of any scientific of philosophical conference with that type of reasoning, it doesn't further my case, and neither does yours.

Yes, your proof is a classic argument from absurdity, but it goes BOTH ways.

That is what ALL claims require support, and since we cannot definitively prove or disprove God, and that leave ... inductive reasoning.

Your proof is flawed precisely because it rejects inductive reasoning and demands a standard of definitive proof that is simply not possible. Ergo, in your proof's opinion, disbelief to absurdity is ... rational or a default. It is instead the adoption of absurdity.

No amount of probability or solid reasoning save absolute definitive proof will suffice? That is the rejection of inductive reasoning entirely, and that is not a default - that is a choice. A poor one IMHO.

Again, that is not to say that atheism is devoid of reasoning, but 'default' is anything but - its an excuse to avoid reasoning. By your own admission its absurd.

And denial can be just as absurd as affirmation. That is why we have logical reasoning, which is, as explained, a conclusion supported by one or more premise. Either probable or definitive.

Atheism is just a default? That is claim - the evidence is a known appeal to absurdity. Therein lies the problem with the proof, if not atheism.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 1:46:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 1:38:58 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 11:49:38 AM, Envisage wrote:

That's the reason we don't presume guilt in courtroom trials.

So we switch evidential stardards? Science doesn't presume either existence or nonexistence. Courts do not presume guilt or innocent, but state that the burden for guilt must be established to wither greater than 50% (Civil) or beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal). Very rarely is the existence of the crime itself even debated.

The real test here is what we would think of a lawyer who walked into court room and listened to the prosecution lay out strong case for the civil violation at hand, with elopquence and passion, and when the defense stood up to rebut said ... Phbt! 'I" amd not convinced and the prosecution has the burden of proof anyway! Let me define defense for you as the disbelief that crime has even been committed! And then sat down.

Said lawyer would not only be fired, but the case presented would be an assault on the defandants rights and the legal profession that anyone acting in such a manner would likely face disbarrment too boot.

That is why BOTH prosecution and defense very often create evidence based narratives in court cases.

Witness Pistorius. The Defense is not merely disagreeing with the prosecutions claim, it is making an actual counter-argument that the death was accidental.

Would Pistorius be well served at all by the claim that the defense was merely unconvinced by the prosecution's narrative?

And terein lies the rub and the reality of teh BOP belonging to BOTH sides.

You simply are not addressing the crust crux of the argument, if the default position is to believe claims are true, then you are in a position to believe contradictory (and therefore innumerable false) things.

That is why the default position in courtroom trials is to disbelieve.

The Pistorus trial is a red herring to this, as evidence has already been seen, we already know he was the killer, the goalposts have now shifted.

Besides the argument appears logically valid and you have not attacked the form of it...

We can debate this if you want...

There is no default position ... ALL claims require support.

There is claim x, and no evidence has been given to support or deny it. There is a rational position on that claim. And my argument addresses this specific situation.

Which if I can restate to be as follows:

A: It is more rational to believe than disbelieve (assumption)
1. If A is true, then it's rational to believe all propositions a1, a2, a3...
2. a1 is mutually exclusive to a2, a3... etc.
3. a2 is mutually exclusive to a1, a3... etc.
... Ad infinitum
4. A entails believing contradictory claims
5. Believing contradictory claims is irrational
C. A & 5 form a contradiction (both rational and irrational), therefore A is false.

This is a reducio as absurdum of the position taken if you choose to believe rather than disbelieve claims before you see the evidence.

It's Chris Hitchens: That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Just provided it in the syllogism.

If the entirety of atheism is that is just a default position

Not true, it's just that God can be defined in many ways, so that positive arguments can't be made against all of them.

There is nothing to debate with a default.

You need to provide evidence to fulfil your claim to the opposition, that is true for philosophical and pragmatic reasons. I have provided the former in this post and the latter in the OP.

And yes Envy, you position has been attacked and utterly refuted. No one would pay a lawyer to make that of 'logical' assumption, and indeed, advocating it would be considered professional misconduct.

You can dance around and declare yourself the winner, nobody is going to take you seriously. All sound arguments have a valid logical basis. I have shown logically that assuming a position of guilt is unsound.

There is no default position.

Then what is then? Because there are an infinite number of claims out there, and we need a way of dealing with claims which have no evidence to support or refute them. What about loop quantum gravity? Which has not been falsified by anything, nor has it been proved by anything? What position do we assume on the innumerable theories of everything.

It would be very hard to both prove or disprove any of them, and clearly they cannot all be right.

There are literally thousands of years of debate and evidence to draw upon, and that atheists waste time attempting to avoid an evidenced based discussion?

I love having those discussions, but this topic is about the burden of proof. And right now we are talking about the philosophical sound position of belief without evidence.

Your reasoning is fallacious because it attempts to exempt your position from the realities of logical argumentation. Its the fallacy of special pleading.

That's not an argument, that's a non-sequitur, and a false one at that.

There is no 'position' of mine except that on where the philosophical BoP lies, which I have shown is one of disbelief. You have yet it actually attack the argument, so III presume that means you concede the argument.

Your appeals to disbarment etc are completely irrelevant to the discussion of the truth of the matter. I could make similar statements about you and how you would be laughed out of any scientific of philosophical conference with that type of reasoning, it doesn't further my case, and neither does yours.

Yes, your proof is a classic argument from absurdity, but it goes BOTH ways.

It's a reducio ad absurdum, and I would like to see you try and run it the other way.

That is what ALL claims require support, and since we cannot definitively prove or disprove God, and that leave ... inductive reasoning.

Your proof is flawed precisely because it rejects inductive reasoning and demands a standard of definitive proof that is simply not possible. Ergo, in your proof's opinion, disbelief to absurdity is ... rational or a default. It is instead the adoption of absurdity.

No amount of probability or solid reasoning save absolute definitive proof will suffice? That is the rejection of inductive reasoning entirely, and that is not a default - that is a choice. A poor one IMHO.

Again, that is not to say that atheism is devoid of reasoning, but 'default' is anything but - its an excuse to avoid reasoning. By your own admission its absurd.

And denial can be just as absurd as affirmation. That is why we have logical reasoning, which is, as explained, a conclusion supported by one or more premise. Either probable or definitive.

Atheism is just a default? That is claim - the evidence is a known appeal to absurdity. Therein lies the problem with the proof, if not atheism.

How is this a rebuttal to the argument? You have not addressed the premises or logical form of my argument at all. You are just dragging a smelly red herring over the issue with your butterfly claims which are completely besides the point.

The argument addresses belief before you receive evidence for or against the proposition. And only that.

Everything you state addresses the evidential part of the claim.

My argument is important because it establishes the null hypothesis. So please actually address the argument I have provided or concede it.

I am not obligated to defend arguments tha
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 1:57:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 1:46:27 PM, Envisage wrote:


Atheism is just a default? That is claim - the evidence is a known appeal to absurdity. Therein lies the problem with the proof, if not atheism.

How is this a rebuttal to the argument? You have not addressed the premises or logical form of my argument at all. You are just dragging a smelly red herring over the issue with your butterfly claims which are completely besides the point.

The argument addresses belief before you receive evidence for or against the proposition. And only that.

Everything you state addresses the evidential part of the claim.

My argument is important because it es

I don't need to address parts simple because you want me too. I have to address the parts that clearly prove the contention I make. When you own example is an admitted argument to absurdity? Guess what that means? That the reasoning is absurd and fallacious.

Denial and confirmation are both biases that absurdity. Both are potential biases, and one is not magically freed from the possibility of absurdity smile because you declare it a default ... to absurdity.

Cases in point:

Creationism - its a positive claim that God made anything to the point of absurdity.

Anti-Evolutionism - the flip side of the affirmation is the denial to absurdity of Evolution.

Is the SAME thought process. Which one is the logical default? As BOTH conclusions rest upon the same adoption of absurdity?

If I switched your Assumption A to disbelief and followed it through? Its the same conclusion. Its a classic argument from absurdity.

You are, to be blunt, doing what you accuse me of doing. You demand I focus on your proof, but you ignore the case that I make entirely.

We started with the court room ... and that is forgotten.

We went to the absurdity ... and you only want to focus on YOUR portrayal of the 'proof'. But the proof is the adoption of absurdity - period.

It also conflicts with your statement in the OP - your case MUST be to attempt to convince the other, and you cannot do that by claiming a default ... or by avoiding actual case making because your position is default.

When someone says, "This is why I believe in God."

"Have you considered a default," is a weak counter, and, in any other rational process, would be dismissed. In professional academia or legal practice, it would be grounds for discipline.

Its a case meant for the defaultee and no one else. That is why is an argument to absurdity.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 2:10:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 1:57:04 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 1:46:27 PM, Envisage wrote:


Atheism is just a default? That is claim - the evidence is a known appeal to absurdity. Therein lies the problem with the proof, if not atheism.

How is this a rebuttal to the argument? You have not addressed the premises or logical form of my argument at all. You are just dragging a smelly red herring over the issue with your butterfly claims which are completely besides the point.

The argument addresses belief before you receive evidence for or against the proposition. And only that.

Everything you state addresses the evidential part of the claim.

My argument is important because it es

I don't need to address parts simple because you want me too. I have to address the parts that clearly prove the contention I make. When you own example is an admitted argument to absurdity? Guess what that means? That the reasoning is absurd and fallacious.

It's a philosophical argument ad absurdum. If we accept the premise that it's reasonable to believe instead if disbelieve, then it's logically self-defeating.

It's not the same as a colloquial appeal to absurdity, and as far as I see it's logically valid, and the premises sound.

Hence the conclusion necessarily follows.

Denial and confirmation are both biases that absurdity. Both are potential biases, and one is not magically freed from the possibility of absurdity smile because you declare it a default ... to absurdity.

Doesn't address my argument

Cases in point:

Creationism - its a positive claim that God made anything to the point of absurdity.

Red herring

Anti-Evolutionism - the flip side of the affirmation is the denial to absurdity of Evolution.

Red herring

Is the SAME thought process. Which one is the logical default? As BOTH conclusions rest upon the same adoption of absurdity?

No. You are confusing two different ideas of absurdity. Reducio ad absurdum is a formal logical argument made to disprove a premise. An appeal to absurdity is just demonstrating that assuming a premise leads to absurd (but not necessarily false) concequences.

Moreover, your examples are red herrings, my argument stands logically sound on it's own. You have not tried to address it.

If I switched your Assumption A to disbelief and followed it through? Its the same conclusion. Its a classic argument from absurdity.

Actually it doesn't. Because it doesn't put you in a position to believe contradictory claims. That's the point.

You are, to be blunt, doing what you accuse me of doing. You demand I focus on your proof, but you ignore the case that I make entirely.

That's because your 'case' is a big fat red herring, and besides the point. Moreover why should I look at a hundred weak arguments if I have one strong arguments?

I don't bother looking at the proofs that 2+2=5 because I already have a proof that 2+2=4 that is both logically valid and sound.

The rest of your post is a big appeal to emotion. And not objective.

I'm going stop wasting my time with you in this thread, since you clearly are not capable of answering direct and concise arguments against your position directly and concisely yourself.

You give me the impression of a prisoner trying to wiggle his way futilely out of the handcuffs that he falsely believes he can wiggle out of.
neptune1bond
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 5:12:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 10:47:26 AM, bulproof wrote:

I reject the claim made by man that gods exists. If you are one of those who claim that gods exist then it is incumbent upon you to support that claim.

If you do not claim that gods exist then we have no argument and we agree that god's do not exist.

Actually, no, that's not how it works in real life. I only have an obligation to prove the beliefs that I actually expect you to agree with or I am trying to convince you of. Also, you have just as much responsibility to prove anything that you expect me to agree with or you are trying to convince me of. The fact of the matter, though, is no one has any obligation whatsoever to justify any *personally held beliefs* that they may have, not even to you no matter how entitled you may feel. Even if they do try and convince you and fail to provide proof, they still have no obligation to agree with you on your position. They instead simply have no right to expect agreement from you on their position, that is all. Claiming the negative doesn't give you some special right to make demands of what other people can or cannot believe or do.

Let's say for instance that I'm at the store and I say out loud,"Oh, I almost forgot that I already have hand soap at home! Since I don't need any more hand soap, I'll just put the soap in my cart back on the shelf." And some jack@ss overhears me and says,"I believe that there is actually no hand soap at your house (since I haven't seen it for myself) and any anecdotal evidence you may claim of having perceived that you actually do have hand soap is not good enough for me. Since I have claimed the negative, you must therefor provide physical evidence to me of your hand soap at your house or you will be obligated to buy the hand soap you have in your cart." I would then probably say,"F*ck off! I'll make my own hand soap buying decisions and I don't really give a sh*t about your opinions. My personal hand soap related needs, thoughts, and desires are none of your d@mn business and you have no right to tell me what I can or cannot do and I have no need to justify it to you!" I would only need to prove to him that I have hand soap at my house if I actually cared what he thought, and even then, if I failed to prove it to him I still have every right to believe whatever I want in regards to hand soap unless he were to take the initiative to prove his claims to me. That's how it actually works. Claiming the negative is still a *CLAIM* and therefor places a burden of proof. You must justify your claims or you have right to expect agreement.

Just because I'm not feeling any need to justify my beliefs to you, it doesn't mean that we "agree that god's do not exist." (I happen to be more along the lines of agnostic theist and therefor don't believe in proselytizing.) If you are going to claim that god's do not exist and expect me to agree, then you have just as much obligation to prove it or convince me as I would have if I were to actually care whether or not you believed God did exist. If you cannot prove your claim, then you have no more right to expect anything from me. In the lack of evidence or proof from either claim, we are only justified in agreeing to disagree and coming to our own conclusions on any potential existence of any particular God or Gods.
neptune1bond
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 5:14:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 5:12:08 PM, neptune1bond wrote:
You must justify your claims or you have right to expect agreement.

I obviously meant this statement to read "you have no right to expect agreement."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 6:51:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 4:25:30 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/10/2014 12:18:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 8:36:06 AM, Envisage wrote:
<rant>

I think Philochristos and Rationalthinker_9119 have the right idea about burden of proof in a practical sense. It's rather simple, the burden of proof is on the party to convince the opposing party of their position.

Theists are going to remain theists, and atheists are going to remain atheists until they are given reasons to believe otherwise, and both parties will have reasons why they believe (or disbelieve) as they do. It seems to me that squabbling over who has the BoP simply misses the point. Yes it is a valid philosophical proposal, that there is a default position if belief that is rational (opus propandus), much like there is a court trial, but if you feel the opus is in the wrong side in the opposition's mind, then it is your job to demonstrate it to be false, rather than just state it to be so.

Moreover both theists and atheists will often have reasons they feel accomplishes their burden of proof even if they did have it, hence whichever side of the argument you are on, if you are trying to convince your opponent, then YOU shoulder the burden of proof to convince them otherwise.

</rant>

"Yes it is a valid philosophical proposal, that there is a default position if belief that is rational (opus propandus), much like there is a court trial"

How is a Default position a valid philosophical proposal?

Because if the default position was to accept the existence of things, or accept claims a priori, then we would be in a position to be believing in a plethora of contradictory claims.

The default position in philosophical arguments is that the claim is Neither True or False. Claim can be true even if the argument is bad. It can be false even if the argument is logically valid.

But the claim Must be True if the premises are true and the conclusion follows from the premises.


And that is where madness lies.

The madness is your false dichotomy saying the default position has to either always accept a claim as true or always as false. When the logical default position is neither it is and should be undecided.


Only a finite, or smaller infinite number of propositions can be true, and an infinitely larger number false. Ergo, before looking at the evidence it's more rational to disbelieve than it is to believe.

Or in logical form:


A: It is more rational to believe than disbelieve (assumption)
1. If A is true, then it's rational to believe all propositions a1, a2, a3...
2. a1 is mutually exclusive to a2, a3... etc.
3. a2 is mutually exclusive to a1, a3... etc.
... Ad infinitum
C. A entails a contradiction (2&3 ad infinitum), therefore A is false

Now take the abstraction out and apply this form to your claim.


That's the reason we don't presume guilt in courtroom trials.

That's because it is instituted by the Legal System. It doesn't apply to all claims made in modal, ontological, and especially never applied in epistemology.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.

Pure Simple admit it Atheist statements of a "default position" is to assume False, are just fallacious.

http://philosophy.lander.edu...
http://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com...
http://books.google.com... -> Page 15
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 8:03:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 8:36:06 AM, Envisage wrote:
<rant>

I think Philochristos and Rationalthinker_9119 have the right idea about burden of proof in a practical sense. It's rather simple, the burden of proof is on the party to convince the opposing party of their position.

Theists are going to remain theists, and atheists are going to remain atheists until they are given reasons to believe otherwise, and both parties will have reasons why they believe (or disbelieve) as they do. It seems to me that squabbling over who has the BoP simply misses the point. Yes it is a valid philosophical proposal, that there is a default position if belief that is rational (opus propandus), much like there is a court trial, but if you feel the opus is in the wrong side in the opposition's mind, then it is your job to demonstrate it to be false, rather than just state it to be so.

Moreover both theists and atheists will often have reasons they feel accomplishes their burden of proof even if they did have it, hence whichever side of the argument you are on, if you are trying to convince your opponent, then YOU shoulder the burden of proof to convince them otherwise.

</rant>

I suppose, but for atheism that turns into showing people how what they think are reasons to believe in God in fact fail to do so, i.e. fail to meet the burden of proof. The atheist is only meeting this 'burden of proof' by showing to the theist what that means and getting him to apply it to his views.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 9:49:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 5:26:23 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 4:25:30 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/10/2014 12:18:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 8:36:06 AM, Envisage wrote:
<rant>

I think Philochristos and Rationalthinker_9119 have the right idea about burden of proof in a practical sense. It's rather simple, the burden of proof is on the party to convince the opposing party of their position.

Theists are going to remain theists, and atheists are going to remain atheists until they are given reasons to believe otherwise, and both parties will have reasons why they believe (or disbelieve) as they do. It seems to me that squabbling over who has the BoP simply misses the point. Yes it is a valid philosophical proposal, that there is a default position if belief that is rational (opus propandus), much like there is a court trial, but if you feel the opus is in the wrong side in the opposition's mind, then it is your job to demonstrate it to be false, rather than just state it to be so.

Moreover both theists and atheists will often have reasons they feel accomplishes their burden of proof even if they did have it, hence whichever side of the argument you are on, if you are trying to convince your opponent, then YOU shoulder the burden of proof to convince them otherwise.

</rant>

"Yes it is a valid philosophical proposal, that there is a default position if belief that is rational (opus propandus), much like there is a court trial"

How is a Default position a valid philosophical proposal?

Because if the default position was to accept the existence of things, or accept claims a priori, then we would be in a position to be believing in a plethora of contradictory claims.

And that is where madness lies.

Only a finite, or smaller infinite number of propositions can be true, and an infinitely larger number false. Ergo, before looking at the evidence it's more rational to disbelieve than it is to believe.

Or in logical form:

A: It is more rational to believe than disbelieve (assumption)
1. If A is true, then it's rational to believe all propositions a1, a2, a3...
2. a1 is mutually exclusive to a2, a3... etc.
3. a2 is mutually exclusive to a1, a3... etc.
... Ad infinitum
C. A entails a contradiction (2&3 ad infinitum), therefore A is false

That's the reason we don't presume guilt in courtroom trials.

So we switch evidential stardards? Science doesn't presume either existence or nonexistence. Courts do not presume guilt or innocent, but state that the burden for guilt must be established to wither greater than 50% (Civil) or beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal). Very rarely is the existence of the crime itself even debated.

The real test here is what we would think of a lawyer who walked into court room and listened to the prosecution lay out strong case for the civil violation at hand, with elopquence and passion, and when the defense stood up to rebut said ... Phbt! 'I" amd not convinced and the prosecution has the burden of proof anyway! Let me define defense for you as the disbelief that crime has even been committed! And then sat down.

Said lawyer would not only be fired, but the case presented would be an assault on the defandants rights and the legal profession that anyone acting in such a manner would likely face disbarrment too boot.

That is why BOTH prosecution and defense very often create evidence based narratives in court cases.

Witness Pistorius. The Defense is not merely disagreeing with the prosecutions claim, it is making an actual counter-argument that the death was accidental.

Would Pistorius be well served at all by the claim that the defense was merely unconvinced by the prosecution's narrative?

And terein lies the rub and the reality of teh BOP belonging to BOTH sides.

Coffin VS United States
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:10:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 9:49:21 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/10/2014 5:26:23 AM, neutral wrote:
At 7/10/2014 4:25:30 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/10/2014 12:18:41 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 8:36:06 AM, Envisage wrote:
<rant>

I think Philochristos and Rationalthinker_9119 have the right idea about burden of proof in a practical sense. It's rather simple, the burden of proof is on the party to convince the opposing party of their position.

Theists are going to remain theists, and atheists are going to remain atheists until they are given reasons to believe otherwise, and both parties will have reasons why they believe (or disbelieve) as they do. It seems to me that squabbling over who has the BoP simply misses the point. Yes it is a valid philosophical proposal, that there is a default position if belief that is rational (opus propandus), much like there is a court trial, but if you feel the opus is in the wrong side in the opposition's mind, then it is your job to demonstrate it to be false, rather than just state it to be so.

Moreover both theists and atheists will often have reasons they feel accomplishes their burden of proof even if they did have it, hence whichever side of the argument you are on, if you are trying to convince your opponent, then YOU shoulder the burden of proof to convince them otherwise.

</rant>

"Yes it is a valid philosophical proposal, that there is a default position if belief that is rational (opus propandus), much like there is a court trial"

How is a Default position a valid philosophical proposal?

Because if the default position was to accept the existence of things, or accept claims a priori, then we would be in a position to be believing in a plethora of contradictory claims.

And that is where madness lies.

Only a finite, or smaller infinite number of propositions can be true, and an infinitely larger number false. Ergo, before looking at the evidence it's more rational to disbelieve than it is to believe.

Or in logical form:

A: It is more rational to believe than disbelieve (assumption)
1. If A is true, then it's rational to believe all propositions a1, a2, a3...
2. a1 is mutually exclusive to a2, a3... etc.
3. a2 is mutually exclusive to a1, a3... etc.
... Ad infinitum
C. A entails a contradiction (2&3 ad infinitum), therefore A is false

That's the reason we don't presume guilt in courtroom trials.

So we switch evidential stardards? Science doesn't presume either existence or nonexistence. Courts do not presume guilt or innocent, but state that the burden for guilt must be established to wither greater than 50% (Civil) or beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal). Very rarely is the existence of the crime itself even debated.

The real test here is what we would think of a lawyer who walked into court room and listened to the prosecution lay out strong case for the civil violation at hand, with elopquence and passion, and when the defense stood up to rebut said ... Phbt! 'I" amd not convinced and the prosecution has the burden of proof anyway! Let me define defense for you as the disbelief that crime has even been committed! And then sat down.

Said lawyer would not only be fired, but the case presented would be an assault on the defandants rights and the legal profession that anyone acting in such a manner would likely face disbarrment too boot.

That is why BOTH prosecution and defense very often create evidence based narratives in court cases.

Witness Pistorius. The Defense is not merely disagreeing with the prosecutions claim, it is making an actual counter-argument that the death was accidental.

Would Pistorius be well served at all by the claim that the defense was merely unconvinced by the prosecution's narrative?

And terein lies the rub and the reality of teh BOP belonging to BOTH sides.

Coffin VS United States

You cite a court case to make a point of Logic.

This sh!t is so simple.

Default positions are established by the system. Like axioms in different coherent logical systems. It is a false equivalency to think a principle in one logical system (ie Law, science, geometry) is logical in any system.

1. A fallacious Argument from ignorance is:

p is True because not-p is unproven
or
p is False because p is unproven.

p1: Without any evidence nothing can be proven.
p2: Without evidence makes claims unproven
c3: to assert a claim is true or false without evidence, is fallacious (argument from ignorance).

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

REFUTE this argument if you think a default position is the natural starting point to all claims!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:21:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
One can not reason with the unreasonable.

There is no discussion if one said only continues to say "i'm not convinced"

It is just beating your head against a brick wall. the brick wall being the stubborn illogical childish consistency of Atheist.

Oh yes there can be logical discussion about theology and gods/god. But that is few and far between with the consistent common Atheist diatribes and illogical being passed off as "Philosophically valid" claims of not providing any justification for the statements they make.

Even when those statements are positive.

Envisage I replied and gave you links to sources and asked for the valid logical form to be representative of your claim. Where is the answer?

You know I really do try to avoid doing this: Psalm 14:1 "For the director of music. Of David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."

Yeah I added the whole verse, deeds are vile and nothing good from such fools.

When will you debate on the topics at hand and not shift the burden of proof, when will you account for the claims you do make? Call that "philosophically valid" and "logical", no people vile deception and purpose filled delusion.

This is the easiest to refute and the simplest example of a fallacious Argument from ignorance. And yet, Atheist refuse to give a "get out free" card up. Play your silly little games. There is NO question why Atheist that debate in such manners or with such self proposed boundaries are seen as Ill repute and untrustworthy.
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:31:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:21:52 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
It is just beating your head against a brick wall. the brick wall being the stubborn illogical childish consistency of Atheist.

No need to get all bitter and twisted just cos we rejected ya. Suck it up princess.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:33:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:31:23 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:21:52 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
It is just beating your head against a brick wall. the brick wall being the stubborn illogical childish consistency of Atheist.

No need to get all bitter and twisted just cos we rejected ya. Suck it up princess.

Refute the argument. I don;t want to hear your snide and snarky comments in an attempt to bury the logic under one sentence replies.

Default positions are established by the system. Like axioms in different coherent logical systems. It is a false equivalency to think a principle in one logical system (ie Law, science, geometry) is logical in any system.

1. A fallacious Argument from ignorance is:

p is True because not-p is unproven
or
p is False because p is unproven.

p1: Without any evidence nothing can be proven.
p2: Without evidence makes claims unproven
c3: to assert a claim is true or false without evidence, is fallacious (argument from ignorance).

IS a default position like the skeptical denial of every claim logical and truthful!!

You can;t answer one post with intelligence and honest consideration troll.
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:37:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just so you notice.
I was commenting on your whiny pseudo attack on atheists.

And all you can do is come back with more whining. tsk tsk.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:45:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:37:28 AM, bulproof wrote:
Just so you notice.
I was commenting on your whiny pseudo attack on atheists.

And all you can do is come back with more whining. tsk tsk.

No I caim back with you actually refuting the argument that a default position is fallacious. And you still didn't.

Stop stating stuff in one liners as if they are a summation of truth and not the lies and deception of a poison kool -aid drinking Atheist,.
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:50:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:45:47 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:37:28 AM, bulproof wrote:
Just so you notice.
I was commenting on your whiny pseudo attack on atheists.

And all you can do is come back with more whining. tsk tsk.

No I caim back with you actually refuting the argument that a default position is fallacious. And you still didn't.

Stop stating stuff in one liners as if they are a summation of truth and not the lies and deception of a poison kool -aid drinking Atheist,.

You must have gone to newts non school of miscomprehension.

Never mind why don't you try Buddhism next. hahahahahaha.

Stop whining you're getting on my nerves, I'll start treating the way you deserve if you keep it up.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:54:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Default positions are established by the system. Like axioms in different coherent logical systems. It is a false equivalency to think a principle in one logical system (ie Law, science, geometry) is logical in another system.

1. A fallacious Argument from ignorance is:

p is True because not-p is unproven
or
p is False because p is unproven.

p1: Without any evidence nothing can be proven.
p2: Without evidence makes claims unproven
c3: to assert a claim is true or false without evidence, is fallacious (argument from ignorance).

Refute this syllogism if you think a default position is logical to every claim on any argument.