Whose Burden is it Anyway?

MS2 · **#21** by **MS2** » Oct 29, 2021 4:28 am

Greg the Grouper wrote:
MS2 wrote:I agree with you, if denying the affirmative extends only as far as saying the affirmative is not proven. However, if denying the affirmative extends to ‘You are wrong’ then I think it is shouldering some burden. When someone says ‘God exists’ without defining terms and providing evidence in support I can rightly say they haven’t proved it. If I say they are wrong then I ought to do some more work to substantiate my position (such as showing they haven’t adequately defined ‘God’). And if I say ‘God does not exist’ I think there is a burden on me to explain what I mean by that and why i believe it to be the case

I'm unsure how "You haven't defined 'God'" is substantiation of the position that 'God' doesn't exist

I didn’t say it was. I gave it as one way I could substantiate why their position is wrong. Their position being ‘God exists’.

[Edit]

hackenslash · **#22** by **hackenslash** » Oct 29, 2021 10:44 am

You didn't deliver thoughts, you delivered a bare assertion.

Aggression? Holy shit.

Greg the Grouper · **#23** by **Greg the Grouper** » Oct 29, 2021 10:49 am

MS2 wrote:
Greg the Grouper wrote:
MS2 wrote:I agree with you, if denying the affirmative extends only as far as saying the affirmative is not proven. However, if denying the affirmative extends to ‘You are wrong’ then I think it is shouldering some burden. When someone says ‘God exists’ without defining terms and providing evidence in support I can rightly say they haven’t proved it. If I say they are wrong then I ought to do some more work to substantiate my position (such as showing they haven’t adequately defined ‘God’). And if I say ‘God does not exist’ I think there is a burden on me to explain what I mean by that and why i believe it to be the case

I'm unsure how "You haven't defined 'God'" is substantiation of the position that 'God' doesn't exist

I didn’t say it was. I gave it as one way I could substantiate why their position is wrong. Their position being ‘God exists’.

[Edit]

1. You clearly said, "If I say they are wrong then I ought to do some more work to substantiate my position (such as showing they haven't adequately defined 'God')". If this was a mistake, then fine, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me you never said something when I can clearly read that you did say that exact thing.

2. I see no meaningful distinction between substantiating their position as being wrong and substantiating your position as being right when your only position is that their position is wrong.

3. Again, I fail to see how you're substantiating their position as wrong; it seems to me that you're asking them to clarify their position in this case, as it again seems as though you're unsure of what's even being discussed in this hypothetical.

archibald · **#24** by **archibald** » Apr 26, 2023 12:45 pm

romansh wrote:This seems akin to the strong and weak definitions of atheism.
The weak atheist is simply not persuaded by the evidence presented, whereas a strong atheist claiming there are no gods has been persuaded. But even then the strong atheist may have no burden of proof (if there is such a thing as proof, but that is a different thread).

Perhaps it is simple as: the burden of proof is simply on the proselytizer, theistic or otherwise......

1. "God is an idea that exists only in the minds of those who believe in god's existence"

2. "You're wrong"

I'm thinking that according to the 'rule' (regarding burden of proof) as outlined in the OP, namely "'the burden of proof is incumbent on him who affirms, not him who denies"**, only the maker of the first (affirmative) statement has that burden?

Which if true would mean that atheists may in some cases incur the burden (depending on their claim).

** Whether this rule is entirely or always fair and reasonable or not I don't know.

THWOTH · **#25** by **THWOTH** » Apr 26, 2023 8:28 pm

hackenslash wrote:In other words, the negating claim met the burden without ever having logically shouldered it.

No it didn't.

romansh · **#26** by **romansh** » Apr 28, 2023 3:59 pm

archibald wrote:I'm thinking that according to the 'rule' (regarding burden of proof) as outlined in the OP, namely "'the burden of proof is incumbent on him who affirms, not him who denies"**, only the maker of the first (affirmative) statement has that burden?

Which if true would mean that atheists may in some cases incur the burden (depending on their claim).

** Whether this rule is entirely or always fair and reasonable or not I don't know.

Which is sort of what I said. Claiming something does not exist is a positive claim in the philosophical sense.

Now a strongish atheist might claim that the Abrahamic god(s) don't exist (in a literal sense), neither do the Norse, Roman, Greek, Baltic, Hindu, Mayan and perhaps a whole raft of other gods. Now does the this atheist really need to provide arguments for their non-existence. If I am sitting quietly reading a book in my armchair ... no. If I am proselytizing perhaps not, but if I am trying to provide a rigorous argument perhaps yes.

jamest · **#27** by **jamest** » Apr 28, 2023 7:02 pm

The only satisfactory way of doing that is to prove that materialism is true, which cannot be done.

Spearthrower · **#28** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 28, 2023 7:59 pm

Not at all necessary, nor even relevant.

Gods could be false AND materialism could be false. This false dichotomy perhaps explains why you latched onto idealism, though, as you think it somehow lends credibility to a god claim you can furnish no evidence for.

And of course, attempting to 'prove things true' is best life for crime dramas rather than being a serious methodology.

jamest · **#29** by **jamest** » Apr 28, 2023 9:35 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Not at all necessary, nor even relevant.

Gods could be false AND materialism could be false. This false dichotomy perhaps explains why you latched onto idealism, though, as you think it somehow lends credibility to a god claim you can furnish no evidence for.

And of course, attempting to 'prove things true' is best life for crime dramas rather than being a serious methodology.

If matter and spacetime do not actually exist, then God must. That much seems certain, though which God we are talking about is arguable. If you have a reasonable alternative, then name it.

romansh · **#30** by **romansh** » Apr 28, 2023 9:38 pm

jamest wrote:The only satisfactory way of doing that is to prove that materialism is true, which cannot be done.

… a small frontier fortress. Admittedly the fortress is impregnable, but the garrison can never sally forth from it, therefore we can pass it by, and leave it in our rear without danger.
Arthur Schopenhauer describing solipsism

romansh · **#31** by **romansh** » Apr 28, 2023 9:41 pm

jamest wrote:
If matter and spacetime do not actually exist, then God must. That much seems certain, though which God we are talking about is arguable. If you have a reasonable alternative, then name it.

I don't see the must.

Also, you may be conflating the illusion of matter and spacetime with them not existing.

jamest · **#32** by **jamest** » Apr 28, 2023 11:23 pm

romansh wrote:
jamest wrote:
If matter and spacetime do not actually exist, then God must. That much seems certain, though which God we are talking about is arguable. If you have a reasonable alternative, then name it.

I don't see the must.

Also, you may be conflating the illusion of matter and spacetime with them not existing.

I was responding to Spearthrower's point that it may be possible that neither matter/spacetime or God(s) actually exist, but a rational alternative is inconceivable, so it must be one or the other. Hence: "If matter and spacetime do not actually exist, then God must." [is logical].

I'm all ears if you want to discuss those rational alternatives.

THWOTH · **#33** by **THWOTH** » Apr 28, 2023 11:28 pm

jamest wrote:
If matter and spacetime do not actually exist, then God must.

Nope. It's invisible pink unicorns not God.

jamest · **#34** by **jamest** » Apr 29, 2023 1:10 am

THWOTH wrote:
jamest wrote:
If matter and spacetime do not actually exist, then God must.

Nope. It's invisible pink unicorns not God.

C'mon squire, I asked for a rational alternative to the material:God issue.

As an aside, most of the matter in the universe is apparently invisible anyway: dark matter. So, it appears, the word 'invisible' is indeed acceptable to the materialistic position!!

Actually, it turns out that 'dark/invisible matter' is the necessary invention required to maintain the actual reality/cause of a material universe. A mathematical necessity. It's ironic really that you're here taking the piss, yet the physicists to which you faithfully adhere to are apparently inventing their own versions of pink unicorns in order to maintain the credibility of an actual material universe.

From a philosophical/metaphysical point of view, one must surely object to invisible entities being invented in order to maintain the credibility of a particular ontological view, because that is precisely the case here, be it of mathematical necessity or not.

How ironic that your worldview necessarily employs pink unicorns of sorts, yet you're here taking the piss. :coffee:

The_Metatron · **#35** by **The_Metatron** » Apr 29, 2023 2:40 am

Jesus. It’s a metaphor.

jamest · **#36** by **jamest** » Apr 29, 2023 2:56 am

The_Metatron wrote:Jesus. It’s a metaphor.

Is 'dark matter' a metaphor?

This is the philosophy forum, Sir, my church. If you talk shite in this place, you will be made to look like a fucking imbecile.

Spearthrower · **#37** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 29, 2023 4:00 am

jamest wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Not at all necessary, nor even relevant.

Gods could be false AND materialism could be false. This false dichotomy perhaps explains why you latched onto idealism, though, as you think it somehow lends credibility to a god claim you can furnish no evidence for.

And of course, attempting to 'prove things true' is best life for crime dramas rather than being a serious methodology.

If matter and spacetime do not actually exist, then God must.

That's an assertion entirely devoid of reason.

Plus, it has nothing at all to do with materialism.

jamest wrote:That much seems certain, though which God we are talking about is arguable. If you have a reasonable alternative, then name it.

I don't need to name anything - I am just pointing out that your argument is incoherent.

Spearthrower · **#38** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 29, 2023 4:02 am

jamest wrote:
romansh wrote:
jamest wrote:
If matter and spacetime do not actually exist, then God must. That much seems certain, though which God we are talking about is arguable. If you have a reasonable alternative, then name it.

I don't see the must.

Also, you may be conflating the illusion of matter and spacetime with them not existing.

I was responding to Spearthrower's point that it may be possible that neither matter/spacetime or God(s) actually exist, but a rational alternative is inconceivable, so it must be one or the other. Hence: "If matter and spacetime do not actually exist, then God must." [is logical].

I'm all ears if you want to discuss those rational alternatives.

Awful reasoning jamest. Stunningly bad. Certainly nothing whatsoever to do with 'logic'.

I've already given you a 'rational alternative' to the false dichotomy. Neither the god claim the materialism claim are true. Neither one is contingent on the other, and nor is it the case that one of these must be true.

Spearthrower · **#39** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 29, 2023 4:03 am

jamest wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:Jesus. It’s a metaphor.

Is 'dark matter' a metaphor?

This is the philosophy forum, Sir, my church. If you talk shite in this place, you will be made to look like a fucking imbecile.

Having just exemplified through mentally juvenile wish-thinking what looking like a fucking imbecile actually looks like.

Your church is one in which idiotic make-believe is elevated to fact because you quite fancy it, and then being an abusive cunt to everyone to distract from your failings.

Spearthrower · **#40** by **Spearthrower** » Apr 29, 2023 4:08 am

THWOTH wrote:
jamest wrote:
If matter and spacetime do not actually exist, then God must.

Nope. It's invisible pink unicorns not God.

And the harsh reality is that this is just as adequate an 'alternative' as 'god' given the exemplified 'logic'.

Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

Who is online