Gettin' In Tune

There seems to be a bit of confusing where the burden of proof falls when concerning beliefs in a supernatural entity and making bold claims. The burden of proof falls on someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim. They must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." When people say this, they are fallaciously shifting the burden of truth.

When anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. The less reasonable a statement seems, the more proof it requires.

A more accurate label would be a “burden of support” — the key is that a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof.

__________________
"But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."--C.Sagan

duck

At the risk of involving myself in a bad situation....

This seems to be the key. This isn't high school debate, folks. It is the internet. Regular rules generally don't apply. It is a situation where we speak our minds, and move on. True debate just isn't going to happen.

__________________
Religion: The ultimate definition of verisimilitude

greywolf90

i think i know who you're talking about. my advice is to just let it go. i've learned that no matter how much you argue, you won't get anywhere with that guy. if you've read his other threads, you'll kow what i mean. the arguing will just go on and on with no point. the things he can't respond too he just ignores. i realized that nothing i said will change his mind so there's no point in me saying anything.

Gettin' In Tune

I don't understand.

I agree to point. If people want to make claims, they should keep in mind that they have to support them. We all have the potential to be opiniated and sometimes say things without a mental filter, but making claims requiresevidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Your power of observation is impressive

Honestly, this is not aimed at anyone. There seems to be some theists in this forum and agnostic-theists (a term that does not make sense). I am perfectly fine conversing with these individuals. I do not put up uneccessary walls if people believe differently from me. I lack a belief in a personal god or any god from theological texts. The burden of proof is not on me when I say that their god does not exist.

This is frustrating.

__________________
"But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."--C.Sagan

duck

What I was saying was that I have been observing some of the comments and conversations that we tend to get into, and there is a point that you throw up your hands and walk away.

When these "debates" become heated, then it has become a no win, bad situation.

Edit: I do it, too. :dunno:

__________________
Religion: The ultimate definition of verisimilitude

The An-Jel

Lots of arguments about God are simply unprovable true hence why lots of us are Agnostics. The framework of this forum is based on it. While all of us have ideas and good ideas nothing is actually provable. We can all see the stars shine but to declare they are of any significance other than able to fry the skin from bone is beyond our comprehension as of yet. True?

__________________
"And let there be Light!" said the Blind man.

Life is simple, people make it complicated - Basilisk

Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti - Royal Gibraltar Regiment

Skepticologist

The above-captioned subject is of intense interest to me, and I hope to explore it more deeply in days to come.

But I already know that a person can believe anything he or she wants to believe, and wants is the operative phrase. If you want to believe something, for one or more myriad reasons, and despite gobs of empirical evidence to the contrary, you can easily do so. There is no burden of proof imposed on those who ignore empirical evidence, until they begin to attempt to convince others to accept their beliefs.

That's exactly why I've adopted the guiding principle that I will believe nothing unless it makes sense to me, and making sense necessarily entails empirical evidence leading to a logical conclusion.

Adopting that principle, by definition, negates the probability that I'll end my life with even the pretense of having the answers to many "core" questions, but that's the price you pay for being an agnostic. It's not always gratifying, but it's a hell of a lot better than chasing my tail.

__________________
"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of."

Clarence Darrow

Searcher

Interesting stuff. Putting some specific examples in here, its not as clear to me as it seems to be to you. for example...

I would interpret your post along the lines of Richard Dawkins' comment that it is not up to him to disprove God, but up to others to prove His existence. Well, I disagree with both to some extent. Some things just aren't proveable - it's all very well saying "It up to you to prove it" but that only applies to him. To someone else who currently believes and sees harmony between science and their religion, they would view his Atheistic point of view as equally unproveable therefore ecually invalid/valid, by his own argument.

I suspect you and I are in agreement, that in order for us to Believe, we want to see some real proof. I also think we have both accepted that is highly unlikely, probably impossible, and that how that affects us determines where we go from here.

This, I quite strongly disagree with. Unless I misinterpret you. People only believe that they believe. Sometimes they have been so convinced of a belief they may not hear the evidence, but that's different to suddenly believing something despite proof to the contrary, which seems to be what you're suggesting? My wife sometimes suggests I ask God to answer my questions. I can onyl tell her, how can I in good faith and with integrity ask that of something I don't even know I believe in? From a logical point of view it makes perfect sense, but it just doesn't feel right.

For example, I would actually quite like to believe that Christianity is 100% true. That Jesus was Divine, God takes a personal interest in all of us, and is benevolent and loving. I know my wife would like me to, as would my mother. and I see plenty of good things that might come from me 'taking the leap'. But I don't really believe it all, because that doesn't seem to be how my mind works. I want to see all sides of the subject, review the evidence for all sides including atheism and other religions, and see if any of it alters my beliefs.

I just try to be open minded without letting one good argument prevent me from challenging it. I am naturally hopeful investigations will lead me towards where I would like to go - but by no means is that certain, and indeed I am searching out the alternatives for due consideration, and until I truly feel convinced of whatever evidences present themselves I will not say I believe.

I am surely not the only one to think this way?

Gettin' In Tune

I am an atheist. I ask you to define god. Is god a thunder deity, a transcendental creator, or something that we cannot ultimately have knowledge of?

Unless god lives beyond our senses, which you cannot prove, we should be able to test for god. I have tested for Thor, Ra, and the beloved Christian God. They do not exist.

Agnosticism is not a half belief or a middle ground. It is a stance on knowledge.

No you don't.

Welcome to atheism. Now it is up to you if you want to make in benevolent or malevolent.

The burden of proof is on you to prove any god concept.

__________________
"But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."--C.Sagan

Searcher

I would define God as a being which lives outside of all laws of science. It would be supernatural in every sense. It set those laws of science, knowing how they would result in what we see today. To to be of any interest and consequence whatsoever it must also be able to intervene and break those laws should it wish to do so, and interact in our lives in some way.

Given your signature, I find this very interesting. To me, you are stating a definite fact, that you have definite proof that none of the above exist. Personally I am not that certain about anything at all, and I don't expect others to be either. May I enquire which test you used?

It obviously must by defintion live beyond our realm of science, therefore beyond our senses. It doesn't matter if I can prove this as it is unproveable, as you said. This is the belief and faith part, and why each person has an individual opinion. Some people take a lot more convincing than others, that's all. Personally, I take quite a lot of convincing of anything (existene and non-existence alike) and don't accept what someone says unless I feel I understand it and it makes sense to me.

To me Agnosticism seems to be the 'label' that best suits me, although I don't entirely like to label myself at all. My understanding is that while individual certainty may be possible, I personally have no knowledge. I guess the closest thing is weak agnosticism, although I am tending towards thinking by my own definition God must also be unproveable, so maybe strong agnosticism. Either way I accept it as possible, but do not feel I have sufficient knowledge one way or another to declare it as true or not true. I feel both sides have an equal need to compell.

Either way, if you do have true definitive knowledge (rather than just a very strong opinion) on this matter, I would really love to see what led you to this factual conclusion. Most likely millions of other people would also. It would need to be a lot more convincing than Dawkins' arguments to persuade me though. Not that you have to, but just as you say the burden of proof is on me to prove God, in may case that applies to you, not to me. I'm not demanding or expecting anyone prove anything, I just want to understand more and am happy to talk things through with people.

Interesting statement of fact. Im intrigued as to why you seem so confident to know me so well as to tell me what I want and don't want. I'd love to have that sort of confidence in my beliefs. Can you tell me if I want a cup of lemon juice right now?

My interpretation here is that you believe my investigation will result in atheism, correct? I can only assume you say this because you had some similar journey and have arrived at that conclusion. If that works for you, then I commend and admire you. However the evidence I have seen so far shows other people's investigations to lead in the opposite direction. I have no more reason to believe you, than I do to believe them. Either way I'm not going to follow blindly, which is why I challenge you on these subjects. Its very interesting to me.

And again, please explain why I should feel burdened by anything here? To justify myself to you? To persuade you? I feel none of these burdens. If you have serious questions you would genuinely like to see answers to I would be happy to try and answer them, and for you to challenge them in return, so together we might learn from each other.

However, this seems unlikely to me as you have such a strong opinion already - are you also just believing what you want to believe? And not seeing the evidence, because you don't want to see it? To me this whole argument seems to work both ways. If not, then I'd like to see where I am going wrong.


Maybe we can agree, that the burden of proof lies with those who seek to change others' minds? Your original posts lack context, to me. Personally, I have no such goal. Thus, I feel no burden whatsoever to do anything, to prove or disprove anything to you. I have my opinions, upon which I will base my beliefs, but that is only your business if you choose to make it so and show an interest in them. I would only wish to try and help someone who wants to be helped, and asks me (or in this case the community) questions, In that case I would venture an opinion - but it would only be an opinion, and I would accept that. If people make interesting statements I don't understand I will challenge them so they can improve my own knowledge with their responses, if they wish to do so.