(March 21, 2019 at 2:05 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(March 20, 2019 at 11:20 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: @Belaqua

The thing is, if you’re going to propose an alternative method for ascertaining facts about a particular subject, you have to...ya know...describe the actual method, and provide support for how you’ve determined it’s accurate.  Logical arguments depend on the soundness of their premises, and soundness requires demonstration.

Right, logic requires sound premises. People disagree on which premises are sound. 

But I really don't intend to get into discussing the arguments with you. I've done this on various Internet sites, including the infamous The [S]inking Atheist now-defunct forum, and had no luck at all. People get emotional and angry even when I try to differentiate an essential causal series from a temporal one. I don't believe anymore that such arguments can be had on sites like this. 

But I hope we can agree that the premises on which both atheists and believers operate are things that can be challenged, defended, and discussed. That is the point I have been trying to stick to. Just that both sides have reasons, and both sides have a burden of proof. The statement "you have no evidence" is not an unchallengeable statement when 99% of people in world history have thought they had evidence.

Of course you don't intend on discussing the various arguments for god, because there aren't any logically sound arguments, which is the point LadyForCamus was trying to get across to you. If there was a logically sound argument for god you would be presenting it and apologists around the world would be touting it. If you have evidence for god then present it, if you have reasoned argument for god then present it, but don't pretend that  "believing in a magic being" and "not believing in a magic being" are equally rational and reasonable positions.

(March 21, 2019 at 6:01 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: If there was a logically sound argument for god you would be presenting it

You're calling me a liar here. I don't want to go into the arguments because people flip out. I've tried many times. 

I am not claiming there is a logically sound argument. I have said over and over that I am not aware of why some of the arguments are unsound. I asked one guy a day or two ago, and although he had asserted confidently that a certain argument had been completely refuted, he preferred to insult and refused to explain. He refused to accept the burden of proof for his assertion. 

For some reason no one called him out on that. 

Quote:If you have evidence for god then present it, if you have reasoned argument for god then present it, but don't pretend that  "believing in a magic being" and "not believing in a magic being" are equally rational and reasonable positions.

I've never been interested in the "magic being" concepts of God. Those are what Blake calls Nobodaddy. The God of Plato, Aristotle, Gregory Chrystosum, Dante, Boehme, Blake, and others is very different. It's been difficult for me to talk here about any version of God that isn't Tyrant Sky-Daddy, because that is what anti-religion people here like to talk about. 

By the way, did you see my question before? You asked about why you would have a burden of proof in rejecting an assertion, and I asked if you had any reason why you rejected that assertion.

(March 21, 2019 at 5:50 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(March 21, 2019 at 5:46 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: If you say "a god exists" and i say "I don't believe you" what burden of proof could I possibly have?

Why don't you believe that proposition? Do you have a reason?

You haven't met your burden of proof therefore I don't believe you. I asked what burden of proof i would have for not believing your claim, you didn't answer that question.

(March 21, 2019 at 6:30 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(March 21, 2019 at 5:50 am)Belaqua Wrote: Why don't you believe that proposition? Do you have a reason?

You haven't met your burden of proof therefore I don't believe you. 

By what standards do you judge that the burden of proof hasn't been met?

Is there any standard that a profession of belief satisfies?  Asking what standards you have failed to meet in this hypothetical is pointless precisely because nothing beyond a profession of belief was offered.  

The only burden a person who says "I don't believe you" could possibly have..is proving that they don't believe you.

(March 21, 2019 at 6:38 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(March 21, 2019 at 6:30 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: You haven't met your burden of proof therefore I don't believe you. 

By what standards do you judge that the burden of proof hasn't been met?

By the consensus of experts in any particular field of study.

(March 21, 2019 at 7:46 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(March 21, 2019 at 6:38 am)Belaqua Wrote: By what standards do you judge that the burden of proof hasn't been met?

By the consensus of experts in any particular field of study.

That's reasonable. I assume that experts are experts because they have studied the field and don't make up their minds lightly. They have solid justifications for their conclusions. 

So for example, if all the experts in a given field (say, biology) apply the same standards they are likely to reach agreement. In biology, the standards would probably be the usual scientific ones: empirical evidence which is intersubjectively repeatable and quantifiable. 

Now suppose you wanted to apply the same standards to religious claims. Is this appropriate? Experts in the field of philosophy, particularly metaphysics, say it is not. Because since the time of Plato God has been conceived of and argued about as a non-material, even a noetic, thingy. These experts hold that God, if such a thing exists, is not detectable or researchable by scientific standards. And there are elaborate arguments to that effect. 

If someone (say, Mr. Wizard) wanted to argue that only scientific standards should apply to questions about God, he would find that the experts disagree with him. Then if he were serious about proving his point, he would have to show that his standards of judgment are the best ones. He would have to meet some burden of proof to show that the way he is judging is a good way.

(March 21, 2019 at 2:05 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(March 20, 2019 at 11:20 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: @Belaqua

The thing is, if you’re going to propose an alternative method for ascertaining facts about a particular subject, you have to...ya know...describe the actual method, and provide support for how you’ve determined it’s accurate.  Logical arguments depend on the soundness of their premises, and soundness requires demonstration.

Right, logic requires sound premises. People disagree on which premises are sound. 

But I really don't intend to get into discussing the arguments with you. I've done this on various Internet sites, including the infamous The [S]inking Atheist now-defunct forum, and had no luck at all. People get emotional and angry even when I try to differentiate an essential causal series from a temporal one. I don't believe anymore that such arguments can be had on sites like this. 

But I hope we can agree that the premises on which both atheists and believers operate are things that can be challenged, defended, and discussed. That is the point I have been trying to stick to. Just that both sides have reasons, and both sides have a burden of proof. The statement "you have no evidence" is not an unchallengeable statement when 99% of people in world history have thought they had evidence.

I am not interested in discussing the details of logical arguments either, for the reason I stated above.  You can't logic a being into existence.  You need to define it first, before you get to the work of arguing it exists.  But, I notice you continue to avoid answering my question to you:

If the scientific method is the wrong method for investigating whether or not a god exists, what is the alternative method of investigation that you are proposing in its place, and how have you determined that it's a reliable method that will yield facts and information that accurately reflect reality? Logical arguments do not function as fact-gathering tools. They begin with assumptions that, if sound, will be fact-based, and yield conclusions from there.  I want to know what method of information gathering we will use to try and discover if a god exists, if we can't use the scientific method. If you asked me if I have any trees in my backyard, and if so, what type of trees are they, I would have a way to investigate that. I would go outside, look for trees, take notes on their appearance, color, shape of leaves, any fruit or buddings, color and texture of the bark, etc, and then use that information to answer your question. That's the beauty of the scientific method. If you ask if god exists, and what is he like, how should I go about answering that question without using any tools of the scientific method, and how do I know if the information I gathered is accurate?

I have no burden of proof, as I am not making any claims, and by the way, you don't get to point to people's "evidence" for god, while simultaneously discounting the scientific method, lol.  If you're talking about evidence, you're talking about science.  Wanna take a third crack at it, or...? Lol

(March 18, 2019 at 7:13 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(March 18, 2019 at 6:18 am)Catharsis Wrote: Any reason which causes disbelief would be intellectual dishonesty.

Reason does not cause disbelief. Such claims are ridiculous.

And you don't justify your disbelief, rudeness and hate with claims of being reasonable.

To be fair, there are some people here who claim their lack of belief is not a reasoned result at all. It results from no reasons and is based on no knowledge or claims.

I wasn't programmed to believe as a child, so I never bothered with beliefs. Yes, that's not a reasoned position, but I don't have to defend it. If someone has real evidence for a god or gods, trot it out.

(March 21, 2019 at 8:04 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Logical arguments do not function as fact-gathering tools. They begin with assumptions that, if sound, will be fact-based, and yield conclusions from there.

For example, Aristotle's whole argument for a First Mover begins from two premises: 

1) things change, and 
2) change is caused by something. 

Those seemed self-evident to people for a long time. The rest of the argument pretty much goes from there, without the need for more premises. 

I understand that people now tend to think the second premise is not believable. Maybe so. 

Quote:If you're talking about evidence, you're talking about science.

This is your metaphysical commitment. I guess it seems so self-evident to you that it needs no defending. I'm not going to argue with you about it.

By the way, does your screen name refer to Albert Camus? Have you ever read his book Christian Metaphysics and Neoplatonism? I found that really helpful at one point in my career. Atheists really knew what they were talking about in those days.