Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(March 9, 2017 at 8:55 pm)Nonpareil Wrote: If someone claims that a deity exists that flooded the world for forty days, and we can establish that the world was never flooded for forty days, then we have established that the claimed deity does not exist.
We have done so.
Said deity does not exist.
That doesn't follow.
Yes, it does.
(March 10, 2017 at 12:39 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: If I claim that I was streaking through the streets of Shanghai today at noon. If you demonstrate that the claim is false; and I never left good old Penn's Woods. It doesn't follow that I do not exist.
Of course it doesn't. But that's not what I said.
If someone claims that a person exists - not you, not anyone specific, just a person - who went streaking through Shanghai today at noon, and we demonstrated that there were no streakers in Shanghai at noon today, then we know that the claimed person who went streaking through Shanghai today at noon does not exist.
In the same way, when it is claimed that a deity exists who flooded the world for forty days, and it is demonstrated that this never happened, we know that the claimed deity does not exist.
Now, this does not mean that we have demonstrated that there is no deity in existence. But it does mean that this specific claimed entity with defined characteristics that are demonstrably untrue does not exist. Even if a deity is later shown to exist, it would not be the one that was claimed.
Before you say it: yes, this is an extremely narrow conclusion. It is not meant to be anything but narrow, but it is still important to point out.
"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
(March 10, 2017 at 12:39 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: That doesn't follow.
Yes, it does.
(March 10, 2017 at 12:39 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: If I claim that I was streaking through the streets of Shanghai today at noon. If you demonstrate that the claim is false; and I never left good old Penn's Woods. It doesn't follow that I do not exist.
Of course it doesn't. But that's not what I said.
If someone claims that a person exists - not you, not anyone specific, just a person - who went streaking through Shanghai today at noon, and we demonstrated that there were no streakers in Shanghai at noon today, then we know that the claimed person who went streaking through Shanghai today at noon does not exist.
In the same way, when it is claimed that a deity exists who flooded the world for forty days, and it is demonstrated that this never happened, we know that the claimed deity does not exist.
Now, this does not mean that we have demonstrated that there is no deity in existence. But it does mean that this specific claimed entity with defined characteristics that are demonstrably untrue does not exist. Even if a deity is later shown to exist, it would not be the one that was claimed.
Before you say it: yes, this is an extremely narrow conclusion. It is not meant to be anything but narrow, but it is still important to point out.
How does changing it to some person; change the logic involved.
(March 4, 2017 at 7:18 pm)Mechaghostman2 Wrote: So here Neil DeGrasse Tyson comments that disproving god is similar in disproving a bear in your backyard. If you see no evidence for something, then that counts as evidence against it, until further evidence is presented.
Something like Gods is not as foolish as you may think:
(1) There is exponential technological change.
(2) We can yield sophisticated (but crude universe simulations)
(3) The simulations in 2 get better and better, on (1)
(4) There is no law of physics that says technological change will stop, i.e., no law that says we can't simulate an accurately detailed universe, with conscious beings.
(5) Therefore something like god (ourselves actually) is not a foolish proposition.
March 10, 2017 at 1:51 am (This post was last modified: March 10, 2017 at 1:51 am by Nonpareil.)
(March 10, 2017 at 1:21 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: How does changing it to some person; change the logic involved.
I just explained how.
The question that I am talking about is "does an entity with this specific characteristic exist?". The question that you posited was "does this existent entity have this specific characteristic?". They are not equivalent.
"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
March 10, 2017 at 9:27 am (This post was last modified: March 10, 2017 at 9:41 am by AceBoogie.)
(March 10, 2017 at 12:39 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: What you suppose about me, my intentions or my character has nothing to do with the arguments which you mostly ignored. Arguments and reasons are just as valid, whether they come from a PHD, a bum on the street, an atheist or a Christian. You seem to be going out in all directions, to avoid what is being discussed about the OP. I'm not falling for that bait!
The burden of proof simply states that one making a claim is responsible for supporting that claim. Both sides in a discussion can have their own burden of proof for opposing claims. However for the one who is not making a claim, doubt is the default position, until sufficient reason to confirm or deny is provided. This is because the default position is ignorance, and the skeptic isn't required to justify their doubt. They are not accepting as true, or denying as false, without reason to do so.
And as I stated before, if by "deny", you really mean "doubt", and are not making a claim, then I agree with you, but perhaps you should choose your words more wisely.
As to the claim that I am shifting the burden of proof; we can easily test this. You just need to provide the claim of mine (in the context of this discussion), which I am not answering, but saying that you must show it is false. You on the other hand, seem to want to deny and make claims, and expect me to accept them, until I prove you wrong. So who is "shifting the burden of proof"
Jesus fucking christ. You should be a politician.
This is like talking to a wall.
Honestly, let's clear the mud here. What exactly is your point rr? What is it you're trying to say? Let's start all over so we can really get down to what it is that you're trying to convince us of here.
You're saying that denying a claim is the same as making a claim, right?
“Love is the only bow on Life’s dark cloud. It is the morning and the evening star. It shines upon the babe, and sheds its radiance on the quiet tomb. It is the mother of art, inspirer of poet, patriot and philosopher.
It is the air and light of every heart – builder of every home, kindler of every fire on every hearth. It was the first to dream of immortality. It fills the world with melody – for music is the voice of love.
Love is the magician, the enchanter, that changes worthless things to Joy, and makes royal kings and queens of common clay. It is the perfume of that wondrous flower, the heart, and without that sacred passion, that divine swoon, we are less than beasts; but with it, earth is heaven, and we are gods.” - Robert. G. Ingersoll
March 10, 2017 at 10:40 am (This post was last modified: March 10, 2017 at 10:41 am by RoadRunner79.)
(March 10, 2017 at 9:27 am)AceBoogie Wrote:
(March 10, 2017 at 12:39 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
What you suppose about me, my intentions or my character has nothing to do with the arguments which you mostly ignored. Arguments and reasons are just as valid, whether they come from a PHD, a bum on the street, an atheist or a Christian. You seem to be going out in all directions, to avoid what is being discussed about the OP. I'm not falling for that bait!
The burden of proof simply states that one making a claim is responsible for supporting that claim. Both sides in a discussion can have their own burden of proof for opposing claims. However for the one who is not making a claim, doubt is the default position, until sufficient reason to confirm or deny is provided. This is because the default position is ignorance, and the skeptic isn't required to justify their doubt. They are not accepting as true, or denying as false, without reason to do so.
And as I stated before, if by "deny", you really mean "doubt", and are not making a claim, then I agree with you, but perhaps you should choose your words more wisely.
As to the claim that I am shifting the burden of proof; we can easily test this. You just need to provide the claim of mine (in the context of this discussion), which I am not answering, but saying that you must show it is false. You on the other hand, seem to want to deny and make claims, and expect me to accept them, until I prove you wrong. So who is "shifting the burden of proof"
Jesus fucking christ. You should be a politician.
This is like talking to a wall.
Honestly, let's clear the mud here. What exactly is your point rr? What is it you're trying to say? Let's start all over so we can really get down to what it is that you're trying to convince us of here.
You're saying that denying a claim is the same as making a claim, right?
I bolded your statement above.... this is a correct assessment of what I am saying (as I have stated previously).
Denying or saying that something is false, is making a claim, and carries with that a burden of proof. You are taking a position, and are thus required to support that position.
Doubt or skepticism on the other hand is neutral or a lack of a position. You are neither confirming or denying the thing in question. This doesn't carry a burden of proof, and doesn't require justification. This is because you are not really saying anything about the object in question but about yourself.
If you are making a claim, then you have a burden of proof. Pointing this out is not shifting the burden of proof. If you are merely expressing doubt and not making a claim, then that doesn't need supported.
I watched a little bit of the video.... Off hand, I didn't see anything that goes against what I am saying. However if they are saying that you can make a claim, and not have a burden of proof, they are incorrect.
March 10, 2017 at 10:47 am (This post was last modified: March 10, 2017 at 10:50 am by Mister Agenda.)
RoadRunner79 Wrote:How does changing it to some person; change the logic involved.
If you claim to be a person who streaked in the desert and you did not streak in the desert, then you are actually not a person who streaked in the desert. You are not the entity you claimed to be.
If I say I know a guy who streaked in the desert on Tuesday and you can verify that no one streaked in the desert on Tuesday, then I actually don't know a guy who streaked in the desert on Tuesday, even if that guy was Joe, and he told me he did it, and I totally believed him and Joe really exists, he's not a guy who streaked in the desert on Tuesday, which is who I said I knew, and that guy doesn't actually exist. No guy who is supposed to have streaked through the desert on Tuesday actually exists, because it didn't happen.
If I'm trying to convince you that Joe is real, I need to ditch the streaking through the desert story, which is easy for me, because it's not like it's holy scripture or anything.
(March 10, 2017 at 10:40 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I bolded your statement above.... this is a correct assessment of what I am saying (as I have stated previously).
Denying or saying that something is false, is making a claim, and carries with that a burden of proof. You are taking a position, and are thus required to support that position.
Doubt or skepticism on the other hand is neutral or a lack of a position. You are neither confirming or denying the thing in question. This doesn't carry a burden of proof, and doesn't require justification. This is because you are not really saying anything about the object in question but about yourself.
If you are making a claim, then you have a burden of proof. Pointing this out is not shifting the burden of proof. If you are merely expressing doubt and not making a claim, then that doesn't need supported.
I watched a little bit of the video.... Off hand, I didn't see anything that goes against what I am saying. However if they are saying that you can make a claim, and not have a burden of proof, they are incorrect.
If you don't want to believe me, I would suggest that you do some research, and think through why the burden of proof is what it is.
You ever been to a spin class?
“Love is the only bow on Life’s dark cloud. It is the morning and the evening star. It shines upon the babe, and sheds its radiance on the quiet tomb. It is the mother of art, inspirer of poet, patriot and philosopher.
It is the air and light of every heart – builder of every home, kindler of every fire on every hearth. It was the first to dream of immortality. It fills the world with melody – for music is the voice of love.
Love is the magician, the enchanter, that changes worthless things to Joy, and makes royal kings and queens of common clay. It is the perfume of that wondrous flower, the heart, and without that sacred passion, that divine swoon, we are less than beasts; but with it, earth is heaven, and we are gods.” - Robert. G. Ingersoll
