(February 17, 2022 at 6:01 am)Belacqua Wrote:(February 17, 2022 at 5:16 am)Cavalry Wrote: I gave a bit of reasoning to why the burden of proof is where I said it was. Not sure you if think I'm using it as you mentioned. Then again you did post "some people" use it that way, maybe you're shading someone who you don't like in hopes they are reading.
Anyway, same thing applies to proof of gods/relgion. We shouldn't try to prove "there is no god" because that's impossible, and leaves the imagination to insert any number of gods, monsters, mythical creatures. If a god is proposed, whether it be by viking pagan seers or a monotheistic prophet, the burden of proof would be on the one claiming there is a god.
Burden of proof is an important principle in the legal system. It protects the innocent.
When adults are talking in good faith, they can describe their beliefs and give reasons for them. If you feel that religious claims are something we shouldn't accept, I assume you have reasons why you think so, and can articulate these reasons. Obviously you wouldn't want to have this opinion for no reason at all.
Here I'm talking about people who are discussing what they think, not people who are trying to "win" a debate on the Internet.
If I met someone who sincerely believed in the Loch Ness Monster, I would be able to explain why I think he's probably wrong.
Yes the same or similar explanation on why they're probably wrong can be applied to other imaginative beings like god and santa.
But then they hit you with "you cannot prove there is no Loch Ness Monster" and eventually you'd need to explain to them that that's not how it works and will probably involve burden of proof being mentioned. Then in your discussion they hit you with "I'm trying to discuss not win internet debates".
