RE: Burden of Proof
January 7, 2013 at 3:17 pm
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2013 at 3:29 pm by Mark 13:13.)
(January 6, 2013 at 9:32 pm)FallentoReason Wrote:(January 6, 2013 at 8:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I guess you didn't read the either the quote or the wiki at all. If you demand that someone prove you wrong when you make a claim (this is whats meant by shifting the burden) then you are likely committing a logical fallacy, appeal to ignorance. This is crucial, because whoever you're speaking to might not actually know how to prove you wrong- but that won't actually make you right.
It's like when atheists whip out all my least favourite arguments about you not being able to prove them wrong that an invisible dragon isn't inhabiting their garage... therefore it exists.
Well TBH its to try and get away from that form of argument and I may make mistakes in presentation but over the debate we me resolve it. I am trying to keep it as simple as I can and to keep it on track as best I can without discussion of the implications one way or another on how the debate goes. Trying to move the discussion away to those places is just another way of skirting the debate. The previous sentence was not directed at you. sentence.
(January 7, 2013 at 4:37 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I think the "burden of proof lies with the one making the claim" ought to be an axiom. Otherwise we can conjure up a plethora of non-existent things into existence simply through our will to claim they exist -- evidence or no evidence.
Does it sound to you like the universe is governed in that manner?
Also, think about the implications of that for your belief. You ought to disprove every other god man has thought up of before you can claim yours exists AND is the true god. Are you up to that monumental challenge?
I understand your point and appreciate you sharing your thoughts which is what I hope this forum is truly about but I think ( :-) this burden of proof doesn't fully help in facilitating this and the issue of burden of proof should not be on such a high pedastal without a provable justification and not just fancyful and colourful thinking no matter how well known or respected the author of such thinking is as I said before "I think" followed by a serious number of assumptions or theories doesn't count as a proof . All proofs must start with axioms. So hence the importance of axioms.
