(July 9, 2019 at 10:04 pm)wyzas Wrote:(July 9, 2019 at 9:33 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: If someone has a claim that they propose I adopt as true, they carry the burden of proof. I have no reason to accept their claim as true unless I find the proof they offer satisfactory. We agree there, right?
But that's what I'm, saying, Brew. No one can offer satisfactory proof that giant invisible creator leprechauns don't exist. People who say, "I have no reason whatsoever to believe that giant creator leprechauns exist" are highly reasonable. But people who say, "I know that giant creator leprechauns don't exist" (while also very reasonable) have no basis for the knowledge they claim. The claim that "giant creator leprechauns don't exist" is a positive claim. If you say that, you carry the burden of proof. And (as reasonable as it is to deny the existence of giant creator leprechauns) the claim that they do not exist is just as completely unfounded as the claim that they do.
This isn't lending the leprechaun hypothesis undue credence. It's honestly stating what you do and do not know.
Ah, you don't accept the claim as true without proof/evidence yet you seem to not be able to claim it as false. That is lending credence in my book.
Do you take this position with people who are actively delusional or hallucinating (medically)? In my world I have to be able to deny claims that are mental constructs and state that they do not exist (except as mental constructs).
I completely understand your position but I can't operate in a strictly philosophical world.
Delusion of a few = mental illness
Delusion of many = organized religion, which insists on being respected.
