Burden of Proof

[The Grand Nudger]

Those are our choices eh? Couldn't possibly be that you didn't understand what the burden of proof was, could it.

Mark, what is the burden of proof? What does it mean to "shift the burden of proof"?

[Mark 13:13]

in reality I don't want to pass any burden of proof ; i just don't see it as relevant in a healthy discussion and exchange of ideas in the topics we tend to discuss because common sense tell us the proving or disproving the existance of a Transendental God is impossable and to ask either side to accept the burden of proof is to ask them to accept this impossable task.

That's good, because to do so would render whatever argument you offered invalid. That's precisely what makes it relevant. Impossible? See, thats the trouble that making claims like this runs into. Perhaps you're simply incapable, or no one has properly formed the argument. Your inability to do so doesn't make it impossible, in the same way that others inability to do so doesn't make it impossible. Your inability to do so simply betrays your inability to meet the burden of proof. If you aren't willing or able to meet the burden of proof for a given claim then you should simply avoid making the claim. If you absolutely cannot help but make the claim - but you you cannot meet the burden of proof, it will be dismissed on those grounds.

If it were possible we would not be having this discussion. The fact is very intelligent people on both sides of this have all been able to hold to their belief or lack of belief in spite of burden of proof and were able to make up their own minds up without referencing the concept until afterwards. Both sides and some very notable people who were champions of one side or other have changed sides.

People believe things for which they cannot offer a logical argument. Many people believe (or cease to believe) many things.

it is true that in many of the systems ,but not all as I have shown 1 that it is generally accepted , but that is my point accepted (not proven). But it does not have to be accepted especially if neither party is actually trying to actually prove a claim.

No, it doesn't have to be accepted, you can make invalid arguments all day long, but if you're going to try to prove something (say, the veracity of a claim), you'll have to accept that you cannot do so by means of invalid arguments.You can claim for the sake of claiming all day long, if you like, as well.

I can understand the idea that if you are going to make a claim that is going to have a significant impact on someones else life in the real world it is reasonable that the burden of proof be established if by acting on that claim changes that may be seen by one party to be detrimental to another, burden of proof may be an issue that needs addressing but as I have already shown it can be addressed in more ways than 1. But really is it of so much importance on this forum that it can't be put aside to facilitate a more lively and interesting discussion, are we really expecting life changing events to be caused by our banter.

Sure, I can put aside the fact that logical fallacies render arguments invalid, so long as you can put aside any pretense to logic or reason in making them.

AM I really being so unreasonable. ( can I even ask that question without someone analysing it for logical fallacies or wanting a definition of unreasonable ).

Yes, you are being extremely unreasonable, in that you are insisting that an argument which leverages logical fallacies be treated as though it were not invalid (or at least be spared the embarrassment of being exposed as such). That's pretty damned "unreasonable" wouldn't you say?

Well if you can find a human being that lives their lives on pure logic as the only process for decision making then you have found a robot, and for some strange reason robotic intelligence is still far behind ours. Logic cannot prove logic so there is no reason to put all our trust in logic.

---

By the way i'm not accepting that you have proved that the burden of proof belongs to the person asserting the claim just that by using all the decision making skills at my disposal that either no one is willing to prove it or no one is able to prove it so to continue would be a waste of time. And I am asserting that claim with no proof.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

Well if you can find a human being that lives their lives on pure logic as the only process for decision making then you have found a robot, and for some strange reason robotic intelligence is still far behind ours. Logic cannot prove logic so there is no reason to put all our trust in logic.

---

I assure you that I can't find such a person, I wouldn't even know what to look for. I'm certainly no such person myself. "Robotic intelligence" may be behind ours, sure, especially if we're the ones setting the criteria, but that doesn't mean that they aren't more capable at logic than ourselves. Play a little minecraft with me, I'll show you machine logic that cannot make a mistake - I'm the only one (between the machine and I) that can insert error into the system...lol.

Logic cannot prove logic? You know, I get the impression that you regard logic as some alien or manufactured thing, which in a sense is true. We did manufacture the terms, the system. But it is a descriptive system (remeber our discussion about the number 2 in a different thread?)- it conforms to how our universe seems to behave. So if you were so inclined, you could actually observe the "laws" of logic at work in the physical world. It didn't come to us in a flash either, we gradually discovered it (making mistakes along the way - most of them what we now call fallacies). You don't have to put all of your trust into logic, true, but what compelled you to use the word "reason" while arguing against trusting logic? Don't get me wrong, in a way you and I could find common ground here, there may be some part of our system that we have ass backwards (it's happened before..fallacies, remember)....but I still trust it - I wouldn't go so far as to put faith in it (but I have a habit of reserving faith...so...), but trust, sure.

[Mark 13:13]

---

Well if you can find a human being that lives their lives on pure logic as the only process for decision making then you have found a robot, and for some strange reason robotic intelligence is still far behind ours. Logic cannot prove logic so there is no reason to put all our trust in logic.

---

I assure you that I can't find such a person, I wouldn't even know what to look for. I'm certainly no such person myself. "Robotic intelligence" may be behind ours, sure, especially if we're the ones setting the criteria, but that doesn't mean that they aren't more capable at logic than ourselves. Play a little minecraft with me, I'll show you machine logic that cannot make a mistake - I'm the only one (between the machine and I) that can insert error into the system...lol.

Logic cannot prove logic? You know, I get the impression that you regard logic as some alien or manufactured thing, which in a sense is true. We did manufacture the terms, the system. But it is a descriptive system (remeber our discussion about the number 2 in a different thread?)- it conforms to how our universe seems to behave. So if you were so inclined, you could actually observe the "laws" of logic at work in the physical world. It didn't come to us in a flash either, we gradually discovered it (making mistakes along the way - most of them what we now call fallacies). You don't have to put all of your trust into logic, true, but what compelled you to use the word "reason" while arguing against trusting logic?

Without wanting to start another debate so soon ; of course i accept logic; I accept science ; I accept many things ; I just consider that different tools are required for different jobs and sometimes multiple tools needed for some. Remember the position most theists have when it comes to this level of discussion is that of course logic and science could work but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist as how could we ever function and develop if there were no rules, if nothing was predictable. There are some who would try and argue that this could be used as a proof ( but my instinct says they are expecting too much as proof ) but could be used as a part of evidence when presenting a case for the Theist Model (lets call it)

[The Grand Nudger]

Glad that you can accept these things, I take it this means that you wont be claiming that the burden of proof hasn't been proven anymore.

Some do make that argument about their god, and they embarrass themselves in doing so. I'm glad you're not one of those people.......

[Cinjin]

AM I really being so unreasonable. ( can I even ask that question without someone analysing it for logical fallacies or wanting a definition of unreasonable ).

Yes, you are being extremely unreasonable, in that you are insisting that an argument which leverages logical fallacies be treated as though it were not invalid (or at least be spared the embarrassment of being exposed as such). That's pretty damned "unreasonable" wouldn't you say?

This.

Not gonna lie Mark -- I have no clue what you are trying to get at.

no worries it seems no on else does ; and many that do don't want to either.

Totally biased assessment. The burden of proof rests squarely where it belongs. It has nothing to do with what I might "want." Scroll up and read Rhythms post again for any questions.

[Mark 13:13]

Glad that you can accept these things, I take it this means that you wont be claiming that the burden of proof hasn't been proven anymore.

Some do make that argument about their god, and they embarrass themselves in doing so. I'm glad you're not one of those people.......

i will stick to something i can't prove but I know to be true " I will not accept that the burden of proof always rests with the person making the claim" i will not ask or give any proof for that lol. I will therefore avoid making claims but rather statements of belief but of course If my opponent believes the issue of burden of proof then in respect for their belief I will feel able to should it suit my purposes to ask them for proof should they assert claims.

[Cyberman]

Then, sir, you are a hypocrite.

[Mark 13:13]

Then, sir, you are a hypocrite.

Yes true thats why I was uncomfortable saying even as a wind up, so as i'm not really a hypocrite i will recant the second part of the statement that was really srt of jesting hence the devil icon

[Cinjin]

i will stick to something i can't prove but I know to be true " I will not accept that the burden of proof always rests with the person making the claim" i will not ask or give any proof for that lol. I will therefore avoid making claims but rather statements of belief but of course If my opponent believes the issue of burden of proof then in respect for their belief I will feel able to should it suit my purposes to ask them for proof. should they make claims

I'd like to tell you all something that I know to be true:

The movie The Matrix had fictional characters yes, but like Titanic, those fictional characters are based on the reality of the human condition. That's right, we are all currently living in a computer program. There is nothing we can do about it. Our minds our locked into a super sophisticated computer program and I really have no doubt of this. I would now like to shift the burden of proof to whomever reads this sentence. Mark has shown me the light with his special pleading and I WILL NOT be bullied into providing any evidence for such claims. It's only logical.

Now lets just rest and wait for our invitations to the big party in Zion. The prophecies foretold it.