Burden of Proof

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

You're likely to have a difficult time describing how you've come to know something that you can't prove. This is disappointing, contrary to your last post, you don't accept logic after all. The burden of proof is not an issue of belief, but it does seem to be a very common habit from the theist end of the aisle to interpret everything as a belief (perhaps because -belief- is very important to them, or perhaps because they recognize the weakness of -belief- in an argument, or any number of things really, but those are the two I'm inclined to go with).

[Mark 13:13]

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.

You're likely to have a difficult time describing how you've come to know something that you can't prove. This is disappointing, contrary to your last post, you don't accept logic after all. The burden of proof is not an issue of belief, but it does seem to be a very common habit from the theist end of the aisle to interpret everything as a belief (perhaps because -belief- is very important to them, or perhaps because they recognize the weakness of -belief- in an argument, or any number of things really, but those are the two I'm inclined to go with).

I'd ask you if you had reasons for refusing to accept the burden of proof, but that would probably be pointless.

I have no reason to apart from being unable to accept that it is even needed. please don't everyone take this as an opportunity to thrash out the same old same old because I may be a lot of things but i'm not stupid and telling me something twice won't make it sound any better and change anything.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, it isn't needed, so long as you're okay with fobbing off invalid arguments on your fellow man and then pretending that it's "serious discussion" - a pass time which could easily be construed as insulting to the person you're intent on bullshitting btw-. The burden of proof is required because without ruling out logical fallacies logic cannot be relied upon to return correct conclusions no matter how correct whatever you input might be.

For example.

All humans are mammals
All mammals are warm blooded
Therefore god does not exist.

That would be a non-sequitur, but since you don't seem to think that this is important......you've just been given proof that god doesn't exist.

[Mark 13:13]

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.

well to be honest some of what you described could actually be true and the debate we are having is really is it a self initiating self generating program or is there a programmer. Except the programme is not creating 2D mass less worlds with 2D avaters in simulated 3d but rather a 3D physical world in 4d simulation. I havent been keeping fully upto date with science but each time the break down the the building blocks of matter you seem to get more empty space so at the smallest building blocks is there actually any volume and if there is no volume is there any matter there ?, so in that sense we are all built from nothing. I have mentioned it before but there is the holographic theory of the universe

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/05/g...an-greene/

[Cyberman]

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

That's fine, and if not that you've already made similar statements in apparent seriousness, I would probably have spotted the humour.

[Mark 13:13]

Well, it isn't needed, so long as you're okay with fobbing off invalid arguments on your fellow man and then pretending that it's "serious discussion" - a pass time which could easily be construed as insulting to the person you're intent on bullshitting btw-. The burden of proof is required because without ruling out logical fallacies logic cannot be relied upon to return correct conclusions no matter how correct whatever you input might be.

For example.

All humans are mammals
All mammals are warm blooded
Therefore god does not exist.

That would be a non-sequitur, but since you don't seem to think that this is important......you've just been given proof that god doesn't exist.

or it could be that i rely on their inteligence to be able to distill what i'm saying and decide for themselves from what i'm saying whats bull shit and whats not.

[The Grand Nudger]

Which is exactly what someone has done when they mention that your argument is bullshit when you've attempted to leverage a logical fallacy. They used their intelligence to distill what you were saying. Now, since you spent so much time bullshitting about me avoiding this or that, it;s my turn. Why haven't you even begun to engage me in your own discussion, going so far as to link my responses- and then not respond to them at all? Is there anything that I've explained to you about the burden of proof that you take issue with whatsoever?

(how are you taking the loss of god btw?)

[FallentoReason]

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.

Hmm... seems like my point didn't come across.

I believe the true god is an infallible little hamster who, due to its omnipotence, has been running in its incomprehensible wheel for all eternity. It exists until you prove me wrong.

[Cinjin]

well to be honest some of what you described could actually be true and the debate we are having is really is it a self initiating self generating program or is there a programmer. Except the programme is not creating 2D mass less worlds with 2D avaters in simulated 3d but rather a 3D physical world in 4d simulation. I havent been keeping fully upto date with science but each time the break down the the building blocks of matter you seem to get more empty space so at the smallest building blocks is there actually any volume and if there is no volume is there any matter there ?, so in that sense we are all built from nothing. I have mentioned it before but there is the holographic theory of the universe

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/05/g...an-greene/

SOME of what I said?!?

It's all true. It's fact. Clearly you're going to have to do better. Since it is indeed fact and the burden of proof is on you, not me, you need to do a much better job!! These people need hard evidence and I am not responsible for supplying one tiny fraction of it.

[Esquilax]

or it could be that i rely on their inteligence to be able to distill what i'm saying and decide for themselves from what i'm saying whats bull shit and whats not.

Umm... And in doing so, would that person not have to decide whether or not you have met your burden of proof? Would that not be the entire point of such a distillation process? They'd be using their intelligence to ascertain whether or not you have provided enough proof for your claim to be considered bullshit or not?

See, you're arguing that it's a separate thing, but mechanically your new system still relies on the burden of proof.