Illustrating the burden of proof - pay me!

[The Architect Of Fate]

Belecqua explains bad faith. Helios gives example of it..himself.

Nope nothing i said was bad faith sorry 

[LadyForCamus]

I wish people took the Principle of Sufficient reason as seriously as they did the burden of proof. They seem like two sides of the same coin to me.

Isn't what an individual considers sufficient reason subjective? I don't need to accept/believe if it does not meet my criteria, especially when it comes to religions/gods.

And yet the religion/god people expect me to accept their reason without doubts,............argument,....... alternative sufficient reasons.

That isn’t quite it:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/

[brewer]

Isn't what an individual considers sufficient reason subjective? I don't need to accept/believe if it does not meet my criteria, especially when it comes to religions/gods.

And yet the religion/god people expect me to accept their reason without doubts,............argument,....... alternative sufficient reasons.

That isn’t quite it:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/

Explain please, Stanford is a bit long winded and dry and I'm not really feeling up to put forth the effort.

[LadyForCamus]

That isn’t quite it:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/

Explain please, Stanford is a bit long winded and dry and I'm not really feeling up to put forth the effort.

Very simply put:

“The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground.”

[brewer]

Explain please, Stanford is a bit long winded and dry and I'm not really feeling up to put forth the effort.

Very simply put:

“The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground.”

And what if I don't agree with the proposed reason, cause, or ground? As far as I'm concerned it then becomes subjective.

The history channel guy says aliens exist and appears to provide sufficient reason as far as he's concerned.

What am I missing?

[LadyForCamus]

Very simply put:

“The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground.”

And what if I don't agree with the proposed reason, cause, or ground? As far as I'm concerned it then becomes subjective.

The history channel guy says aliens exist and appears to provide sufficient reason as far as he's concerned.

What am I missing?

The Stanford article goes into great detail with regard to what is considered “sufficient,” from a philosophical POV. Yours is a question better suited for @Neo-Scholastic or @Belacqua. I’m not proficient in the concept, myself. I was just pointing out that Neo was referring to a specific principal in philosophy, not merely a colloquial notion of personal, subjective evidentiary standards.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Explain please, Stanford is a bit long winded and dry and I'm not really feeling up to put forth the effort.

Very simply put:

“The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground.”

I was going to reply directly to brewer's post but I think this is a good starting point.

My point was this. Burden of Proof and the PSR are both subjective terms of art. Both relate to the evidentiary burden demanded to properly evaluate the truth status of a proposition. The subjectivity of burden of proof is exemplified by the notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The subjectivity of the PSR enters when we find ourselves confronted with what appear to be inexplicable brute facts, and start to carve out exceptions for them.

For example, some abstract formal systems track exceptionally well with observed phenomena (like certain maths and physical events) and others have no such obvious connection (astrology). For an advocate of the PSR, this difference between formal systems suggests there is something that needs to be explained. What do effective abstractions have in common that is lacking in apparently useless abstractions? Those who seem to consider the PSR as a quick route to “God did it,” the abstract formal systems that work are distinguished from those that don’t precisely because they work. As such they can be conveniently taken as brute facts. Personally, I do not find that satisfying philosophically.

I guess what I also saying is this. The subjectivity of Burden of Proof gets a lot of air-time on AF because that subjectivity to favor atheistic arguements grounded in foundationalism. In comparision, the PSR favors theism because it suggests that foundation of reality go deeper that many atheists suppose.

[LadyForCamus]

Told you @Neo-Scholastic was a better guy to ask. ?

[LadyForCamus]

Neo, what is the reason for god? Or do you accept god as a brute fact?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Neo, what is the reason for god? Or do you accept god as a brute fact?

Not at this time. The question of God's existence howver seems to me inextricably connected to things I do consider brute facts such as the Principle of Non-Contradiction.