Burden of proof (philosophy)

You are comparing apples and oranges.

If a police officer asks you to leave the house because of a terrorist bomb, who has the burden of proof? The policeman made a claim and took a position however he has no burden of proof or whatsoever, you run your ar*s or you die. That's rather the situation of Christianity.

"Burden of proof" only applies provided that one has the neutral point to stand, it doesn't apply to something concerning your own dead or alive! Christianity is basically the spreading of the message that "there's a terrorist bomb" after your physical death. You run your ar*s or you don't, no one has the burden of proof or whatsoever!

In the above analogy, the police officer is an authority, a reliable agent to make the ask. In Christianity we trust the claims from the said eye-witnesses who have martyred themselves in order to bring out the message that "there's a terrorist bomb".

 

Can you substantiate these claims?

 

A couple of points:
1) it is up to the person asserting the existance of a god to provide the proof. It does not follow if you deny the claim the burden of proof falls on the denier. In the chicken and egg race in this case the claim for a god came first so the burden of proof rests there.
2) I am not aware of anyone professing to be a Christian that says there are other gods. The bible passage you quoted doesn't say there are other gods.
3) Since yhere is no evidence thst Jesus actually came down from god so he can hardly qualify as stating what god wants and needs from humanity. If Jesus existed there is no actual evidence that he was anything other thsn just another preacher. And if Jim Bakker is a servant of god nobody should listen to god.

 

"PBS also cites Archaeopteryx as an alleged transition between dinosaurs and birds. But Archaeopteryx is generally regarded as a true bird, and its alleged dinosaurian ancestors are only known from one locality--the Yixian formation in China--which is "at least 20 Myr younger than Archaeopteryx."5 If Archaeopteryx is the first known true bird, then from what, if anything, did birds evolve? The fossil record does not tell us." http://www.judgingpbs.com/dfp-slide13.html

"New research in Antarctica shows CO2 follows temperature “by a few hundred years at most”
Anthony Watts / July 23, 2012


The question of “which comes first, the temperature or the CO2 rise?” has been much like the proverbial “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” question. This seems to settle it – temperature came first, followed by an increase in CO2 outgassing from the ocean surrounding Antarctica.


“Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most,” – Sune Olander Rasmussen"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07...s-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/

(The point here being that it follows and does not precede.)

"Cosmological models of the events following the big bang make predictions about what the horizon volume was, which lead to predictions about present-day monopole density. Early models predicted an enormous density of monopoles, in clear contradiction to the experimental evidence. This was called the "monopole problem". Its widely accepted resolution was not a change in the particle-physics prediction of monopoles, but rather in the cosmological models used to infer their present-day density. Specifically, more recent theories of cosmic inflation drastically reduce the predicted number of magnetic monopoles, to a density small enough to make it unsurprising that humans have never seen one. This resolution of the "monopole problem" was regarded as a success of cosmic inflation theory. (However, of course, it is only a noteworthy success if the particle-physics monopole prediction is correct.)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole

(Worth noting that the cosmic inflation theory itself has the problem that it requires the early universe to have expanded faster than the speed of light.)

 

Can you live with your referrals? They are of no value - as to the wiki, you don't know what you're talking about to begin with.

Or we're bating me to show my true colours in argument. And then burn me as a witch?

 

well there went couple thousand years of philosophy, logic, and reason.....

 

Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing!

 

you cant come out here, well you can, but logic and reason etc proves you are incorrect. Its been settled and now you want to bring it up again.

any claim requires the claimant to prove it, atheists need to prove no god, theists need to prove a god, agnostics are off the hook.

 

No athiests just deny the theist claim there is a god. Understand the difference?

 

So what is not clear? The statement is a negative, and I've shown that it is provable. In what way is anything I have said a special pleading?

 

I don't think that opens a can of worms for atheists. Christians aren't suggesting that God *has* to be made of dark matter, so atheists are well aware of the fact that if they were to put effort into investigating it, Christians could just double back and say "actually, God might be made of something else". As such, I imagine atheists are unfazed.

 

well atheists knew how difficult it is to prove a negative that they put out this big pretense that it was impossible and the scope the atheists have to dig for evidence to prove no deity exists just got beyond huge

 

It was always arbitrarily large. As I've mentioned in my critique of rahl, it is not logically impossible to prove a negative in general, but since God is arbitrarily good at hiding and not very well defined, the point that is sometimes made using the idea that "you can't prove a negative" still stands, even if that statement isn't actually true.

The point isn't "you can't prove a negative" (and indeed that isn't true), the point is you can't prove *that* negative (the non-existence of God), thereby making digging through all of dark matter a fruitless endeavour before it's even started.

 

I wouldnt think anything of it 'except' atheists get on their soapbox ranting superior methods logic and reason when in fact they are using flim flam arguments and a boat load of false advertising to promote their agenda and then they hedge their position by claiming they are atheist/agnostic (which is impossible) all while demanding theists give them 'absolute' proof of a deity. Its not a case of something wrong with their picture its a case of nothing right with their picture.

 

Your obvious anger at atheists is clouding your judgement. What happened to make you feel so much hate towards a simple position on deities? Why do you not get so angry about people that deny the Holocaust?

 

The facts are clear, absolute proof is required to convince the gods believers their deity does not exist, as outlined in the article you kindly provided. The claim there is a god, is the only claim made and the burden of proof remains with the claimant as it clearly states in the other article you provided.

If someone makes a claim for the existence of gods, they have the burden of proof. I am not compelled to consider their position until they provide enough evidence or reasoning to make that claim.

 

You seem to be mixing arguments from different places. The atheist/agnostic position is not a problem unless you are stuck using definitions of atheism that more or less no atheist adheres to. Last time we discussed this, you excused yourself, which I don't have a problem with in itself, but you can't then proclaim that the issue has been resolved in your favour.

Then there is the 'absolute' proof, I'm sure many would like to see one (so it's not surprising that people ask for it) but the only necessary thing is one that justifies belief.

I'm perfectly aware that there are atheists who proclaim to be champions of logic and yet fail at it. They exist within any worldview/position. They are not a good reason to disregard the other arguments though.

 

these are binary arguments, each word has a specific meaning that does not intersect with the other. Using those words, agnostic, theist, and atheist in combination.

If its reasonable to use atheist/agnostic then its also reasonable to use atheist/theist. Its not reasonable at all. The atheist agnostic position is a huge problem.


Contradiction

First published Wed Jun 28, 2006; substantive revision Tue Sep 21, 2010


This entry outlines the role of the law of non-contradiction (LNC) as the foremost among the first (indemonstrable) principles of Aristotelian philosophy and its heirs, and depicts the relation between LNC and LEM (the law of excluded middle) in establishing the nature of contradictory and contrary opposition. §1 presents the classical treatment of LNC as an axiom in Aristotle's “First Philosophy” and reviews the status of contradictory and contrary opposition as schematized on the Square of Opposition. §2 explores in further detail the possible characterizations of LNC and LEM, including the relevance of future contingent statements in which LEM (but not LNC) is sometimes held to fail. In §3 I briefly discuss the mismatch between the representation of contradictory negation as a propositional operator and its varied realization within natural language. §4 deals with several challenges to LNC within Western philosophy, including the paradoxes, and the relation between systems with truth-value gaps (violating LEM) and those with truth-value gluts (violating LNC). Finally, in §5, the tetralemma of Buddhist logic is discussed within the context of gaps and gluts; it is argued that apparent violations of LNC in this tradition and others can be attributed to either differing viewpoints of evaluation (as foreseen by Aristotle) or to intervening modal and epistemic operators.


1. LNC as Indemonstrable

The twin foundations of Aristotle's logic are the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, LC) and the law of excluded middle (LEM). In Metaphysics Book Γ, LNC—“the most certain of all principles”—is defined as follows:

It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect, and all other specifications that might be made, let them be added to meet local objections (1005b19–23).


Basically it violates the very foundations of formal logic

 

false premise
false premise
false premise
false analogy
false conclusion

5 for 5 folks nothing to see here.

 

a figment of a wild imagination
a figment of a wild imagination
off topic
3 for 3, have nice day.

 

It really is quite simple.

Agnostic is a position regarding knowledge, what we can know or not. If the term had not been set aside for a particular religious sect called Gnostics then gnostic would be the opposite stance to agnostic.

Atheism/Theism are positions regarding belief about deities.

They address different things therefore, an agnostic/theist would say that they cannot have knowledge of the existence of gods but, they have belief anyway.

This has been around for some time now...

 

thats great tea time (foolish) parlor banter, it fails formal logic, your post responds to the formal logic that I cited but fails to comprehend fundamental laws of contradiction used in logic explained in the citation.

We are not discussing tea time banter here, please stick to formal logic, tea time banter is never used in formal proofs.

agnostic neither affirms nor denies. Your usage fails since agnostic has no bearing what so ever on strength or weakness of belief/disbelief, it is purely neutral by definition.

How much/little you know, or how strong/weak you belief your position is has no bearing, as your 'formal' choices are atheist, theist, or completely neutral, the rest is nothing more parlor talk.

 

Oh, another new tactic to try to take away from the facts.
Your articles debunked your own arguments and you have not addressed it.

 

And there is the issue, we are on a political forum, formal logic does not work for matters of belief, unless you can prove something without doubt believers will argue, you should of read the article you quoted. It tells you why believers keep on believing no matter what argument you present, people believe in gods because they WANT to believe.

Again from Kokomojojo own quoted article,

You can’t prove a negative! You can’t prove that there are no alien abductions! Meaning: your argument against aliens is inductive, therefore not incontrovertible, and since I want to believe in aliens, I’m going to dismiss the argument no matter how overwhelming the evidence against aliens, and no matter how vanishingly small the chance of extraterrestrial abduction.

Just substitute the word god for aliens.

Remember this is from the OP,s own quoted article!

https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

 

false premise
false premise
false conclusion

3 for 3 folks nothing to see here.