Burden of proof (philosophy)

No worries.

I don't think our disagreement lies in the logic. Either way, I don't think substructural logic is going to be what we need.

Exactly, and an agnostic does not hold god's existence as true, and thus, he qualifies for disbelief (at least, the particular agnostic we were considering).

 

yes I tell it to both theists and atheists since neither can support their position. The article I posted demonstrated how easy it is to prove a negative, and Wsmith did that excellent tutorial in addition.

 

agnostic claims its not possible to know therefore bows out of the argument completely. It is neither belief nor disbelief. its 'I dont know" therefore cant answer either way.

 

Some folks see manifestations of the divine. In the same small gathering, some don't. The only proof that I can think, which would be real though subjective, would be the level of hormones, dopamine and others, present in the brain, before, during, and after the visions. Whether or not this reaction is proof of an action, I'm not sure.

These levels of hormones are present at other times in life, too. Do they mean we were thinking or dreaming or what? You'd have to combine those with a look at the hormones present duing sleep, in deep meditation or something, to relate them to a personal experience.

If a dream caused a physical or mental change in you, would you believe it was just a dream? I'm nto sure.

Just some thoughts I wanted to share....from a different perspective.

 

It is, but what is demanded as proof from internet philosophers usually ends up going to the extreme, iow impossible. That and most are arguing and attempting to validate their beliefs using some kind of presumed formal argument that unfortunately requires knowledge beyond their education. Not a cut on anyone, but there should not be a requirement in this sort of argument for Wsmith to give a most basic lesson in logic that can be acquired in any logic 101 book and 'applied' to these matters, but that can only be accomplished if the everyone in the debate has the same or similar academic level, and the goal is to get at the truth, rather than deny anything that disgrees with the beliefs one holds.

 

No, disbelief is the logical complement of belief. Whenever belief is not present, there is absence of belief, or disbelief. That is what the word absence means, that is what the prefix dis- means. Bowing out of the argument does not mean that you have neither belief or disbelief.

Bowing out of the argument (or not knowing there was a possibility for an argument at all) means that you don't say "I believe there is a god" and you don't say "I believe there is no god". It does not include a belief in a god, it does not include a belief that there are no gods. However, if we want to know what it means in terms of disbelief, we ask "is there a belief in gods" and it turns out no, the agnostic does not hold such a belief, and thus, there is an absence of belief.

You have in the past argued that there is no difference between not-belief and belief-in-not, but this example clearly shows the difference.

 

an agnostic is not absent of belief, agnostics 'believe' the question is not solvable either way, therefore neither affirm nor deny either the existence or nonexistence of a deity. That said an agnostic does not hold either the beliefs of an atheist or or the beliefs of a theist or any degree thereof in either case. Agnostics hold the belief of an agnostic which is purely neutral, no opinion either way.

 

I tend to agree.

If I build 1500 homes over my lifetime of work, and then I find out I didn't get all the paperwork done, does it negate me as a house builder or just mean that I am not the very best manager?

I'm not a house builder, by the way. It's a simple example.

We are not what we do. That is not our value. It's our talent.

In this world, action proves feelings. Not so for someone who can see all scenarios that will happen, that did happen, and that are happening in a way that it is all present at the same time. Yes, present as in time.

I'm sure there are equations of some sort, even if they are not actual numbers, to prove this possible, but I don't know if we will ever be able to find them and/or use them.


This all made me think of the quote by Hamlet in Shakespeare's play.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

Since you guys are skeptics on one side, and this has been used to prove things which are not able to be proven, I looked it up and ask you to read and think about this first reply in the link.

You see, I actually think he is mistaken in his subjective opinion. I believe he has proven, in reverse, the opposite of his premise. I think this ties in well with your thread and my previous posts.

Check it out..............https://www.quora.com/Shakespeare-o...nd-the-corner-that-none-of-us-have-thought-of

I'm not suggesting the site is the end of this discussion. I'm presenting an "argument" of sorts, for your consideration.

 

thats essentially what these arguments are about, the elements of proof. Everyone works on a different standard because its not well understood. Empiricism of science is nice in its own respect but is only capable of examining a very miniscule part of the properties of an all inclusive universe. The biggest problem in these debates is people forcing square pegs in round holes then defending it to the bitter end.

 

I mean, sure, an agnostic will have many other beliefs, they might believe that apples taste nice or that the sun will rise tomorrow, or indeed that the question is unanswerable.

However, they have an absence of belief in the existence of God. You do agree that they do not hold the belief of a theist, they do not hold the belief that there is a god. Therefore, they have an absence of that belief, i.e. a disbelief.

Whether they hold the beliefs of an atheist depends on what we mean by atheist, and that's indeed what we're trying to clear up in this debate, but yes, they do not hold the belief that "there are no gods" either. When we're thinking about the absence of belief in god, that doesn't matter, though.

 

And that's how I see the opposite of this quote. I do think proof is that some have seen and believed, their lives are proof that something has happened. I can't explain it with my limited knowledge, nor can anyone else who knows much more. All we can do is accept or reject, while agnostics refuse to even consider.

Passivity does not protect one from anything that might or might not be. It only removes one from the discussion. If you are a believer, God hates these folks and spits them out of his mouth, metaphorically, I suppose.

I do believe the hormonal reactions in humans are proof that something happened which is something more than in the night sky or on the earth.

Why do I wonder? Well, if from the earliest prehistoric cave paintings until today, there has been some acknowledgement of something that is within us all and connected somehow, why would we believe it not true, just because we didn't hear the tree fall in the woods? Do some believe it did not make a sound because we didn't observe it?

It's possible, but equations which weren't available to many prove that the vibrations of the ripples in air cause a movement of our ear drums which is interpreted by our brains as a sound. If my brain does not experience these things, which caused hormonal reactions or feelings and beliefs, did they happen?

 

It isn't my argument, it is a religious apologetics argument that I am using rhetorically, 'if you don't know the true nature of reality then you could be wrong about everything that you claim to know, the only one that knows everything is the one that was there at the beginning'.

What you have actually done, and what everyone else is also doing here is defining themselves to victory with a definition of Unicorns that suits whatever argument they want to make. No one actually knows anything about Unicorns except that they are an idea that someone pulled out of their backside at some point. This is why as a skeptic I lack belief in all assertions made without evidence and then, I don't need to negate any nonsense like this where ultimately, the religious person will fall back on well you can't show it doesn't exist because, you don't know everything, yada, yada revealed truth, yada, yada.

 

And yet, here you are breaking the commandment.

 

I think most agnostics believe there is no god but also believe that their belief cannot be proven.

 

How? I am telling you that your beliefs are wrong and refuse to quarrel in arguments with you. That's your problem always, never mine.

One never feeds swine with argument.

 

We had a teacher like that who wanted to quarrel with the School Board that he could do want he wanted, and he was amazed when he was forthwith dismissed and barred from campus and from contacting Board and school members.

His lawyer patted him on the head and said, "Ron, let it go."

 

So what you are saying is a unicorn is a perfect analogy to a god. To whit " an idea that someone pulled out of their backside at some point"

 

Because he doesn't understand the quote.

 

No you proved by inductive logic that you can prove a negative, problem is inductive logic is considered as no proof at all for any existence of god. Still the burden of proof lies with those who claim that gods exist, full stop.

 

And yet, here you are casting more pearls.

 

So cast some pearls then brother.

 

there is no air in that cardboard box, we are floating around in outer space, you open the box, yup no air, that is pressure above that of outer space.

I just empircally proved negative. Use what ever test equipment you like to prove the pressur is not at equilibrium without outer space, practical terms no air.

and the ending comment was that you can use the inductive process to prove equally well as the inductive.

Yours is a false conclusion, logical error.

 

A religious logician? Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

Technically, that would be a positive.

 

would you prefer I lack belief there is no air in the cardboard box?