free will

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 712
#301
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
The dichotomy is either belief or non-belief.

Non-belief encompasses (1) mere non-belief and (2) disbelief as I talked about in my previous post.

I'm not confusing disbelief with knowledge of falsehood. I'm only talking about belief, not knowledge. 

Topic's author
#302
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
@Fallaneze
I suggest that one has to take attitude to the negation of a claim into account.

I'm imagining a scale that runs from +10 (being very confident a claim is true) to -10 (being very confident the negation of aclaim is true).  Words like 'skeptical', 'belief', 'non-belief' and 'disbelief' are somewhat imprecise and ambiguous as to where they fall on that scale!   My attitude to 'god exists' is about -9.   That also tells you my attiude to the clain 'god does not exist'.  What word you want to use to describe  -9 on that scale is enirely upto you - but it's not necessarily the word everyone would choose; such is the nature of everyday language.


#303
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
You'll forgive me for feeling that this is just an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto someone who disbelieve in any given god(s)

#304
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
I suggest that one has to take attitude to the negation of a claim into account.

I'm imagining a scale that runs from +10 (being very confident a claim is true) to -10 (being very confident the negation of aclaim is true).  Words like 'skeptical', 'belief', 'non-belief' and 'disbelief' are somewhat imprecise and ambiguous as to where they fall on that scale!   My attitude to 'god exists' is about -9.   That also tells you my attiude to the clain 'god does not exist'.  What word you want to use to describe  -9 on that scale is enirely upto you - but it's not necessarily the word everyone would choose; such is the nature of everyday language
I do noy disagree with the caveat that under no circumstances shpuld the burden of proof be shifted from the claimant to the skeptic.

#305
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't blame you. Whatever you think, feel, or do is beyond your control.

#306
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Mere non-belief has no burden of proof
Disbelief does.

Topic's author
#307
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
If i were to make a claim without a supporting argument it would be playground standard for me to insist you prove me wrong.  There is nothing to be gained by engaging in such faux-debates and a rapid bail out is in order!  But you might (unwisely!) choose to prove the claim wrong, in which case you would aquire the BoP for some counter-claim.

but that is viewing debate only in its 'adversarial' form.  In dialectical debate its ok to float ideas that are 'wrong' but may serve as a useful starting point of investigating a subject.   New ideas are usually initially 'not quite on the money' but need refinement.  In an adversarial debate the goal is to shoot one's opponent down in flames - in a dialectical debate one does not have opponents - one has collaborators.
 

Topic's author
#308
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Does a bop exist outside a formal debate?

I'd say probably not, in which case the bop lies with whoever is trying to persuade others their claim is true, whether that claim is god does or god does not exist (or any claim at all).
#309
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Mere non-belief has no burden of proof
Disbelief does.
Mere belief does not require a burden of proof (or more to the point that burden csnnot ever be met and so uou must either take someone at their word or accept that you cannot have any sensible discussion on the subject. 

I have never asked you to prove you believe in god(s) I simply take you at your word because I cannot know what you believe more than you do.

The same goes for disbelief. It is claims based on belief/disbelief that require a burden of proof. Claims like "it is more rational to believe in a god than to disbelieve in god".

If my logic is flawed please point out the problem specifically. 

#310
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
I largely agree, although anyone who has a view on what's true or exists must be able to rationally justify that view, regardless of whether those views are shared.
#311
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Disbelieving the positive claim also carries a burden of proof.
#312
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Disbelieving the positive claim also carries a burden of proof.
If you say "I believe in God" I do not ask you to prove you believe in God. I might ask you why you believe and you may make claims as a part of your explanation which then would require a burden of proof but merely believing does not.

Unless this is an unreasonable standard it must be applief equally to disbelief. You may ask why I disbelieve and in the course of my explanation I may make a claim as a part of my explanation which would then require a burden of proof but merely disbelieving does not.
Topic's author
#313
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
@Fallaneze
In short, if you make a claim it is down to you to justify it.   It's impolite to simply demand anybody else proves the negation is true.

That applies whether the claim is positive (eg god exists) or negative (god does not exist).

I don't see what all the fuss is about.
#314
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
In short, if you make a claim it is down to you to justify it.   It's impolite to simply demand anybody else proves the negation is true.

That applies whether the claim is positive (eg god exists) or negative (god does not exist).

I don't see what all the fuss is about.
It is unclear to me why I am getting such resistance to this concept, which I too regard as very reasonable.

Topic's author
#315
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
My attitude towards many 'factoids' is to trust my hunches.   Pedantically, I don't know (for example)that there are no gods, but I judge 'no gods' as a safe assumption to make, so i make it.  That means all my reasoning could be wrong, but I see that as a small price to pay for not getting bogged down at square one!  

I don't know how open I am to a good argument that god exists because I haven't heard any new ones for more than 30 years!  i doubt any theist on DA has anything to say on the matter I haven't heard before.   In short, I will continue to assume god does not exist  until something causes me to change my mind.   It might not even be a proof god exists - a demonstration that god is likely would probably do.   But that seems unlikely to happen so I make no provison for it.

In general, I have no problem with making assumptions because its always possible to junk them and start again if neccessay.  i think that is what Aristotle meant by 'entertaining' ideas.
#316
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
Why do you believe no God exists though ?
#317
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I think we're on the same page. I don't require evidence that somebody believes or disbelieves something. All that requires evidence is the claim.

#318
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I think we're on the same page. I don't require evidence that somebody believes or disbelieves something. All that requires evidence is the claim.
Excelent. 

#319
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
So if you reject the claim "God exists" to be untrue, that would also require evidence.
#320
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
So if you reject the claim "God exists" to be untrue, that would also require evidence.
No Only the opposite claim would require a burden of proof.

I do not shoulder a burden of proof simply because you have failed to meet yours (which is reason enough to reject a claim).
#321
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
That doesn't make sense logically. Rejecting the claim "God exists" to be untrue logically entails that the negation of the claim, "God does not exist", is therefore true.

There's no logical difference between rejecting "God exists" as untrue versus the positive claim that God does not exist.




#322
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Why would your failure to meet your burden of proof firce a burden of proof on me? How is that not the very definition of shifting the burden?

#323
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
This is one thing I dislike about the atheist experience.. they're getting people confused.
#324
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
We would both have a burden of proof if I made the positive claim that God existed and you believed it to be untrue. You would have no burden of proof if you neither accepted it to be true nor rejected it to be untrue.
#325
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
We would both have a burden of proof of I made the positive claim that God existed and you believed it to be untrue. You would have no burden of proof if you neither accepted it to be true nor rejected it to be untrue.
I do not need to make a claim to reject yours as false. Period. 


Explain just once how expecting me to shoulder a burden of proof because you have failed to meet yours is in any way logical?
#326
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
There's no logical difference between rejecting "God exists" as untrue versus the positive claim that God does not exist.

I have explained the difference. More than once.
#327
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
"God does not exist" is a claim.

Rejecting the claim "God exists" to be untrue affirms that the claim "God does not exist" is true. Therefore, it has a burden of proof.
#328
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Saying that I have no reason to believe in any god(s) is not a positive claim. Rejecting the claim "god exists" does does require more than that.


I can tell you really really want all atheists to have a burden of proof equal to a theists burden of proof but it just isn't so unless the atheist actually makes a positive clsim and "I don't believe you" is not such a claim.

I do not need a reason to reject your claim beyond your failure to meet your burden of proof. Your failure to meet your burden of proof does not saddle me with any such burden

#329
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
No reason to believe =/= rejecting the positive claim to be untrue.
#330
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
"I don't believe you" is ambiguous. You aren't understanding the heavy semantics game the atheist experience hosts are playing.