7 days later
Amoranemix 18 :[19] That is not a feature, but a limitation, one that is easy to overlook.[20] First, it is the side making a claim that has the burden of proof.[a] If someone makes a seemingly extraordinary claim, then it can simply be dismissed as extraordinary, no explanation required. However, if they added decent evidence, then the claim shouldn't be just dismissed as extraordinary. (Of course, personal experience usually doesn't qualify as decent evidence.) Then indeed would need to be explained why the claim is extraordinary.How would you view or address someone's claim to have been abducted by aliens ? [b]TheMorningsStargsS 21 :[19] Semantic word games that ignores what the phrase "it's a feature not a bug" means. Pointless comments like this are pointless.[a] Okay, and? The argument outlines that people claiming to have witnessed something is evidence that satisfies said burden.[27] Discourse is like a balance scale. One side puts forward an argument/evidence and the balance shifts, even if not by much. Sure, one side might have the burden, but as soon as they provide something and that balance shifts it means that their side is now more likely.[28] They can further support their arguments, shifting the balance more in their favor, but that is ultimately unnecessary. If the other side wishes to be the correct/rational side then they need to shift the balance back (either by adding weight to their own side, provide arguments/evidence, or removing weight from the other side, show the arguments/evidence of the other side are faulty).So, making the who "the side making a claim has the burden" is an absolutely pointless statement in light of me providing an argument. [29][b] I would point out various reasons why such is unlikely to be true.
TheMorningsStar 16 :That is something you need to demonstrate though. Your P1 needs justification, and I find that people rarely can justify that premise when dealing with a non-Abrahamic conception of god(s). Swinburne also argues that said P1 would never be able to be justified with god, but I don't really agree with him on that one.Amoranemix 18 :Gods one expects no evidence of[*] tend to be unimportant. Gods that do not impact the world, do not interact with people, are irrelevant. There may be a god in a galaxy far, far away, minding his own business. Why would anyone care, let alone argue about it ?TheMorningsStar 21 :[*] What type of evidence do you expect though?[30] How do you rationally back up your "if X, then evidence of X"?[31] How do you know there isn't evidence that you are just unaware of?[32]Honestly, a proper modus tollens argues that if X then Y and then shows that there isn't Y as a matter of fact, not just that you don't see evidence of Y. [33]For example, if there is a bottle of water on the table next to me then I should be able to see it, I should knock it down if I clear the table off, etc. These are specific, clearly tied to the nature of a bottle of water on the table, etc. You cannot just go all vague with a modus tollens.
Polytheist-Witch 33 :I was on topic if you don't like being called out on your bigotry don't post it. [34]And neither the person you address there is a Christian dummy, reinforce your bigotry again. [35]
Amoranemix 34 :The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the claimant.The burden of proof is always on the side with the least evidence.[36] Sure, we might say that absent any evidence that the claimant has the BoP,[37] but the moment only one side has provided evidence is the moment that that side has become the rational conclusion and thus the other side needs to make an argument if they wish to disagree.[38]It is like a balance scale, put weight on one side and the scales tilt.What the argument in the OP outlines is that anecdotal evidence is sufficient enough to create that tilt and thus shift the BoP.
Can you elaborate?secularmerlin 42 :Certainly.You could present me with any given peice of evidence and I will either be convinced by it or not. I cannot choose to be convinced when I am not and I cannot choose to be unconvinced when I am.If you present me with one hundred pieces of evidence and none are sufficient to convince me then I will have no choice but to remain unconvinced.[39]I do not need to meet any burden of proof to remain unconvinced.If the options are A or B I don't need to choose B in order to he unconvinced that you are correct in thinking that the answer is A.
secularmerlin 44 :Please detail how you would convince me of each proposition and I will tell you if I am convinced.1. I do not choose whether or not you have convincing evidence you either do or do not.2. I do not need to meet any burden of proof to remain unconvinced by your claim.Again, convincing is not the same thing as making a rational case. You can be convinced of whatever you want, what matters to me is what is rational and likely.
secularmerlin 49 :Soft solipsism is not something that you can resolve.Which axioms one makes use of is, however, important. Which view requires more axioms? Which view requires more wild/complex axioms? etc. Are your views consistent when holding to your set of axioms? All of these determine which viewpoint is preferred, and I am skeptical that your set of axioms leads you to consistent standards if you are rejecting P1, P2, or P3 from my OP. Maybe you have an extra axiom that makes it so that the argument still doesn't work somehow, but then it would be a question on what said axiom is and if it is a necessary or justifiable one to hold to.
107 days later
Experience and Testimony is Evidence, Reid's Principle of Credulity applied to god(s) existenceCONCLUSIONWith this argument it ends up with the atheist or agnostic needing to now provide justification for their position in the debate. Counter-evidence needs to be provided or else theism is rationally concluded as true (tentatively). Not only must counter-evidence be provided, but they also must defend against arguments that it is not, in fact, counter-evidence. That is the strength of this argument, it makes it so no longer is the theist playing defense but the atheist and agnostic is.I know this argument will be unconvincing to most people, but it is important to remember that an argument can both be sound and also be unconvincing. We are not purely rational beings after all.
