Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"

not necessarily the "negation" of fact

BIGFOOT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS FACT

BIGFOOT CANNOT PROVIDE EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION

AND IS NOT LOGICALLY NECESSARY

but the reasonable "lack of acceptance" of a proposed and not logically impossible "fact"

(IFF) AT SOME POINT, BIGFOOT BECOMES EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE (THEN) BIGFOOT WILL THEN AND ONLY THEN BE CONSIDERED A FACT

I do not believe.

One either knows or hypothesises.

BIGFOOT IS NOT A FACT

(IFF) AT SOME POINT, BIGFOOT BECOMES EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE (THEN) BIGFOOT WILL THEN AND ONLY THEN BE CONSIDERED A FACT

(IFF) AT SOME POINT, BIGFOOT BECOMES EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE (THEN) BIGFOOT WILL THEN AND ONLY THEN BE CONSIDERED A FACT

State explicit reasons you claim that Bigfoot is not empirically demonstrable. Bear in mind that I've already ascertained your description of fact. Furthermore, I'm already aware of your suggestion that Bigfoot is fiction. Now, I'm asking for the reasons which serve as the bases for these claims.

imagine that everywhere you go, there is a twenty three foot bubble around your head

this bubble is a smoky gray so you can see through it, but only if you focus

there are representations of the things that are important to you personally inside the bubble

like your home, your close family members, your job, your personal possessions etcetera

the stuff inside your bubble is your ONTOLOGY

sure, you "know of" "other things" "outside" your bubble, but all the critical and interesting stuff is INSIDE

now, every once in a while

someone who is already inside your bubble, proposes that you ADD SOMETHING to your ONTOLOGY

now, you can't just go adding everything you see and hear, because you'd get all cluttered up in a hurry and you'd have trouble organizing things

so there must be some criteria

either conscious, or sub-conscious

some criteria that must be met, BEFORE you add something to your personal ONTOLOGY BUBBLE

for me, that bar is set at "fact"

bigfoot does not clear that bar

P1: Facts must be empirically demonstrable and/or logically necessary

P2: Bigfoot IS NOT empirically demonstrable and/or logically necessary.

C: Therefore, Bigfoot IS NOT a fact.

State explicit reasons which serve as the basis for P2.

you choose which guests are allowed to enter your home

you do not owe anyone an explanation for NOT allowing them into your home

by stating that bigfoot is NOT "provably true"

i am NOT suggesting that bigfoot is "provably false"

P1: Facts must be empirically demonstrable and/or logically necessary

P2: Bigfoot IS NOT empirically demonstrable and/or logically necessary.

C: Therefore, Bigfoot IS NOT a fact.

State explicit reasons which serve as the basis for P2.

here's another example

applicants for entry to my ONTOLOGY are like people interviewing for a job

i may or may not give them a chance to present their case, depending on the urgency of vacancy

if i find a "pretty good" applicant, i may decline to interview other applicants whom i may not have yet considered

i do not currently have a position available for "FACTUAL" BIGFOOT

State explicit reasons which serve as the basis for you claim that Bigfoot IS NOT [provably true/fact/empirically demonstrable and/or logically necessary]--proof of falsehood notwithstanding.

Is the determination of fact necessarily contingent on your personal ontological gauge?

all (positive) claims require a case to be made for them

otherwise they are naked claims (bald assertions)

if i claimed that bigfoot stole my toothbrush

would you believe me ?

the default when confronted with an unfamiliar proposed idea, concept, and or object

the default is to maintain your ONTOLOGY as it was BEFORE such a proposal

yes, and this is the case for everyone, whether they realize it or not

yes, and this is the case for everyone, whether they realize it or not

So when you state that FACTS MUST BE EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARY, that's a personal statement?

every statement made by a person is a personal statement

all (positive) claims require a case to be made for them

otherwise they are naked claims (bald assertions)

No, all affirmations of claims require a case to be made for them--their being "positive" or "negative" notwithstanding--less they be considered bald assertions.

Case in point: if you and I discovered an unopened box, and before opening it,  I stated, "there must be a tennis ball in there," and you stated, "there must not be a tennis ball in there," you are no less obligated to present your case than I am. Now let's change it and consider that I stated, "there must be a tennis in there" and you stated, "a tennis ball's being in there has not been proven true." Your case isn't to prove that there ISN'T a tennis ball in there, but to delineate and explicitly state your reasons behind your claim "a tennis ball's being in there has not been proven true."

Facts must be empirically demonstrable and/or logical necessary. What is the criteria in the determination of empirical demonstration and logical necessity? What conditions must a proposed idea, concept, or object meet in order considered empirically demonstrable and/or logically necessary?

ok, all claims that propose the addition and or subtraction and or modification of one's ONTOLOGY require a case to be made for them

generally one does not ask for evidence either in support of something they already believe or contrary to something they already do not believe

for example, if i made the claim

your mother is NOT your "real biological mother"

you would probably demand some sort of compelling evidence before accepting this type of claim

"a tennis ball's being in there has not been proven true."

this statement is very nearly indisputable

i guess it could be reframed as,

"i am currently unaware of any conclusive evidence that would justify a positive believe in a tennis ball within this particular unopened box"

and implicitly,

"if you are currently aware of conclusive evidence that would justify a positive belief in a tennis ball within this particular unopened box, please share it with me"

generally speaking, empirically demonstrable using the scientific method and multiple independent peer review teams meeting a minimum confidence of at least one sigma and ideally at least two sigma

Likely yes, but if I'm going to state that the content of your claims isn't fact, which is more a testament to its not meeting certain evidentiary measures, then it would be incumbent upon me to explicitly state and justify my evidentiary measures to substantiate my case of "not fact."

I understand. And I would be at liberty to ask, "what counts as 'conclusive' evidence?" which is tantamount to having you justify what IS and IS NOT fact.

generally speaking, empirically demonstrable using the scientific method and multiple independent peer review teams meeting a minimum confidence of at least one sigma and ideally at least two sigma

It's your position that Bigfoot isn't fact by reason of its not being demonstrated using the scientific method and verified by multiple independent review teams who've rendered their conclusions at ideally a 95% confidence level?

i disagree

simply because someone presents a claim

that does not magically transfer the burden-of-proof

from the speaker to the recipient

i need to be able to verify the existence of the item in question myself, personally

or, alternatively receive confirmation from a "trusted-source" that, and this is critical, i personally consider reliable on such matters

yes, that and my perceived "lack of necessity" of a belief in an absolutely "factual" bigfoot

generally speaking, empirically demonstrable using the scientific method and multiple independent peer review teams meeting a minimum confidence of at least one sigma and ideally at least two sigma

It's your position that Bigfoot isn't fact by reason of its not being demonstrated using the scientific method and verified by multiple independent review teams who've rendered their conclusions at ideally a 95% confidence level?

yes, that and my perceived "lack of necessity" of a belief in an absolutely "factual" bigfoot

If a claimant is to satisfy their onus--particularly an evidentiary burden--and you reject the claimant's claim as fact which naturally incorporates your criteria-it's being known to the claimant notwithstanding--does it not behoove you to explicitly state and justify said criteria, and by extension substantiate your rejection of the claim as fact? 

does it not behoove you to explicitly state and justify said criteria,

i disagree

simply because someone presents a claim

that does not magically transfer the burden-of-proof

from the speaker to the recipient

That's not what I'm stating. You are under no burden to prove or disprove someone's claim; it is however incumbent upon you to delineate and justify your measures of proof especially if you're the one demanding proof. It would be like:

You: Bigfoot has not been proven (is NOT fact; conclusive evidence has not been shared.)

I: Demonstrate that which counts as proof/evidence and the reasons claims of Bigfoot's observation don't suffice.

You: Proof/evidence exemplifies Logical necessity or Empirical Demonstration.

I: What's the basis?

(Presumption of ) You: That which is analytically and/or tautologically true; the scientific method, multiple independent review teams, and ideally a confidence of two sigma.

AS OPPOSED TO:

I: Bigfoot is fact.

You: Bigfoot is not fact.

I: Prove me wrong.

You: I am under no obligation to prove you wrong.

I: I win!

The burden which befalls your affirmation isn't one which demands that it DISPROVES a preceding claim, only that you provide information and justification to the measures of proof to which you have subjected the argument, ABSENT of any presumed measures of proof.

If a claimant is to satisfy their onus--particularly an evidentiary burden--and you reject the claimant's claim as fact which naturally incorporates your criteria-it's being known to the claimant notwithstanding--does it not behoove you to explicitly state and justify said criteria, and by extension substantiate your rejection of the claim as fact? 

ok, let me just say, you've really raised the bar here

i mean, i always enjoy our exchanges

but this one really takes-the-cake

does it not behoove you to explicitly state and justify said criteria,

IF AND ONLY IF i respect the individual demanding an explanation

in the same way, someone who is declined a job is not generally provided with, and is certainly not OWED "a reason why they were not hired"

Under what criteria of proof is a claim expected to satisfy its burden of proof?

that is negotiated between the speaker (claimant) and the audience (recipient)