I don’t think I’ve ever seen you playing the BOP game, but I’m pretty new here, in any event, in context, I’m challenging the validity of the BOP game that is being played here. I think you are saying you believe in the existence of an external reality but you cannot meet the so-called burden of proof.
There is a subtlety here. Firstly, I assume that “an external reality” exists (by which I am assuming you mean the world around me external to my brain) - there are no other assumptions that I have any basis to make.
OK, and how is that different
from a Theist assuming that a transcendent reality exists?
If I use this in an argument, it would typically be as a base assumption - “assuming that…” which doesn’t need burden of proof; because you’re saying it’s an assumption. If, on the other hand I make claims about that reality, what it is or how it works. That I would require a burden or proof for.
Any time, I put forward an idea as truth, or probably/likely truth; I would typically require the burden of proof.
You
must know that Theism is a belief based on faith, that’s no secret, so when a Theist
claims faith in a transcendent realm why is that making claims about that
reality, what it is, and how it works. Don’t
pretend that BOPers don’t make claims about internal and external reality all
the time, you haven’t explained why Theism, and only Theism, carries a burden
of proof.
There
is no subtlety here, there is only game playing.
So according to the rules of the BOP game, you can’t meet the burden of proof, so you are irrational and logically incoherent, and I’m more logical, more intelligent, and blah blah blah.
Not really. Saying that I appear to be conscious - is arguably meeting the burden of proof for whether I am conscious based on its definition. If I were to make claims about what consciousness is, or that something non human was conscious; then I would need to meet my burden of proof for those claims.
OK, and
saying I’m a Theist is arguable meeting the burden of proof for whether I am a
Theist based on its definition. When are
you going to get around to explaining all the commotion and demands for burden
of proof that happens when someone says they are a Theist?
I made the point earlier that our state of conscious awareness is a feature that trumps all others in the matter of epistemic authority. The only thing we know in an unmediated manner is that we are conscious, Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” comes to mind. Regarding external reality, all we can know are phenomena: things as they present themselves to us; things as they appear to us, not things as they are. The world in its own right, the noumenal world, can only be inferred. You answered both questions with reference to experiential evidence such as “I appear to observe” and “I know what that feels like”, at the same time acknowledging that you can’t meet the so-called burden of proof, which validates my point about the BOP game. You can’t meet the BOP for belief in the existence of external reality or internal reality, what exactly is the point of the BOP game, what does it have to day about the existence of anything?
The issue with burden of proof is that it relates to disagreements.
Whoa, I
think you slipped up there my friend. Don’t
you guys like to insist that the BOP is on the Theist because they are making a
claim, and not on you, because Atheism is just lack belief? If that’s the case, then there is no
disagreement, BOPers insist that Atheism is not making a claim, so where is the
disagreement. For the Atheist to
disagree with the Theist, then there must be a counterclaim, and if there is a counterclaim then there is a BOP.
For consciousness and the existence of external reality - is more of a shared assumption by everyone.
Well,
not everyone, a lot of people claim consciousness is an illusion, and a lot of
others believe in the philosophy of Idealism. I'm pretty familiar with philosophy as a subject matter, and I threw these out there in the first place because philosophically
speaking, there is no way to actually "prove" either one. In you can go to the hundreds of years of voluminous philosophical discourse and find me a conclusive proof on either subject matter, please tell me about it, I'd be interested in reading it. Same goes for the existence of God proof that you guys like to insist on, and there's thousands of years of discourse on that.
If someone contested whether shared reality existed - and you wanted to claim external reality definitely existed, then the burden of proof would be on you - and you couldn’t meet it - likewise for someone who said it doesn’t exist.
Once again, you are saying the
burden of proof only applies when there is a disagreement, and then it applies
to both sides, so tell me again about the exception for the Atheist/Theist conversation.
You are saying if they aren’t disagreeing, then there is no BOP, and if they are
disagreeing, then both sides have the BOP, please explain why Theists have a
burden of proof by virtue of claiming to have faith?
You meet your burden of the claim that something exists by virtue of having the conversation at all - with most other things being irrelevant to the conversation as they are unknowable.
Nope, not at all, you are the first BOPer to answer, and you have pretty much acknowledged that you can’t hit the BOP pitch either, nobody can, so the question becomes, what is the point of pitching the BOP when there is no ball to hit, why do you guys think it somehow makes a relevant point about Theism.
I think you may misunderstand - nothing I’ve said would be subject to BoP - as I’m not making any claims. I’m not really expressing the truth of an idea - that’s when you subject yourself to BoP; if you don’t make claims, you can make assumptions from which you can argue the conclusions follow if the assumption is correct - but if the assumption is challenged, that’s where BoP comes into play.
Again,
why the double standard, when you speak of what you believe, you aren’t making
any claims, but when a Theist speaks of what they believe, they are making
claims. The whole BOP game is a matter
of how the Atheist is challenging the Theist, so if there is a disagreement
between the Atheist and the Theist, then they are challenging each other’s
assumptions, how does this explain the one-sided BOP?
OK, my question is, why do you play the BOP game, what exactly do you think it establishes about Theism?
You’ve asked this a few times - but I left it till last; it’s fairly easy.
Humans have the ability to express ideas that can be false. We do it a lot, and we have an exceptional imagination for coming up with objects, things, explanations, ideas, etc - that are not true. We do it a lot. When you or I think up an explanation or an idea - it could be reality, or not.
In the context of an argument - we’re trying to establish or come to some agreement about what is or is not true.
Normally - especially when talking about religion, most arguments boil down to a mere handful of underlying ideas or premises; if these premises are true, most of the rest follows. It’s is those premises that are contested.
For example, using morality to show the existence of God, is a good one: the contested premise is that morality is an objective thing.
When a premise is contested ; both sides have to figure out what’s true or false. This is where BoP comes in: How do we establish who should, or shouldn’t, prove or disprove any particular claim? Who has “the burden” in any individual case? It can’t be arbitrary.
Some ideas can be disproven, some can be proven, but many are unfalsifiable: can’t really be proven wrong, in any practical sense. If the burden of proof is on the disproved - then you can win arguments by coming up with ideas that are not true - but hard or impossible to disprove - that would prevent any intellect discussion this way around, thus the burden of proof must therefore be on the positive claim.
I see it invoked - and invoke it - primarily in two scenarios:
1.) Where someone is being lazy, or specifically in cases where I’ve spent time and effort crafting large responses to points, and the other person is just throwing out claims without proof. It’s not fair in me to carry both the proof and disproof; so I’ll often challenge people to support their assertions in this context
My experience so far is
that the BOPers I’ve encountered here are incredibly lazy, that’s why I refer
to the automatic
responses as Pavlovian and unconscious. It seems that no matter what you say they are just waiting their turn to
bark “BOP”, “logically incoherent”, and blah blah blah. You are the first one that appears to have
actually read and responded to what I’ve said, and it’s appreciated, even
though you are wrong about everything 😊
2.) Where an assumption is challenged that is hard or impossible to be disproven even if it’s false: but is being presented as if truthful. IE - we have no reason to believe that this is actually true, but you’re arguing as if it is. The point here is mostly to highlight that the point relies on an unsupported assertion, despite any vehemence that results.
If you’re arguing that you don’t know whether your particular belief is true or false; only that you feel it’s true, or have faith that its true, and don’t argue that faith as a basis for arguing it is true in the context of the argument - you don’t need a burden, as you’re not claiming anything.
Again,
is it really possible that the Atheist BOPers here are completely unaware that
Theism is a matter of faith? That’s never
really been a secret.
If, however, and it’s quite common in many theists, that you want to express that unqualified faith, and unsupported position of feeling, but also want to use it; or your conclusions as a basis for expressing that others are wrong about something (I’m not suggesting you specifically - I haven’t read enough here), that’s when burden of proof applies.
Those Theists you are talking about tend come at me with
both guns blazing, for some reason I really get under those guys skin, and I
have more fun landing on them with both feet than I do Atheists. Don’t be surprised when you and I are on the
same side of those debates.
Heck, as far as I can tell, you and I are on the same
side of our own debate, it sure sounds to me like you are saying the BOP game
is BS, you just don’t want to admit it. But no worries, I’m OK with you always being wrong 😊
