I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Extreme Humor

Gorilla Mask

Oddee

Free Samples

FreeGame Heaven

Funny Stuff

Funny Games

123 Games

Viva La Games

Fresh Pics

Friday Fun

Gig Posters

Funny Videos

Angelsfire.nl

Crazy Games

DailyFreeGames

eBaum Nation



Back to Listing

The Burden Of Proof - Who Has It?

Hits: 9462 | Rating: (2.9) | Category: Misc. | Added by: kitteh9lives
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
tstyblucryns
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 498 Posts
Monday, April 30, 2012 9:54:24 PM
End of the first post was supposed to be *logic of the opposing view* BTW

tstyblucryns
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 498 Posts
Monday, April 30, 2012 9:52:33 PM
I tried so hard to fit that comment into the char limit but I feel like I need to clarify that last bit. Of course, in terms or relative argument, specifically in terms of logic, then yes a ridiculous claim is arguably less logical. I was just trying to curb any argument about a spaghetti monster. It's probably better just to say that I personally do not make any claim of any god/gods/unicorns/spaghetti monsters. Only voicing my personal irritation to what I see as a flawed logical requirement for evidence. A battle I'm really starting to regret.

tstyblucryns
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 498 Posts
Monday, April 30, 2012 9:41:38 PM
Thought there would be good reason to come back. Well, I can say if you're arguing against the sole claim "God is real", then I am not your man. I do still say that atheism is no more logical than theism but I have come to terms with the fact that people aren't going to agree with me unless they already do, and that everyone is bringing their own views to the table.

It makes sense (to me, at least) that IF god were real THEN we would not be able to observe his presence so any logical assumptions built from this absence of evidence are flawed. Accepting this if/then statement seems to be the impasse. (Note that Santa and the Tooth Fairy don't apply as they would be physical beings) I believe this would apply to an intelligent deity, also. If you don't see it that way well then I can see how it would be entirely logical to assume there is no God given there is no evidence.

PS However ridiculous a claim may seem, its absurdity does not give weight to the logic

Otto67
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 438 Posts
Sunday, April 29, 2012 8:34:18 PM
"It's just arrogant to act like your position is somehow more scientific based on flawed logic."

tstyblucryns,

You are of course right, it is equally logical to believe in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy as it is to not believe in them.



HiEv
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 607 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 11:02:50 PM
ryanwi: "The author uses the scientific definition of 'burden of proof.' But in a discussion of a philosophic topic, the scientific burden of proof isn't valid."

I disagree. There isn't this magic "other set of rules for logic" that applies to philosophy. Burden of proof is a fundamental of logic and it applies the same way in all contexts.

What you are trying to do is shift the burden of proof, which in any logical system lies upon the claimant, by claiming that the context somehow matters.

It does not.

I took four philosophy classes in college (intro, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, and as a portion of my AI/Cognitive Science senior seminar) and I've never heard anyone claim that that was true, much less make a reasonable defense of such a claim.

In any case, I dispute the context and say that this is an argument of science and logic, not merely philosophy.

HiEv
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 607 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 10:40:54 PM
tstyblucryns: "So according to this logic the world was flat until sufficient evidence proved otherwise? No, I'm putting words in your mouth. But it was reasonable to assume that it was flat until proven otherwise even though there was no sufficient evidence to support that."

No, that's wrong. The default assumption would be that you have no idea what shape the world is. Anyone claiming that it was flat would have to provide evidence.

However, since the world did not appear to loop up into the sky or have holes in it, and simple shapes are more likely, that the world was flat would have been a reasonable early conclusion to come to. However, once another explanation that better fits the facts (e.g. ships disappearing over the horizon) then that explanation should be accepted instead.

It's the basic scientific method, but note that minor claims require less evidence than extraordinary ones.

tstyblucryns
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 498 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 5:39:56 PM
You, too. Hope your lunch is as good as mine.

jendrian
Male, 18-29, Canada
 2492 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 5:31:43 PM
glad to see we're on the same page, cheers! and have a fun day

tstyblucryns
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 498 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 5:20:10 PM
@jendrian

You know, I can see your point. TBH I think I might have derailed myself a little, lol. I think this video (and thread) is targeted at people who claim the existence of god and I kinda wormed myself in, even though I don't really fit that mold. I guess I'm always going to cringe a little when I hear someone say atheism is a more logical approach, but that's based off my own views. It's starting to feel a bit like arguing what we're having for lunch but we all brought our own. :D

*fixed it, didn't really make sense the first time

jendrian
Male, 18-29, Canada
 2492 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 5:00:00 PM
@tstyblucryns; thank you, I appreciate arguing in a reasonable, logical way.

However I do think that if you include god into the function of nature, that is diluting the concept to the point where god = nature and the question is moot because then the whole of science is a description of god. That's why I always make sure to say that his influence must be distinct from that of nature's, because only then do we have a supernatural being, which is the most generally accepted concept of "god".

tstyblucryns
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 498 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 4:29:02 PM
@jendrain

I don't see how that is diluting the concept of god. I approach it as a honest possibility and to me it makes sense that all things would be directly connected to an incorporeal existence. I think we might be at an impasse here. I guess if you don't think that is a plausible scenario then I could see how the logic works.

PS I have to say I rarely get reasonable responses on here so it is much appreciated.

tstyblucryns
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 498 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 4:22:18 PM
@jendrian

You're making the assumption that rain created by a supernatural power would be "distinct from what nature would do without his influence". I don't think that's true. Who's to say that every cycle in nature isn't influenced by a higher power. If science is calibrated from a position that god is actively a part of then we would not perceive a difference as you describe.

jendrian
Male, 18-29, Canada
 2492 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 4:18:47 PM
So, I think we can agree the more "scientific" approach is to not rule out the possibility completely.

yes, we agree, and I have not really ever heard any atheist saying that without a doubt there's no god, only that there's no evidence for it, which brings us to:

OK, assume there is a god who directly influences our reality. We could not possibly measure or perceive this existence so there is no way to fulfill this request.


I'm gonna repeat myself too, if it directly influences our reality outside of what we consider nature, that influence is measurable, because we understand nature, and unless you dilute the concept of god to mean nature, the request for evidence of it is valid.

So no, the logic is not flawed, the position of default (but uncertain) skepticism is logically the best one

jendrian
Male, 18-29, Canada
 2492 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 4:11:37 PM
@tstyblucryns, but you just said that the incorporeal god created rain, that's not incorporeal.

If you were a 2D person trying to understand the influences of a 3D dimension on you, you would be able to do that by measuring changes in shadows, as we already do that in higher dimensional physics (specially when it comes to time), very accurately.

If god was to create rain, in a way that is distinct from what nature would do without his influence, then we would be able to tell, because we can predict (with a certain degree of accuracy) the conditions for rain to occur naturally, so any rain happening outside of that realm of our predictive power could be considered god's work, and again, it's not incorporeal evidence.

As always, incorporeal forms, acting on our physical world, have physical consequences that we are able to measure. It is however, unreasonable to assume that all incorporeal evidence is incorporeal.

tstyblucryns
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 498 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 4:06:50 PM
"I don't think it's arrogant to request evidence for claims, I think it's arrogant to assume you don't need to provide any."

That's just it, though. I'm not saying that theists don't have to provide proof. I'm not even claiming there is a god.

This is my thought process:
There different types of atheist.
1)100%=absolutely no possibility of a god
2)not 100%=lack of evidence means the logical assumption is that there is no god but it is a possibility if proven.

So, I think we can agree the more "scientific" approach is to not rule out the possibility completely. I'm gonna repeat myself a little here, and I'm sorry. OK, assume there is a god who directly influences our reality. We could not possibly measure or perceive this existence so there is no way to fulfill this request. The logic is that if it were real then we would be able to prove it but we couldn't by its very nature. That's all I'm saying. The logic is flawed.

tstyblucryns
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 498 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 3:52:15 PM
@jendrian

I never said that there wouldn't be an influence on our world. But even an influence couldn't be explained by our current perception. Imagine a 2 dimensional sentient being pondering the existence of the 3rd dimension. They would certainly see an influence of the 3rd dimension however they would only be able to explain it with 2d science. Or let's assume that there is a god. God says, "Let's make some rain." Now the process of rain being formed we can observe and measure and it's science! But there is no way that we as humans would even be able to measure the influence that started the process.

I don't think that it is flawed to assume any evidence or influence of an incorporeal existence would be incorporeal itself. That makes sense, actually.

jendrian
Male, 18-29, Canada
 2492 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 3:41:51 PM
but it's not, we're asking a valid question: if there's a god that is somehow relevant to us evolved apes, then where is the proof of it?

In that respect, in that we're asking for it in a logical way (that unnatural influences on nature should be able to be measured as distinct from nature), the position of default skepticism is a scientifically sound one.

I don't think it's arrogant to request evidence for claims, I think it's arrogant to assume you don't need to provide any.

tstyblucryns
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 498 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 3:31:25 PM
I'm sorry. I'm being a peen, now. The only point I'm trying to make is that atheism cannot be a default position based on this burden of proof logic fail. I honestly have no beef with atheism, everyone can be atheists for all I care. It's just arrogant to act like your position is somehow more scientific based on flawed logic.

jendrian
Male, 18-29, Canada
 2492 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 3:24:26 PM
@tstyblucryns, I see a flaw in your logic, in that the only kind of evidence of non-physical beings is non-physical, as the whole idea of god is it being a non-physical entity with influence in the physical world (otherwise his/her existence is irrelevant).

Therefore, I am not willing to admit the fact that it is illogical to request the scientific method to apply to the philosophy of religion, but I am willing to discuss why it is a valid, scientific question.

And I believe that's what everybody else is talking about.

tstyblucryns
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 498 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 3:21:45 PM
true*

tstyblucryns
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 498 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 3:18:51 PM
@Otto Ahh, but I never claimed anything to be truth. Try to keep up.

Otto67
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 438 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 2:38:35 PM
"Our scope of understanding does not allow us to measure therefore an expectation for evidence is flawed logic."

And claiming something is true and at the same time saying there is no evidence for it and by definition that "truth" can't have evidence is also flawed logic.

Otto67
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 438 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 2:30:42 PM
"What I said is that if a philosophical argument contravenes the majority holding, that the person making the new argument bears the burden."

You are also equating religious belief as if it is philosophy, it's not.


tstyblucryns
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 498 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 2:15:36 PM
@patchgrabber

Saying that you are using the scientific method does not make it so. Not trying to be mean but this is the flaw in logic I've been talking about. This requires falsifiable data, and I'm feeling like a broken record here but you cannot honestly expect physical evidence of a non-physical existence. We can agree on this, right? I mean if someone is not willing to admit this fact then that's a deal breaker. There is no reason to really discuss if you cannot admit this fact. If we could address the fact that making an assumption based on a requirement for evidence that cannot logically be provided then I'd be happy. I know better, this will be avoided and something out of context will be addressed or my comment will be ignored completely. And do you know why? Because there is no way to address this other than to admit it is true. Our scope of understanding does not allow us to measure therefore an expectation for evidence is flawed logic.

ryanwi
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
 73 Posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012 2:03:04 PM
"Since when is the question not scientific? People are attempting to explain the physical world and associated events. This is inherently scientific. Your logic is what's laughable."

I think you agree with me, but don't realize that you do. You are correct that the intelligent design folks are trying to explain the physical world and associated events. You are correct that the argument they are making is a scientific argument. But the theory they propose is not scientific at all. A scientific theory must be disprovable. There is no possible way to prove intelligent design to be incorrect using the scientific method. That's why intelligent design is not, or at least should not, be taught inside a science curriculum.

Intelligent design is simply an attempt to put a scientific dress on creationism. You are welcome to believe anything you want. But creationism and it's offspring, intelligent design, are not science.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.