Are you atheist?

[Dis n Dat]

25 minutes ago, Arete said:

That's probably the most elegant shifting the burden of proof I've ever seen. Well done. 

 

No. It was your claim that I asked questions about. I did not make a claim. So that's not a burden of proof fallacy. The burden of proof is on you Arete. 

26 minutes ago, Arete said:

I can't prove that every belief system is developed by humans any more than I can prove that none of the pigeons in New York City are robots, or that none of the "humans" in West Virginia are bigfoot. 

 

Very good. So you agree that you can't prove it. In that case, why would you make a claim you cannot prove? Or is your claim misunderstood? 

27 minutes ago, Arete said:

We've done a big circular dance to the logical fallacy where you demand that atheists prove God isn't real. 

 

Not at all. It depends on who made the claim. This is just a red herring. 

27 minutes ago, Arete said:

To illustrate; Could you prove that there isn't a single mushroom in the world that a fairy doesn't sleep under? Does that mean the only logical premise is to accept the existence of fairies? Why or why not? 

If you claim this thing about fairies, it is only fair to ask for some form evidence. The burden of proof is on the claimant. 

[Arete]

5 minutes ago, Dis n Dat said:

No. It was your claim that I asked questions about. I did not make a claim. So that's not a burden of proof fallacy. The burden of proof is on you Arete. 

The burden of proof is on the party making the POSITIVE claim (i.e. you). Bertrand Russell dealt with your position 70 years ago. This is old and tired. Have a good day. 

Edited November 5, 2022 by Arete

[Dis n Dat]

1 minute ago, Arete said:

So Bertrand Russell dealt with your position 70 years ago. This is old and tired. Have a good day. 

What position of mine did Bertrand Russell "deal with"? Which one have I stated here that Bertrand Russell "dealt with"? If it's on skepticism, that's absolutely not generalisation and burden of proof. Or is it on the mind, matter, or philosophisation? 

Please do give the specifics I asked for. 

Thanks. 

[Arete]

I said good day to you, sealion. 

[Dis n Dat]

49 minutes ago, Arete said:

The burden of proof is on the party making the POSITIVE claim (i.e. you). Bertrand Russell dealt with your position 70 years ago. This is old and tired. Have a good day. 

You changed your statement with an edit. Now it's completely different. 

So could you point out where I made a "positive claim"? 

Thanks. 

[Arete]

2 hours ago, Dis n Dat said:

Thanks. 

You played your hand and I'm no longer engaging with you. Google Bertrand Russell if you find yourself ignorant of his philosophy. 

 

For those following along - this is a particularly tricky game of shifting the burden of proof - e.g.

1: "Some people believe in bigfoot, I personally don't"

2:"Please provide evidence that bigfoot doesn't exist"

1: "You're asking for me to prove a negative, that's a logical fallacy"

2: "You made the positive claim bigfoot doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on you to prove bigfoot doesn't exist." 

That's not how the burden of proof works. 1 is claiming a null state. 2 is then demanding proof of the null. If this were a hypothesis test, 1 demonstrates a result not supporting the test hypothesis. 2 is then demanding statistical proof of the null. That's not how a hypothesis test works - one tests the test state and either supports it or does not (refracting to the null). Nothing about this preposition provides support for the test state, nor that retaining the null state demands a burden of proof. 

E.g. Say I dropped a pencil and it fell to the ground. Demanding proof it didn't fly into the Sun is not a logically valid premise. If someone demands that it is, they are intellectually dishonest, and not worth engaging. As demonstrated. 

[Dis n Dat]

40 minutes ago, Arete said:

You played your hand and I'm no longer engaging with you. Google Bertrand Russell if you find yourself ignorant of his philosophy. 

 

For those following along - this is a particularly tricky game of shifting the burden of proof - e.g.

1: "Some people believe in bigfoot, I personally don't"

2:"Please provide evidence that bigfoot doesn't exist"

1: "You're asking for me to prove a negative, that's a logical fallacy"

2: "You made the positive claim bigfoot doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on you to prove bigfoot doesn't exist." 

That's not how the burden of proof works. 1 is claiming a null state. 2 is then demanding proof of the null. If this were a hypothesis test, 1 demonstrates a result not supporting the test hypothesis. 2 is then demanding statistical proof of the null. That's not how a hypothesis test works - one tests the test state and either supports it or does not (refracting to the null). Nothing about this preposition provides support for the test state, nor that retaining the null state demands a burden of proof. 

E.g. Say I dropped a pencil and it fell to the ground. Demanding proof it didn't fly into the Sun is not a logically valid premise. If someone demands that it is, they are intellectually dishonest, and not worth engaging. As demonstrated. 

None of this is relevant to me. This is all a strawman effort. 

I questioned you on your claim and your claim only. The burden of proof lies on the claimant, not on the questioner. It's absolutely simple. 

Have a great day. 

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Dis n Dat said:

None of this is relevant to me. This is all a strawman effort. 

I questioned you on your claim and your claim only. The burden of proof lies on the claimant, not on the questioner. It's absolutely simple. 

Have a great day. 

I think you need to learn a lot more philosophy, because your understaning of logical fallacy is fundamentally flawed.

Or your deliberately trolling...

Have a nice day... 😇🙏

[iNow]

32 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Or your deliberately trolling...

You were correct also the first time you mentioned this

From 3 days ago, yet 6 entire pages of “discussion:”

On 11/2/2022 at 8:41 AM, dimreepr said:

No, it's just a relevant question, that you've failed to answer; I'm guessing your presence here is limited...

 

Sealion plus bad faith equals boring 

[zapatos]

9 hours ago, Dis n Dat said:

No. It was your claim that I asked questions about. I did not make a claim. So that's not a burden of proof fallacy. The burden of proof is on you Arete. 

Very good. So you agree that you can't prove it. In that case, why would you make a claim you cannot prove? Or is your claim misunderstood? 

Not at all. It depends on who made the claim. This is just a red herring. 

If you claim this thing about fairies, it is only fair to ask for some form evidence. The burden of proof is on the claimant. 

Did you just come here to fight?

[dimreepr]

On 11/5/2022 at 12:20 PM, iNow said:

You were correct also the first time you mentioned this

From 3 days ago, yet 6 entire pages of “discussion:”

 

Sealion plus bad faith equals boring 

It's a shame though, he's clearly intelligent and with, it seems, a good deal of knowledge; he could be a valuable member of our community, if his boredom could be directed more positively.

[Arete]

Quote

Burden of Proof rests with the person making the claim and a positive claim.  It is shifting the Burden of Proof for the person making the positive claim to insist that those who deny the positive claim have the burden to prove that the positive claim is false. It is the Fallacy or mistake of appealing to ignorance to reach a conclusion based on lack of knowledge such as with taking the position that :

If you can not prove that X does not exists, then X does exist.

If you can not prove that X is false, then X is true.

From a textbook on the Philosophy of Religion written by a Professor of Philosophy. 

 

Edited November 6, 2022 by Arete

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, GREYEANNIUS said:

haha. this is funny

You're apparently easily amused.

3 hours ago, GREYEANNIUS said:

prove we are not created by god? big bang and evolution

Theories and models are NOT proof of anything. 

3 hours ago, GREYEANNIUS said:

prove god exists? we are thinking and alive are we not

This seems poorly derived. What does one have to do with the other?

3 hours ago, GREYEANNIUS said:

find the contradiction? null

Brevity is often inadequate.