The Wager

[Hyperqube]

> That doesn't really make sense. "I say God doesn't exist" is a claim in response to the other claim

It doesn't matter it's in response to something else. I can refer you to wikipedia and the burden of proof:

 

When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different from the explicit denial "I believe that X is false"
 

 

 

 

> This isn't about the ability to prove it right, as we learn more about the universe we'll adjust our knowledge with new evidence.

> What this is about is whether or not a claim has any evidence or any real basis in reality

But it is not. the god question isn't about who has evidence or basis. I can refer to dawkins scale: it's wether god exists or not.

[Mengh.]

> This isn't about the ability to prove it right, as we learn more about the universe we'll adjust our knowledge with new evidence.

> What this is about is whether or not a claim has any evidence or any real basis in reality

But it is not. the god question isn't about who has evidence or basis. I can refer to dawkins scale: it's wether god exists or not.

 

God can be seen as a burden in the unknown. Sometimes I question, ''How do we explain the stuff that does not exist?'' In our minds, they exist but in real life, we have no clue. One could easily say that they don't believe there is God however, there is no proof of proving that God doesn't exist. However, the situation of this generation for topics like these ends up being the fact that we have no proof God exists - similar to unicorns or other supernatural beings. How can we prove that those things don't exist? And if we do believe that they do exist, what definitive proof do we have?

[Hyperqube]

> However, the situation of this generation for topics like these ends up being the fact that we have no proof God
> exists - similar to unicorns or other supernatural beings. How can we prove that those things don't exist?

If I might paraphrase Michio Kaku (American futurist, theoretical physicist and popularizer of science): "who am I to say unicorns don't exist? there are millions upon milions of planets out there - who's to say that there is not one that houses an equine race with a horn on their head?". As you can hopefully see ...  it's not easy to prove something doesn't exist, 'casue... well. ... it might.

 

How can one prove something doesn't exist? Logic offers an answer to this: Modus Tollens ( "P->Q" ,  -Q implies -P ) / proof by contradiction / evidence of absence...  You prove that the existance would create an inconsistancy in the facts.A simple example:

• Is someone following me (P) ? turn a corner and wait - because if someone is following you, that person would also turn the corner (P->Q). So you wait, and nobody comes ( -Q) ... ergo nobody is following me.

IIRC, Steven Hawkins once organized a party for time travelers. and announced it only the day after This had the same idea:

• Is it possible to travel back in time (P)? well if they could, they would go to the party ( P->Q), but nobody came (-Q), so traveling back in time is impossible

But you can quickly see the problem with trying to prove something doesn't exist: you don't really disprove the thing, you disprove your test . Hawkins didn't prove traveling back in time is impossible - he only proved that nobody traveled back in time to go his party.

 

The proof is only as good as the test.

[Splat]

I don't think being indifferent or equally (or even anything close to equally) pushed towards theism or atheism makes sense: it's not 50/50. For example, take if I open a box, put a rock in it, then close the box; despite that I can't know whether the rock is in it or not without interfering with the box, the odds are not 50/50. They are infinitely skewed to the notion that there is a rock inside it, because there is no evidence (or, better put, sense) indicating that there wouldn't be a rock inside it, and rather intuitive logic tells us that there is a rock in there. A quick reality check says there's a rock in there. And when I open the box, what a surprise: there's a rock in there.

 

I would not call it intuitive per se, but the logic of not believing in a god is hardly esoteric in any manner: when you find, as modern science has, that humans are practically built to believe in things that simply are not there, and there is no notion that would really make a man in the sky, or any other sort of deity I suppose, more deserving of faith than the dinosaur under your bed when you were four or five, perhaps you might realise this.

 

It's really impossible to see the odds of a bet when you know that you know nothing about the race that's going on. Besides the fact that there are hundreds of horses running, which the wager seems to arbitrarily exclude.

[Heated Bread]

So just to riff off of Splat's example:

 

If you put a rock in a box and then close the box and pose the question, "is there a rock in this box?", all the information you have available points to there being a rock there, but that information could be wrong.  Your memory may be false.  There may be no box at all.  It could all be an illusion.  The rock may have disintegrated in the box or been swallowed by a small wormhole, or any number of weird things you could potentially dream up.  These are possibilities that you have to acknowledge.  However, the problem here is that unlike the possibility that there IS a rock in the box, none of these other possibilities are evident in any way.  They are simply philosophical doubts.  They're not, as one would say in a court of law, reasonable doubts.  They're analogous to a man on trial for murder claiming that aliens committed the crime and framed the man using their advanced technology so as to leave no trace of themselves.

 

So you have two possible beliefs (discounting weird things like "half of the rock was stolen by tiny aliens but they left the other half", etc).  One is that there is a rock in the box, and one is that there is no rock in the box.  Given that you've placed a rock there yourself and have a clear memory of it, these beliefs are not equivalently valid.  Sorry, but they're just not.  Regardless of whether there actually is a rock in the box or not in reality, what a person is left to believe based on the available information is that there is in fact a rock there.  If that person, having put a rock in the box themselves, believed that there was no rock in the box, we would question whether they were in possession of a sound mind.

 

Now we come around to god.  No god has ever been demonstrated to be anything beyond the imagination of human beings.  Sorry, but that's just the way it is.  Several concepts of gods can just be flat out dismissed based on logical paradoxes or based on discoveries about the natural world that explain certain phenomenon without the need to invoke the gods which were previously supposed to be the cause of them.  As a species, we have no information to conclusively demonstrate the existence of any gods, but we do have plenty of information demonstrating that people have made up gods.  I can make one up right now if you like.

 

You can withhold judgement on the matter of whether any gods do exist, you can believe that there is/are god(s), or you can believe there are none.  None of these positions are equivalent.  One of them is clearly the worst.  That would be belief in a god or gods.  I won't sugarcoat it.  It's just flat out gullibility, since there have been zero evidently true gods found so far, which doesn't seem to stop anyone from claiming that there are anyway.  Show me one and I'll believe it.  The next is not as bad but still bad because you can raise many philosophical objections to it, which would be belief that there are no gods, which at least has some grounding in the available information about many clearly invented and eliminated gods.  The last would be pretty much logically airtight, which is to withhold belief in either opposing side of the matter.  It's far and away the best.  To claim that any of these positions are equivalent is dishonest, and likewise it is dishonest to try to pretend that the argument is about reality when the argument is about what is the worst belief given the available information, especially when it has been repeatedly clarified to you.  You know who you are.

 

Now let's use another example.  A guy walks into a bar.  He says "I have a snurl on my head".  One of the customers says "What's a snurl?", to which the guy replies, "A tiny invisible fuzzy creature with magical abilities who brings good luck."  A second customer asks "Can you have it demonstrate its powers to us so we know you're telling the truth?", to which the guy replies "No, because snurls do not like being tested."  The first customer says "I believe you."  The second customer says "There is no such thing as snurls."

 

Question: Of the two customers, which one is smarter?  The first one or the second one?

 

Yeah.

[Hyperqube]

> For example, take if I open a box, put a rock in it, then close the box; despite that I can't know whether the rock is in it or not without interfering with the box, the odds are not 50/50. They are infinitely skewed to the notion that there is a rock inside it, because there is no evidence (or, better put, sense)

 

Indeed, but NOT because there's not evidence, or sense, but because your example appeals to absurdity ("sure the rock can magically disappear, right? ... har har har").

 

Lets see to remove that fallacy. Well ... suppose there's a hole in the box, and the rock fell through it. (but again, you have no evidence of that happening). If you don't check if the rock fell through the hole (recall - there's no evidence), are the odds still still infinitely skewed to the notion that there is a rock inside it? Of course not.

Here's what logic says:

 

The principle of indifference (also called principle of insufficient reason) is a rule for assigning epistemic probabilities. Suppose that there are n > 1 mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive possibilities. The principle of indifference states that if the n possibilities are indistinguishable except for their names, then each possibility should be assigned a probability equal to 1/n.

 

 

 

 

 

> The first customer says "I believe you."  The second customer says "There is no such thing as snurls."

> Question: Of the two customers, which one is smarter?  The first one or the second one?

 

The first person. Because believe doesn't put the burden of proof on a person (it's not claiming it's true, like the guy with the snurf did). The second doesn't say "I don't believe in snurfs", but asserts they don't exist - giving him the burden of proof.

 

Sorry mate - but go to some atheist forums. Even they will tell you an agnostic theist makes more sense then a gnostic atheist.

[Heated Bread]

For anyone curious, here is a layman friendly definition of the principle of indifference: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principle+of+indifference

 

From this we can easily see that this does not apply to the example with the rock in the box, since it is not a situation where the person is absent any reason to expect one outcome over the other.  It is in fact a situation where the person can expect there to be a rock present inside the box, since the person has put one there.

 

 

I also have personally clarified that my argument is about belief, not reality, about 5 separate times by a quick count.  Yet we still see hyper deliberately behaving as though this was not the case at all.  Case in point, saying that the bar example falls apart because the burden of proof falls upon the second customer, when he is merely expressing his belief in response to a claim.  The burden of proof would apply to the second customer if he were also trying to convince others that his position was in fact true knowledge of reality, as was being done by the person making the initial claim. 

 

The point of the example is not about who is right, but about who has the lesser position with regards to the claim given the available information (or lack thereof).  Notice that the question following the example was "Which one is smarter?", not "Which one is right?".  The one who believes the claim in the absence of supporting evidence has the lesser position, because he is being gullible by accepting that the claim is true.  The one who, in the absence of evidence to support the claim, believes the claim is false, has the better position of the two, though his belief does not mean that the claim is wrong in reality, nor is he required to prove that his belief is correct unless he is trying to convince others, at which point he would have the burden of proof.

 

Hyper, if you intend to be this transparent, I suggest finding somewhere else where your antics might be more successful.  By deliberately ignoring my repeated clarification, you are making yourself much too obvious.

[Splat]

> For example, take if I open a box, put a rock in it, then close the box; despite that I can't know whether the rock is in it or not without interfering with the box, the odds are not 50/50. They are infinitely skewed to the notion that there is a rock inside it, because there is no evidence (or, better put, sense)

 

Indeed, but NOT because there's not evidence, or sense, but because your example appeals to absurdity ("sure the rock can magically disappear, right? ... har har har").

Er, what? An appeal to absurdity (even if I had made one) would not have changed the odds. Please reread what I've said and try not to twist it.

 

 

Here's what logic says:

 

The principle of indifference (also called principle of insufficient reason) is a rule for assigning epistemic probabilities. Suppose that there are n > 1 mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive possibilities. The principle of indifference states that if the n possibilities are indistinguishable except for their names, then each possibility should be assigned a probability equal to 1/n.

 

> The first customer says "I believe you."  The second customer says "There is no such thing as snurls."

> Question: Of the two customers, which one is smarter?  The first one or the second one?

 

The first person. Because believe doesn't put the burden of proof on a person (it's not claiming it's true, like the guy with the snurf did). The second doesn't say "I don't believe in snurfs", but asserts they don't exist - giving him the burden of proof.

 

Sorry mate - but go to some atheist forums. Even they will tell you an agnostic theist makes more sense then a gnostic atheist.

Logic a.k.a Wikipedia :>

 

The principle of indifference is a mathematical concept, no? Why would an all-knowing, omnipresent, universal god capable of even curing cataracts bow to a silly human field like mathematics? Even more specifically, a theoretically-based principle of an airy subject like bloody chance!

 

I'm not gnostic in any way, but I don't apply the principle of indifference to theology (since it's not mathematics, duh). I think it is more accurate to say that there is no god than that there is, although neither is surely true.

[Hyperqube]

> here is a layman friendly definition of the principle of indifference

Here's the principle of indifference in practice: the question "I flipped a coin, what is the chance it's head?"

if we have no further information (how it started & the number of rotations it made; perhaps it's a coin always landing on tail?) ... then the probability is 50 / 50

This is because any argument in favor or heads can also be used in favor of tails, negating eachother.

 

> It is in fact a situation where the person can expects there to be a rock present inside the box,

> since the person has put one there.

Nobody's disputing that someone put the rock in the bag - but recall? there's a non-absurd reason why the rock wouldn't be there anymore: there's a hole in the bag,  Perhaps the hole was too small for the pebble, perhaps the entire bottom of the box was gone ... we don't know: all we know that there's a box in which there might or might not be a rock.

And statistics tells us, that this means that it's 50 / 50.

 

> I also have personally clarified that my argument is about belief, not reality

But your argument adresses my point. you don't get to decide what my point is. You can clarify your argument is about apples and cake, for all I care. If it doesn't adress what it's supposed to adress it's attacking a straw man.

For instance I've refered a deis god multiple times, and you still keep arguing that god might be made up, dispite having already been pointed out that, by it's very nature, a deist god IS made up.
 

> I suggest finding somewhere else where your antics might be more successful.

Sorry mate, but as long as you're the one with the fallisious argument, you're the one with the antics.


-------------------------------------------

 

@Splat

*rereading* then I have to say I'm not quite sure what your point is. Common sense says that if you put a rock in a box, then there's a rock in the box?

(While this might not be imporant at all - I do want to causion into appealing to common sense. Note that common sense in quantum physics would be that rock would be sometimes inside the box, sometimes ouside the box, sometimes piercing through the cardbord ... - and that's still science - we're talking about metaphysics here. )

 

> I think it is more accurate to say that there is no god than that there is

And you have the fullest right to do so. And opposite to you, theres (possibly a hypothetical) theists somewhere who thinks that it's more accurate to say there is a god.

The thing is though, when all is said & done, there is no evidence. The amount you bend towards one of the two camps - the amount of water you're willing to do with the wine - the amount you're willing to say "well, I know this argument isn't 100% correct, but it's convincing enough", or worse, "I think this argument is correct"  - the amount you're willing to say "I dunno, but as long as I don't , I'm gonna say X" ...

 

... that fexability to fall to fallacies - even if it's just becasue of natural human personal bias - is what I was talking about when I said  For me [...] someone who defaults to "no god" - is as wrong as someone who defaults with the same conviction to "god". Someone who says 'I'm, like 70% sure god doesn't exist" is equally wrong as te person who says 'I'm, like 70% sure god exists": both have introduced a margin of error of 20% to the objective probability.

[TheMightyPotato]

blah blah

 

bluh bluh

 

Will you two just kiss already?

[CUD]

> The first customer says "I believe you."  The second customer says "There is no such thing as snurls."

> Question: Of the two customers, which one is smarter?  The first one or the second one?

 

The first person. Because believe doesn't put the burden of proof on a person (it's not claiming it's true, like the guy with the snurf did). The second doesn't say "I don't believe in snurfs", but asserts they don't exist - giving him the burden of proof.

 

Sorry mate - but go to some atheist forums. Even they will tell you an agnostic theist makes more sense then a gnostic atheist.

 

You've got Hitchen's Razor all wrong and that's making this discussion go around in circles.

The first person is supporting the original claim, that a snurl exists. By supporting that claim they can quite easily be said to be the maker of the claim "I believe the snurl exists on that man's head". It is claiming it's true, he is literally saying that he believes the snurl exists on the man's head, how is that not claiming that the snurl exists?

 

The second person is denying the claim not making a completely new claim. He doesn't need to say "I don't believe in snurls" because saying that "there is no such thing as snurls" implies the exact same thing, that they do not believe or lack belief in snurls. The burden of proof will not lie with someone that is rejecting a (baseless) claim. The rejection of a claim is not a new claim in itself especially when the initial claim has no evidence to support it.

[Apo]

ITT: Fallacies.

[Heated Bread]

ITT: Fallacies.

Simply stating that there are fallacies isn't very helpful. If you think you have correctly identified a fallacy, I personally would appreciate it if you would point it out by name and explain in context how it is being employed. That would be most welcome and helpful, since the idea is to avoid fallacies whenever possible. Anyone who could do that properly and accurately would have my sincere gratitude, especially if the fallacy was my own.

 

I really mean that. So do please keep it in mind. Thanks.

You've got Hitchen's Razor all wrong

For anyone unfamiliar with Hitchen's Razor, it's "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.", and is named after Christopher Hitchens who re-popularized it from an older incarnation. I know we all have google, but in my experience, some of us can be remarkably lazy and often take things at face value while neglecting to search unfamiliar terms.

 

You've got Hitchen's Razor all wrong and that's making this discussion go around in circles.

The first person is supporting the original claim, that a snurl exists. By supporting that claim they can quite easily be said to be the maker of the claim "I believe the snurl exists on that man's head".

I have to disagree with you here. Expressing one's own belief in a claim is not the same as asserting the truth of the claim. It may seem like a subtle difference, but it is an important distinction. Someone could say for example that "I don't know for sure if god exists, but I do believe it.", which implies that the belief may not reflect what is true in reality. This would be different that saying "I know god exists.", which asserts that their belief is in accordance with reality (or true, if you prefer).

 

Don't get me wrong. Believing in a claim without evidence to support that claim is being extremely gullible, which is what I've tried to point out with that example. But it's not the same as asserting to others that the claim is true.

The second person is denying the claim not making a completely new claim. He doesn't need to say "I don't believe in snurls" because saying that "there is no such thing as snurls" implies the exact same thing, that they do not believe or lack belief in snurls. The burden of proof will not lie with someone that is rejecting a (baseless) claim. The rejection of a claim is not a new claim in itself especially when the initial claim has no evidence to support it.

The example would have been more clear if I had included the word "believe" in the second person's declaration of belief. It was my mistake to omit that. So let me clarify that right here. He's not merely saying that he doesn't believe the claim, he saying that he believes that no such thing exists, which is not merely a rejection of the claim, but a belief in the negation of that claim. It is in fact perfectly valid to view the negation of a claim as a new and separate claim, but of course you would be correct in saying that the negation is in reaction to the initial unsupported claim.

 

But again, expressing a belief in a claim (or the negation of a claim) is NOT the same as asserting that the claim is true in reality. A burden of proof would rest upon the second man IF he were also asserting to others that the negation of the claim is true, which he is not. Again, this would have been more clear if I had not neglected to include the word "believe" in his words as well, however I hope that given my repeated clarifications elsewhere that this is at least clear in the context of the thread.

 

I want to make something else absolutely clear as well, in case I haven't done a good enough job of that already. With regards to claims where there is insufficient evidence either way to demonstrate whether a claim or its negation is true, reserving belief in the claim and its negation (not believing in either of them yet) should be the default position. Belief in either case would be an irrational leap. BUT! Belief in an unsupported claim is not equivalent to belief in the negation of that claim if and when the claim is of an absurd and fantastical nature. This is because we have abundant information about the reality we live in, so much that it renders absurd and fantastical claims (or, if you prefer, extraordinary claims) as being extremely improbable, which makes belief in the negation of those claims more consistent with what we already know to be true within the framework of that reality.

 

Does this mean I am saying that all claims of an absurd and fantastical nature are false? NO. I am arguing about belief and nothing more. Einstein was famous for saying "God does not play dice", (his god was actually the laws of the universe, but that's a separate discussion) which was in response to the new (at the time) theory of quantum mechanics, which itself turned out to be consistent with reality and is today an accepted and very useful area in the body of science. Quantum mechanics remains very much at odds with people's daily experiences of reality, but has withstood the test of time in terms of observation and experimentation, and in making accurate predictions about other phenomenon we might see if the theory was true. Einstein himself used it to predict quantum entanglement, but he did so in an attempt to show how absurd the theory was. Quantum entanglement of course turned out to be a real phenomenon.

[CUD]

I have to disagree with you here.  Expressing one's own belief in a claim is not the same as asserting the truth of the claim.  It may seem like a subtle difference, but it is an important distinction.  Someone could say for example that "I don't know for sure if god exists, but I do believe it.", which implies that the belief may not reflect what is true in reality.  This would be different that saying "I know god exists.", which asserts that their belief is in accordance with reality (or true, if you prefer).

 

Don't get me wrong.  Believing in a claim without evidence to support that claim is being extremely gullible, which is what I've tried to point out with that example.  But it's not the same as asserting to others that the claim is true.

 

Ah I see. I was typing up a response but I realised I was missing your point. So basically they have to be suggesting that the claim is true and not simply that they believe it? The burden of proof would only lie with the man claiming to have the snurl on his head and not the two saying they do not believe the man?

 

The example would have been more clear if I had included the word "believe" in the second person's declaration of belief.  It was my mistake to omit that.  So let me clarify that right here.  He's not merely saying that he doesn't believe the claim, he saying that he believes that no such thing exists, which is not merely a rejection of the claim, but a belief in the negation of that claim.  It is in fact perfectly valid to view the negation of a claim as a new and separate claim, but of course you would be correct in saying that the negation is in reaction to the initial unsupported claim.

 

But again, expressing a belief in a claim (or the negation of a claim) is NOT the same as asserting that the claim is true in reality.  A burden of proof would rest upon the second man IF he were also asserting to others that the negation of the claim is true, which he is not.  Again, this would have been more clear if I had not neglected to include the word "believe" in his words as well, however I hope that given my repeated clarifications elsewhere that this is at least clear in the context of the thread.

 

I see now that I was treating belief itself as a claim. That was my mistake.

 

I have a question though. Does the burden of proof always lie with the maker of the claim regardless of circumstance? If the second customer was claiming to others that there is no way that the snurl exists then would it really lie on him to disprove its existence when his claim is still in response to the initial claim which was made without any evidence? Isn't that the classic example of a deist telling an atheist to disprove the existence of God when they claim that God does not exist?

 

I'm not sure if I'm explaining it well enough but what I'm trying to say is that while technically a claim made that negates another claim is a new claim in itself, that new claim does not automatically then obtain the burden of proof because without the initial claim being made the negation of that claim could not have been either. If the man didn't first come into the bar and claim that there is a snurl then there wouldn't be someone claiming that snurls do not exist. So does a claim made in response to a baseless claim also shift the burden of proof? I wouldn't see that as the case, as the negation of the claim shouldn't really be treated as a new claim (while it technically is) but simply as a negation due to lack of proof on the part of the initial claim maker.

 

I only know Hitchen's Razor on the basic terms of "the onus of proof lies with the claim maker" so I'm not sure if Hitchens himself went in to situations such as this or only applied it to people claiming that god/s exist. I'll try to look into it when I get the chance or when you get back to me, which ever comes first.

 

I want to make something else absolutely clear as well, in case I haven't done a good enough job of that already.  With regards to claims where there is insufficient evidence either way to demonstrate whether a claim or its negation is true, reserving belief in the claim and its negation (not believing in either of them yet) should be the default position.  Belief in either case would be an irrational leap.  BUT!  Belief in an unsupported claim is not equivalent to belief in the negation of that claim if and when the claim is of an absurd and fantastical nature.  This is because we have abundant information about the reality we live in, so much that it renders absurd and fantastical claims (or, if you prefer, extraordinary claims) as being extremely improbable, which makes belief in the negation of those claims more consistent with what we already know to be true within the framework of that reality.

 

I cannot disagree with that. It's only rational to hold a neutral position rather than jump to either side without sufficient evidence. When the claim has no evidence (baseless) then it's much more reasonable to believe that the claim is false but still be open to believing otherwise if sufficient evidence is presented in the future; hence why I'm an agnostic atheist.

[Heated Bread]

 

Does the burden of proof always lie with the maker of the claim regardless of circumstance? If the second customer was claiming to others that there is no way that the snurl exists then would it really lie on him to disprove its existence when his claim is still in response to the initial claim which was made without any evidence? Isn't that the classic example of a deist telling an atheist to disprove the existence of God when they claim that God does not exist?

 

In a case when someone is asserting a claim and the person they are arguing with is asserting the negation of a claim, both parties have a burden of proof, because the negation of the initial claim is itself a claim, albeit a reaction to the initial claim, but a separate claim nonetheless.

 

In a case where someone asserts a claim and then demands that their opponent must prove the negation of the claim, then the burden of proof still rests on the one who made the initial claim and not on the opponent.

 

So if someone says "god exists, prove me wrong", they still have the burden of proof but have attempted to shift it.  In a case where someone says "god exists" and someone responds with "god does not exist", they each have a burden of proof to meet for their own assertion.  And of course this only applies if they are asserting their belief to be true, and not if they are merely communicating their own belief.  The statements "I believe god exists" and "I believe god does not exist" do not carry a burden of proof because they are not being asserted as truth, but merely as belief.

 

I'm not sure if I'm explaining it well enough but what I'm trying to say is that while technically a claim made that negates another claim is a new claim in itself, that new claim does not automatically then obtain the burden of proof because without the initial claim being made the negation of that claim could not have been either. If the man didn't first come into the bar and claim that there is a snurl then there wouldn't be someone claiming that snurls do not exist. So does a claim made in response to a baseless claim also shift the burden of proof? I wouldn't see that as the case, as the negation of the claim shouldn't really be treated as a new claim (while it technically is) but simply as a negation due to lack of proof on the part of the initial claim maker.

 

I only know Hitchen's Razor on the basic terms of "the onus of proof lies with the claim maker" so I'm not sure if Hitchens himself went in to situations such as this or only applied it to people claiming that god/s exist. I'll try to look into it when I get the chance or when you get back to me, which ever comes first.

 

I think Hitchens may have said that the burden of proof rested on the person making the "greater claim", but what is meant by "greater" isn't perfectly clear to me.  It may be his own version of Occam's Razor, and by "greater" he might mean more absurd, fantastical, extraordinary, bizarre, or just unnecessarily complicated. 

 

It works as a rhetorical device in a debate.  So say for example, his opponent makes an assertion without providing anything to back up that assertion.  Hitchens could then respond with something like "No it doesn't.", and when his opponent reacts with shock or indignation, he can add "If you assert it without evidence, I can dismiss it without evidence.", leaving us with a powerful "gotcha moment" as Hitchens scores points with the audience by giving his opponent a clever dose of his own medicine.  In reality, two claims have just been made: the initial claim and its negation.  What Hitchens may mean by "greater claim" is that the initial claim is absurd and fantastical while its negation is mundane, and so therefore more likely.  In any case, the burden rests upon the opponent who made the initial claim because he failed to back it up, as Hitchens merely stated its negation for dramatic effect.

 

That's my view on it anyway.  I haven't watched many of his debates, but that would be consistent with what I've seen.

[CUD]

I think Hitchens may have said that the burden of proof rested on the person making the "greater claim", but what is meant by "greater" isn't perfectly clear to me.  It may be his own version of Occam's Razor, and by "greater" he might mean more absurd, fantastical, extraordinary, bizarre, or just unnecessarily complicated. 

 

It works as a rhetorical device in a debate.  So say for example, his opponent makes an assertion without providing anything to back up that assertion.  Hitchens could then respond with something like "No it doesn't.", and when his opponent reacts with shock or indignation, he can add "If you assert it without evidence, I can dismiss it without evidence.", leaving us with a powerful "gotcha moment" as Hitchens scores points with the audience by giving his opponent a clever dose of his own medicine.  In reality, two claims have just been made: the initial claim and its negation.  What Hitchens may mean by "greater claim" is that the initial claim is absurd and fantastical while its negation is mundane, and so therefore more likely.  In any case, the burden rests upon the opponent who made the initial claim because he failed to back it up, as Hitchens merely stated its negation for dramatic effect.

 

That's my view on it anyway.  I haven't watched many of his debates, but that would be consistent with what I've seen.

 

Well then that makes more sense, "greater claim" does make it more clear than just any claim.

 

So then returning to your previous post:

 

But again, expressing a belief in a claim (or the negation of a claim) is NOT the same as asserting that the claim is true in reality. A burden of proof would rest upon the second man IF he were also asserting to others that the negation of the claim is true, which he is not. Again, this would have been more clear if I had not neglected to include the word "believe" in his words as well, however I hope that given my repeated clarifications elsewhere that this is at least clear in the context of the thread.

 

Wouldn't "the snurl exists" still be the greater claim than "the snurl does not exist"? Which means that even if he were making a claim that negates the initial claim the onus of proof would not shift because his claim is not a 'greater' one? As said before, 'greater' can be seen in a similar vein to Occam's Razor although the 'greater' claim isn't the one with the least assumptions, as one may think from Occam's Razor, but instead the one with the greatest number of assumptions.

[Heated Bread]

Wouldn't "the snurl exists" still be the greater claim than "the snurl does not exist"? Which means that even if he were making a claim that negates the initial claim the onus of proof would not shift because his claim is not a 'greater' one? As said before, 'greater' can be seen in a similar vein to Occam's Razor although the 'greater' claim isn't the one with the least assumptions, as one may think from Occam's Razor, but instead the one with the greatest number of assumptions.

 

Yeah I think that's a valid way of looking at it.  The initial claim would be the greater claim because it is more extraordinary, dealing with absurdly fantastical magical things and being more complicated, whereas the negation of that claim is simple and mundane which makes it more likely to be true.  Of course just because something seems more likely to be true does not necessarily mean it is true.  Just gotta throw that out there.  But I'm not entirely sure that the perceived likelihood of something being true (or how mundane it is) can be used as an excuse to exempt one the burden of proof if they are asserting it.

 

"I took a shower this morning"

 

"I ate waffles for breakfast"

 

"I saw an alien from outer space yesterday"

 

Hmmm.  Surely nobody would demand evidence for at least two of those claims, while one of them screams for evidence.  But that isn't itself a demonstration of their truthfulness.  I suppose the question is at what point such a demonstration becomes necessary.

 

I dunno.  It's something I'll have to think about some more.  My initial suspicion is that it has to do with the importance or impact of the claim being true.  Ordinarily nobody would care if I ate waffles for breakfast, but what if the outcome of a murder trial hinged on it?  Providing reliable evidence to support that claim, though very mundane, suddenly becomes crucial.

 

So to apply this to the snurl, if snurls are real, it could have profound implications on the way we view and interact with the world.  If the negation of the claim is true, nothing changes.  But is that an excuse to demand proof for the claim and excuse that burden with regards to the negation?

 

Hmmmmm...  by itself, maybe not.  But when combined with the fact that it is the "greater claim" while the negation is ordinary, maybe...

 

It's late at night and you're making me think about stuff.  Damn you.

[Hyperqube]

The problem is that "greater" is biased:
I think it's VERY important to keep in mind that, unlike an atheist, a theist will consider "god exists", more likely then "god doesn't exist". For him, the atheist claim is more absurd, bizarre, unnecessarily complicated, ... then his claim. Meaning that when a theist says "god exists", and the atheist responds "no, god doesn't exist" ... well ... the burden of proof would shift to the atheist as far as the theist is concerned ...

 

As you can understand, to shift the burden of proof to the greater claim, there needs to be consensus on what the greater claim is. Both parties basically need to agree 'X is the default situation, and deviation from it needs to be proven'.

 

To use "I took a shower this morning"

- If you live in a city, you can agree that the possibility to ttake a shower is normal.
- If you live in a desert, with no water for miles, you can agree that this deviates from consensus, and thus needs to be proven.

For the snurl, the problem is that it assumes that there is consensus that "there are no undetectable invisible creatures". If that's the default situation, then indeed the person claiming the snurl exists, deviates from concensus, and has the burden of proof, while the person who claims it doesn't exist still falls within the consensus.

[CUD]

 

The problem is that "greater" is biased:

I think it's VERY important to keep in mind that, unlike an atheist, a theist will consider "god exists", more likely then "god doesn't exist". For him, the atheist claim is more absurd, bizarre, unnecessarily complicated, ... then his claim. Meaning that when a theist says "god exists", and the atheist responds "no, god doesn't exist" ... well ... the burden of proof would shift to the atheist as far as the theist is concerned ...

 

'Greater' can be biased but it shouldn't be. It should be looked at objectively on the basis of whether there is any or adequate evidence to support the claim.

 

I think the "as far as the theist is concerned" is key here. Of course it would shift as far as they are concerned, it's in their interest to get the attention away from them because they lack any evidence to back up their claim. Thankfully in reality the burden of proof would not shift because this isn't about who believes their claim is greater than the other but simply whose claim is lacking evidence. You're suggesting that atheists need to disprove God because they claim that theistic claims regarding God's existence are untrue. Would I need to disprove that fairies exist if I claimed they do not? Or what if I claimed that snurls do not exist when such a thing had not even been claimed to exist by any one before? (Why someone would even make this claim is beyond me).

 

The burden of proof does not shift as you say it does. The initial claim is one that lacks any evidence, someone that denies that the initial claim is true is not then required to find evidence to disprove something that lacked evidence in the first place. That is just absurd.

 

As you can understand, to shift the burden of proof to the greater claim, there needs to be consensus on what the greater claim is. Both parties basically need to agree 'X is the default situation, and deviation from it needs to be proven'.

 

To use "I took a shower this morning"

- If you live in a city, you can agree that the possibility to ttake a shower is normal.

- If you live in a desert, with no water for miles, you can agree that this deviates from consensus, and thus needs to be proven.

 

For the snurl, the problem is that it assumes that there is consensus that "there are no undetectable invisible creatures". If that's the default situation, then indeed the person claiming the snurl exists, deviates from concensus, and has the burden of proof, while the person who claims it doesn't exist still falls within the consensus.

 

How will this apply to theists and atheists though? If their beliefs are different and theists are wrongly trying to shift the burden of proof then it wont get anywhere. You're not wrong in saying there should be a consensus but that consensus should be based on fact and evidence not belief.

[Hyperqube]

> You're suggesting that atheists need to disprove God because they claim that theistic claims regarding God's existence are untrue.

no - because then they wouldn't be making a claim, at which point "who makes the greater claim" would be totally irrelevant.

I'm talking about the atheist claim that there is no god (and before people give me grief that's not what atheists claim ... refer to the scale of Dawkins)


> It should be looked at objectively on the basis of whether there is any or adequate evidence to support the claim.

Sure ... but the evidence counter is currently nothing: there is no evidence that there is a god, nor is there evidence there isn't a god.

 

As far as I know, the consensus is that their either is a god, or there isn't a god. It is objective, it's consistant with the evidence, and both parties agree. Obviously each party considers one of the premisses to be false and the other true (at least to the degree they belong in a certain camp), but because "true or false" = "false or true" = true.

[CUD]

> You're suggesting that atheists need to disprove God because they claim that theistic claims regarding God's existence are untrue.

 

no - because then they wouldn't be making a claim, at which point "who makes the greater claim" would be totally irrelevant.

I'm talking about the atheist claim that there is no god (and before people give me grief that's not what atheists claim ... refer to the scale of Dawkins)

 

So if any atheist claims there is no God then the burden of proof lies with them to disprove God?

 

> It should be looked at objectively on the basis of whether there is any or adequate evidence to support the claim.

Sure ... but the evidence counter is currently nothing: there is no evidence that there is a god, nor is there evidence there isn't a god.

 

As far as I know, the consensus is that their either is a god, or there isn't a god. It is objective, it's consistant with the evidence, and both parties agree. Obviously each party considers one of the premisses to be false and the other true (at least to the degree they belong in a certain camp), but because "true or false" = "false or true" = true.

 

You make it sound like both claims are even when one is baseless. The atheist claim that "there is no God" would not exist without the theist's claim of "there is a God" first being made. Of course there is no evidence that there is no God when the initial claim that there is one is a baseless claim to begin with. The burden of proof doesn't shift because these two positions are not equal, otherwise I could make any claim and fully expect someone to disprove it when my claim had no evidence to begin with. How does that make any sense?

 

That is not the consensus. The consensus is, or at least I would think should be, that "there is no God". No such thing has been proven in the slightest so the burden of proof cannot shift from the theist until such a time comes that they have sufficient evidence to back their claim.

[Kalkaria]

I'd wager that he is real. Not because he's real, but because seeing everyone you love die would suck ass. Or even if they also got so called "eternal life", what if you all got in a fight? What if your lover was getting raped and kidnapped? I'd rather have them die, then be a rape-toy for 5 years, and be scarred for the rest of their li-... Never mind. Eternal life isn't necessarily a good thing.

 

Also, just so you know, this is another "fear" tactic that was made to convince people of Christianity. Same thing as hell.

[Hyperqube]

> So if any atheist claims there is no God then the burden of proof lies with them to disprove God?

Yes. Otherwise he pulls an argument form ignorance. Which would only be valid if both parties agree that it doesn't need proof (axiomatic)

 

 

> The atheist claim that "there is no God" would not exist without the theist's claim of "there is a God" first being made.

Doesn't matter. Again, I'm not speaking about denying the theist claim - I'm talking about the atheist claim.

So when you say "otherwise I  could make any claim and fully expect someone to disprove it when my claim had no evidence to begin with. How does that make any sense?" ... that's pretty much the point right there.

 

Not even as response to an other claim, can you make a one-sided claim and say "I'm right until disproven".

 

 

> That is not the consensus. The consensus is, or at least I would think should be, that "there is no God"

 

Err ... DFQ? Good luck getting an theist to agree with THAT as a startpoint of a debate
You just tried to pull a circular logic

Do you even know what consensus MEANS?

[Kalkaria]

-snip-

> So if any atheist claims there is no God then the burden of proof lies with them to disprove God?

 

Yes. Otherwise he pulls an argument form ignorance. Which would only be valid if both parties agree that it doesn't need proof (axiomatic)

-snip-

 

There is a living organism known as "Kalkaria", on an unknown planet orbiting a never-before-seen star. The Kalkaria follow the belief that their world is ruled by a volcano, his humanoid form being called "Kod". Kod is an all powerful being. I read it in a book, called the Kible. Some Kalkaria had even said, quoting the Kible,

 

"Jennifer was very sick, almost dead. We carried her to the top of the volcano, and prayed to Kod. The next day, she began recovering. This is what truly began our journey. He has to exist. Miracles like this don't happen every day."

 

Can you disprove this statement? I have proof, a book named the Kible says this is true. And, I even have faith that it's true. There are even miracles! Those can't happen everyday, without a supernatural being, this couldn't even be possible, right? I don't want any ignorance, I want a valid, non-ignorant statement on why this couldn't happen.

[Splat]

i dont really care anymore, these arguments exhaust me for some reason.