The dilemma against the burden of proof

[willow wadi]

.secular has been warned

Reason: Duplicated text

[brazen oak]

@cold pebble @copper mantle

@west raft

[west raft]

@neat pollen

[full sierra]

You're completely wrong about that, and I don't have to explain why.

[west raft]

feel free to believe whatever you want just don't expect me to give a response to someone who hasn't presented a reason for their view

[full sierra]

Oh good, so now you understand the necessity of the burden of proof

[west raft]

https://tenor.com/view/kekw-twitch-twitchtv-twitch-emote-kek-gif-19085736

[hot umbra]

Why he delete it. The burden of proof is irrelevant, unless
You want to defend a positive position . Once you are defending a positive position . Then you have to defend the position. If you choose not to defend the position, it doesn't mean you have no reason for the position, but .it does entail you don't have empirical proofs .
Which is relevant to truth .
Not the fact, but the truth.
Truth is a position correspondent with the facts.

If you don't have empirical evidence for your claim

That may way heavily towards explaining it away
Which is not necessary.
It's not necessary to explain it , but the coincidence of it will not leave you with a favorable position.

The explanation you want.

Which is God or the soul or the spirit .

Sorry.
You can have the experience
The experience can be awesome on its own, but the experience doesn't illicit those explanations.
No matter how much you want them to be, because of that.
The burden of proof matters.

You have the conclusion, I saw God , but you will not easily fill that hole with the explanation you actually saw God.

Infact the explanations are infinite until they can be deduced.
The same accounts for walking

I walked.
But you don't get away with the explanation "by my self I walked" by your own forced.
We grant that
Not because it's proven, but because we experience that.

I walked , because I chose to walk.

It's granted by others who can walk or could have walked or seen walking.

It's a valid possibility with in the constraints of nature.
That's why the burden of proof matters .

It matters for walking just as much.
If you were handicapped it would matter even more then
And matters is a subjective opinion.
But that's what you want to debate in the first place

Why some don't believe what you believe.
A matter of subjective imposition of your belief.

Maybe tackle that more.

[west raft]

@cold pebble I took the time to explain why what I'm talking about the burden of proof debate of course but yeah you know standard ting

[hot umbra]

I'm a pantheist and suspend judgement about God. There's further importance here.

If you really want to have this debate.

Then let's have it.

The atheist is usually a naturalist.
Why bother saying agnostic..
An atheist can suspend judgement on God
The terms are which ones fit the bill better
The person.

We have a phrase for atheists who claim God doesn't exist
Those are staunch atheists .

Okay so take all those words you put agnostic and put atheist.

Whatever.

To suspend judgement of God and have a naturalistic world view may be a belief.
It's a claim about the world only in the believers sense that they believe all there is is natural , but they don't make negative claims

Different concept.
That is a world view /claim, but they don't have to defend it as a truth claim
Because they aren't making the truth claim that all there is is natural.
They just hold a belief that all there is is natural.
A person can say they believe in God, they aren't making a truth claim
They can believe that there is a God without making the philosophical claim there is a God.

If you said "I believe in God"
We could ask you to justify that belief , which is a different question than to justify God.

But you wouldn't need to justify that belief.

This is not a back peddle this is a human operation . We have suspicions about the world.

Like Aron Ra, he doesn't believe in any God and is a naturalist .

He doesn't make the claim that God doesn't exist, even tho he believes God doesn't exist.

His justification is because there's no evidence swaying him to God , he can't defend God doesn't exist,but he can defend a belief that God doesn't exist, due to his experience having not shown him as he claims any evidence of God.

So you are on to something
We do have micro and macro claims in our beliefs , but the burden of proof even on a spectrum would be heavier on the person who claims something exist vs the person who doesn't (claim), but believes something doesn't exist .

I'll throw one more bone please

[west raft]

I'm not going to respond to anything that isn''t relevant to the current debate ,you haven't addressed anything I said

[hot umbra]

A person could make an argument for something and reach a conclusion that's rational without believing in it

Logic is kinda like math.. our wants don't really matter

[hot umbra]

I did

I literally did

But okay

I gave you in philosophical forms a rebuttal that's completely coherent to what you were saying

An atheist makes a negative claim via their naturalistic beliefs

Which is still not heavier than an open truth claim based on someone's beliefs

Beliefs are usually private

[west raft]

I'm not going to explain to you why you didn't ,just don't expect me to give a response if you haven't addressed annything I said

[hot umbra]

Literally did

The agnostic position ~ their belief

Is a claim

Whatever

You're still holding to a greater burden by debating for the truth of something whilst someone believes in the negative of it

You can ignore that fatal flaw

And get out now before someone better than me completely dismantles your argument

Or you can hold on to it and look /feel like a fool

[west raft]

Ok this is all compatible with the objection.In general we evaluate who is debating the truth of something ,by finding out who is making a positive claim ,all positions are making a positive claim so all positions bear the same burden of proof.

But if all positions bear the same burden of proof then the burden of proof ceases to fnction since there needs to be a position that does not have the BOP or same lvl of BOP

[willow wadi]

.secular has been warned

Reason: Duplicated text

[full sierra]

This is true in a trivial way, since claims about meeting a standard of evidence are also positive claims, e.g. when one makes the claim " you have not provided sufficient evidence for your position". However, this doesn't nullify the concept of a standard of evidence. The underlying assumption is that from the default state (not believing) it is necessary to provide some evidence to believe a new claim. The burden of proof is just restating this fact of expectations. If one doesn't have an expectation of evidence preceding belief, then the discussion does devolve into an act of persuasion as you describe. It's the same problem one has with using reasoned argument to convince someone to value reason in the first place. I assumed you're not actually arguing from the position that evidence is unnecessary for a justified belief, in which case you presuppose the necessity of the burden of proof by any other name, but let us know if the problem is that you need persuading in one of those fundamentals.

[west raft]

@copper mantle There is one big problem that we need to sort out. If, per your own view, the burden of proof is used as a tool to find out what is relevant or irrelevant to the debate, you gave the example of someone coming to the God debate with "the sky is blue," and you admitted, and I agreed, that if someone like this came to the debate, since it isn't relevant to the debate, we would tell this person to get lost. But if we are telling the person who holds the view that the sky is blue to get lost, then similarly, we would need to tell the person who is "agnostic" to get lost, since per your own view, Agnosticism is not a position in the God debate. The point is, the sky is blue and the agnostic position share the same relevant feature that would get them booted out. And it seems that if the agnostic has some feature that would not get them booted, then that would be the feature of being a position in the God debate. If you say one is about ontology and the other is about the mind, then that is going to entail atheists and theists getting booted, since per your own view, theism and atheism are about ontology. I may have more to say on this, but I want to see what your response is.

[hot umbra]

That's so easy. The debaters .

The debater comes to the table and the debate happens because of the disagreement.
You/ or another debater cannot stand the atheist position against another debater, so what happens is you debate the atheist .

You don't boot them , people come to them.
Congratulations you make them relevant.
In trying to run the dismissal on them, that wouldn't work.

Your social ostracism doesn't work, because you have to put down the cards

The debate cards.

People aren't going to waltz to that idea.

Because putting down the cards might be the smartest thing to do, but it is the least entertaining thing to do.
So it has no gravity in it.

[willow wadi]

.secular has been warned

Reason: Duplicated text

[west raft]

@copper mantle

@copper mantle Please read the dilemma the horns are different

[west raft]

@full sierra I also want your response to the dilemma

[full sierra]

While 1 and 2 are mutual exclusive, the analysis of 1 and 2 presents a false dichotomy. Arguments that P is false or less probable should not be lumped together with arguments that P is unjustified, because the latter is not necessarily an argument against P. The claim "you have not provided sufficient evidence for your position" is always an argument that the P claim is thus far unjustified, and only posits that one doesn't have reason to believe P based on what has been provided, not that P is false or less probable.

[west raft]

That's fine we could simply reformulate the dilemma in terms of just Unjustified ,the reason why I Included it is because it does not matter what you choose since the dilemma still stands

that's why I included all three

[west raft]

also yes to say a proposition is unjustified is necessarily for rejecting the proposition;just as how you can give an argument to the effect that P is Justified you can have an argument to the effect P is unjustified to reject it which therefore BOP is redundant

[full sierra]

Only if your interlocutor admits that they need to have justification in order to believe-- in case you were unclear about when it's relevant, burden of proof rarely comes into play until someone starts shifting it.

[willow wadi]

.secular has been warned

Reason: Duplicated text

[full sierra]

The atheist does have a burden of proof in several contexts (if they claim no gods exist, or to argue why the evidence provided is insufficient), but not within the context of whether the theist's specific god exists when their claim is unjustified. Assuming we agree that the theist has not made their case, the atheist is not beholden to make a counter case. That's all the burden of proof refers to.

As in another common example, one is not beholden to provide evidence there is no teapot orbiting Mars in order to argue that belief in said teapot is unwarranted.

[west raft]

well you said that someone has the BOP if the interlocutor admit they need to have justification in order to convince them but this going to mean that all positions have the BOP or same lvl BOP since with respect any position that Position will have the BOP or same lvl BOP this is an issue of course.Now your saying something else You're saying someone has the BOP if they are making the positive claim but all positions are making a positive claism so all positions have the same BOP or same lvl of BOP.But before you comment on that I still want to know what is your response after I have addressed the issue with dilemma you know the fact there were commas there instead of Or

[full sierra]

The thing about the commas doesn't change anything in my response. Ignoring the "false or less probable" cases, if the claim is unjustified then it shouldn't be believed. If there is agreement on that, then you're already past identifying who has a burden of proof. It sounds like you don't understand why it's an issue because you can't imagine anyone being so stupid as to demand counter-evidence to an unjustified claim else the unjustified claim should be believed. I assure you, they exist.

[west raft]

No I think you misunderstand ,to put it bluntly if P is unjustified then P does not have the BOP.it's important to not make the error in thinking that the debate is about what the argument against P is, since it has already been established that there is an argument against P.The further point reiterate is that if P is unjustifed then P does not have a BOP since that would be Redundant.

[analog urchin]

If P is a positive claim then anyone positing P holds the burden of proof.
If P is unjustified, then that burden has not been met - lack of justification doesn't withdraw the burden.
If P is unjustifiABLE instead, then that's an admittance that the burden will never be met, not that it was never held.

[west raft]

if P is Unjustifed then P doesn't have a burden of Proof that is like sayig the statement is false but it has a burden of proof.To say something is unjustified is is to there is reason to reject the claim

[willow wadi]

GG @west raft, you just advanced to level 5!

[west raft]

@analog urchin before you respond you need to read the dilemma ,I made a mistake in placing commas the it is to be interpreted as P is False OR Unjustified OR less Probable

[analog urchin]

I feel like you have a profound misunderstanding of what the burden of proof actually is.

Whether P holds the burden of proof or not relies on one thing: Is P a positive claim? That's all there is to it.

If you can prove a claim being made is a positive claim, that's the proof you bring to the table to justify that the claim holds the burden of proof.
You both held the burden of proof for the positive claim "This claim holds the burden of proof" AND justified it.

A claim that holds the burden of proof but fails to meet the required proof is what an unjustified claim is.
It has the burden of proof, and has no proof to go along with it.

[west raft]

@analog urchin I already responded to that

[west raft]

@analog urchin and here

[analog urchin]

Those reply don't quite prove your understanding of the burden of proof in general.

I agree, rejecting a belief is a belief in itself.
You need to present a good reason, to hold the burden of proof for that belief.
"I reject that belief because insufficient proof has been presented for me to accept that belief".
You've been asked for your justification as to why you don't hold the belief. And you gave it.

You can try to entertain the others by showing the evidence you HAVE been presented with, if any, but because the threshold for belief is personal, that is ultimately futile.

The above has nothing to do with the burden of proof.
The person making a positive claim has to bring evidence.
If they don't, their belief is unjustified.
If they do, then they hold a belief that is justified to their own standard of belief.
The evidence they present might not convince you, but they still have to present evidence.

[west raft]

I accepted that BOP is on the one making a positive claim,but I also made further points on why this is problematic.Which I have already presented to you.

[analog urchin]

I was mostly objecting with the concept "If the claim is unjustified, then it doesn't have the burden of proof"
That's untrue.
If the claim is unjustified, it doesn't MEET the burden of proof.

[west raft]

if an argument has been presented for showing P is unjustified then yes ,Unjustified does mean the claim does not have the BOP ,you need to read the dilemma to understand what is been stated

[analog urchin]

Still missing the point.
The justification that the claim P holds the burden of proof isn't evidence for or against P.
It's justification that P holds the burden of proof.

The evidence only becomes for or against P when you start to demonstrate whether that burden is being MET.

If it holds no burden of proof, then it has no burden to meet - it's not a positive claim.
If it DOES hold the burden of proof, and fails to meet it, THEN, it's unjustified.
A statement that isn't a positive claim and has no justification isn't unjustified - the term just doesn't apply to it. Like asking for the volume of a square.

The reason why defenders of P should care whether they hold the burden of proof is that you can then start to demonstrate whether it has been met or not.

"I'm eating a cookie" is a positive claim.
I hold the burden of proof about that claim.
It says absolutely nothing about whether the claim is true or not, it only specifies who you should be asking if you want proof (namely, the person making the claim).

You get answers to the questions: "Can the claim be justified?" and "Who should justify it?"

[west raft]

does the position God exist hold the burden of proof and if so what is the justification for why they do so?

[analog urchin]

Positions do not hold burdens.
People do.
If someone makes the claim that God exists, then that person holds the burden, not that person's position.

[west raft]

that does not matter we can reword the the question to incorporte the person does the theist hold the burden of proof and if so why? @analog urchin

@analog urchin are you going to answer the question?

I'm still here waiting for your answer btw

[analog urchin]

Can't a man get a simple toilet break?

[west raft]

😅

[analog urchin]

The theist holds that burden.
Why? It's a positive claim. Made or held by that theist.

[west raft]

Does the justification for why the theist holds the BOP an argument that shows theism false or unjustified or less probable?

[analog urchin]

Nope.
Only that if you have to ask someone to show whether their personal version of theism is true/false, justified/unjustified or probable/improbable, the person you have to ask is that theist.
It gives the theist this responsibility.
The goal is to demonstrate whether justifications actually apply to the statement/idea (so it's a positive claim), and then figure out who has to justify it.

[west raft]

ok so if the BOP doesn't say anyhting about the Truth or Justificatory status of theism or Probabiility of theism.Why should the theist care?

[analog urchin]

The person they're presenting the claim to should care, not the person making it.
(alright, technically, if they're asking themselves, then they should care)

That's why the burden of proof is important in debates, not to the person making the claim, but to interlocutor and audience.

Finding out who holds the burden of proof helps you find out who's the one you should be expecting proof from.
If everyone in a debate holds some form of a burden of proof, then you should be expecting proof from all of them.

[west raft]

https://tenor.com/view/adrianpeterson-100-rushingyards-gif-7381228

so you're answer to the question why should they care is just "they should care"

ok dude

really cmon

[analog urchin]

Please keep reading after that. I know I write long paragraphs, but that was literally one sentence later.

The reason they should care is it points the arrow towards the person that needs to present proof.
Who is making the claim? That's who holds the burden of proof.

The rest just follows, at this point you're basically laughing out loud wondering why people should ever refrain from making unjustified claims.

[west raft]

why should they care about that?

[analog urchin]

Claims made without evidence can be rejected without evidence.
You're absolutely right when it applies to other people: why should they claim that other people think their beliefs are ridiculous?

When applied to themselves, it shows that they hold the burden of proof, and if they can't come up with sufficient proof, then they're in essence equally accepting AND rejecting the claim, even though their mouths say otherwise.
(well, that or they're hypocrites and accept a belief that has no evidence while rejecting another belief that has no evidence)

Why should they care that they're being hypocrites?
Heck, if they're not hypocrites, why should they care that they're holding contradictory beliefs?
This person believes God exists. And also believes God doesn't exist. Why should he care to alter either of his beliefs, given that the logical contradiction doesn't seem to affect him much?

[analog urchin]

When did "care" even come into the picture?

That person unequivocally holds the burden of proof.
He just doesn't care about meeting it.

He gets kicked out of debate class until he learns to care.

[west raft]

earlier you said that the Justification for the BOP claim does not tell whether theism is false or unjustified or less probable ,but now you're suggesting justification does indicate that their position false and hence you contradicting your prior statements

[hot umbra]

Chat

[analog urchin]

I'm pointing out that holding the burden of proof says you're the one that has to justify the claim or accept the claim they made as unjustified.

The burden of proof isn't part of the justification.
It never was.

That theist unequivocally holds the burden of proof.
Whether they justify it or accept they hold an unjustified belief is up to them, and hasn't been discussed today at all.

[west raft]

yeah but you're contradicting yourself ,you stated previously that the justifcation for the BOP claim does not tell us about Truth or justifcatory status of Theism or probability of theism now you're saying it does

[hot umbra]

Kong vs Godzilla

I got one for you

Zeus

Do you believe Zeus existS

Until shown he doesn't

Or do you disbelieve Zeus exists

Until shown he does

It's an example

[analog urchin]

It doesn't.
The justification for the burden of proof doesn't tell us anything about theism.
It just tells us the theist holds the burden of proof.

Now, whether that theist actually meets the burden of proof or fails to meet it is the important part.

Holds the burden of proof -> Has to justify that claim.
Met the burden of proof -> Justified that claim.

At no point have we ever talked about the theist attempting or succeeding at meeting the burden of proof.
Without that, you don't get to know whether that claim is justified or not.
All you know is WHO has to justify it, not whether they did so.

[hot umbra]

Which Method is better, believe everything until proven inconsistent or believe nothing until proven

[west raft]

why should the theist care then?

[hot umbra]

You can't get an ought from an is

Theists either care about empiricism or they don't

[analog urchin]

It's not about caring.
It's not an opinion piece.
The theist holds the burden of proof.
If he doesn't meet it, then that theist holds an unjustified belief.

Why should anyone care that they hold unjustified beliefs is a whole other problem altogether.

[west raft]

you're contradicting yourself

[hot umbra]

The fact they want to prove shows they do

[analog urchin]

What's the contradiction?
Please quote me directly.

[hot umbra]

It is kinda about wants

[west raft]

does the theist hold the BOP and if so why?

[hot umbra]

If atheist want theists to be atheists

Burden of proof as opposed to showing something that is real but not observed to be real,yes

Why

How else are you going to convince them

Which is the goal of the theist debater

Your convincing them forces the burden of proof

Which is why you hold the burden of proof of dismissing the burden of proof

[west raft]

you said The justification for the burden of proof doesn't tell us anything about theism. then why should the theist care?

[hot umbra]

Cause you want to convince us what is obvious. Bop is an illusion

[analog urchin]

It's a positive claim, so it should be justified or rejected (or we could go into a debate about accepting unjustified claims)
The claim is being made/held by someone, the theist.

Therefore, the theist should be the one to justify that claim.

[analog urchin]

Care has nothing to do with it.
It isn't an opinion piece.

[hot umbra]

So is the debate

The whole godamn philosophical debate is an opinion too

[analog urchin]

I managed to route down the "not meeting the burden of proof" part with "accepting unjustified claims", making then one and the same.

Why should the theist care about accepting unjustified claims?

[hot umbra]

Fair

[analog urchin]

You always mix up HOLDING the burden with MEETING it.
They're separate issues

[hot umbra]

The ought of beliefs

Is based on the should ought of justification

Made clear by the method of proof

Seeing is believing

[west raft]

does that justification for the BOP claim show that theism is false or unjustifed or less probable?

[hot umbra]

Further seeing is knowing

No the lack of evidence shows it's not a unique hypothesis as opposed to a naturalist meta physics

Naturalism being observed , supernaturalism not being observed

The bop is used to see is one claim is better than an opposed claim

[analog urchin]

Nope.
It only shows who holds the burden of proof.
The justification that theism is false or unjustified or less probable then has to come from the person responsible for making justifications for that claim.

Understanding that this is a positive claim: either someone is responsible for justifying that claim, or nobody is making or holding it.

[west raft]

then why should the theist care?

[analog urchin]

If the claim is positive and someone holds it, then that person should be the one to justify it.
If that person does not, then that claim is unjustified.

You're then asking why the theist should care that they hold an unjustified belief, which proves that both claims end up being one and the same.

The fact they hold the burden of proof isn't up to opinion.
Whether they choose to meet that burden is where "care" starts showing in the picture

"Why should they care about taking responsibility for something they objectively are responsible for?"
Good question, pointless to ask.

[west raft]

you have already said that making a positive claim does not indicate Truth or justifcatory status of theism or Probability of thesism so why should the theist care?

[analog urchin]

The "caring" part starts when they have to meet that burden.

The fact they hold that burden is undeniable.
They can choose not to care about facts if they want.
It won't change them though.

[west raft]

why should they care about that then

[analog urchin]

I can go into pragmatism at this point.

I can see several reasons why they should care that people they debate with or even themselves think they're aligned with the facts and not entirely ignoring them.
Mostly because facts tend to be more convincing than anything else, and the goal about rhetoric is convincing people.
Showing people you don't care about facts is a good way to self-sabotage.

[west raft]

how does the BOP entail alignment with the facts and being more convincing?

[willow wadi]

GG @west raft, you just advanced to level 6!

[analog urchin]

Whoever holds the BOP IS a fact.
Either someone holds it, or the claim isn't held or being made.

Refusing to care about the fact you hold the BOP shows you refuse to care about facts when they're being inconvenient.

[west raft]

right but how does the BOP entail alignment with the facts or being more convincing?

[analog urchin]

Whoever holds the BOP is a fact.

Accepting that particular fact and the responsibilities that come with that fact entails an alignment with at least one more fact, and the acceptance of facts even when they're inconvenient, which helps convince people you won't reject a fact just because it's not convenient.

[west raft]

how does accepting a fact make you more convincing to people?

[analog urchin]

It's more of the reverse.
Rejecting facts when they're inconvenient displays your personal bias for everyone to see, and even shows your personal bias doesn't just reinterpret reality, but outright contradicts it.
Contradicting reality just because it's convenient. Another easy way to do that is called "lying". And known liars have a VERY hard time convincing people.

[west raft]

even if the BOP is a fact,you still haven't shown how the BOP can be used as a tool to be more convincing and be in alignment with the facts

[analog urchin]

The BOP is a fact.
As such, aligning yourself with the BOP by accepting the burden of proof IS showing to be in alignment with the facts.

[west raft]

right but why should the theist care about that fact?

[full sierra]

Sounds like a concession at this point

[analog urchin]

Again, anyone showing they don't care about ANY fact, especially if that fact is somehow inconvenient, loses credibility.
They've played their hand, shown they were dishonest.

That's the whole reason I wanted to stay clear of the "care" argument.
Because it's ultimately subjective.

Why should the theist care that they're dishonest? Some of them obviously don't, and they make a lot of money.

[west raft]

it's just not clear that just because something is a fact I should care about it.There is a fact about the number of individual hairs on my body but I don't care about this fact does that mean I am dishonest no.So I'm still wondering why should the theist care?

[full sierra]

https://tenor.com/view/frog-spin-spinning-spinning-frog-vaporwave-gif-6839742731236304279

[analog urchin]

Not caring about that particular fact, the BOP, relieves the person holding the burden of their responsibilities.
We're talking about someone that's objectively responsible for a task that stops caring about the fact they're responsible.

Rejecting the burden of proof after you've been demonstrated to be responsible for it is not "not caring" about that fact - it's an outright rejection or reality.
It's a fact, you've been shown it's a fact, and you refuse to change the way you view reality in accordance with that new fact.

[full sierra]

Sounds like a theist to me

[west raft]

right but why should they care about that the fact that they reject that fact?

why should they care about the fact that they have been shown that it is a fact?

[analog urchin]

Caring about rejecting a fact? Not that much.
Caring that you or others KNOW you reject facts when they become inconvenient? Priceless.
Again, a reputation of dishonesty doesn't exactly open doors.

[west raft]

how does not caring about a fact mean that you are dishonest?

[analog urchin]

Not caring about that particular fact, not adjusting your reality based on that fact, is an outright rejection of reality.
Which is dishonesty by another name,

[west raft]

if by dishonesty you just mean they don't care about the BOP why should they care about dishonesty?

[analog urchin]

Showing they ignore facts when they're inconvenient shows they have a very weird relationship with reality.
Which means people shouldn't trust their word when talking about said reality.

Rejecting the BOP shows they ignore facts when they're inconvenient.
Therefore, people shouldn't trust them when talking about reality.

Now, you get to ask why they should care that people trust then when they talk about reality, which goes back to me saying going into the "caring" part of the argument shows you've lost the plot.

[west raft]

How does does rejecting the BOP show they ignore facts when they're inconvenient?

[full sierra]

Explain what the burden of proof is again

https://tenor.com/view/futurama-bender-fry-interesting-no-wait-gif-22131417

[analog urchin]

They're rejecting a fact, that they hold the BOP, because if they accept that fact (and properly adjust their view of reality based on that fact) then it comes with extra responsibilities.
Extra work to do.
And that's inconvenient.

Therefore, they've shown they're ready to ignore at least some facts when they're inconvenient.

[west raft]

even if something is a fact that does not tell me what I should do ,even if I accept some fact,for e.g it is a fact that a lot of war is happening but that fact does not tell me what I should do

[analog urchin]

The fact that a person holds the burden of proof is also the fact that this person is responsible for delivering said proof.
If they act as if they're not responsible for delivering said proof, then they're acting as if they're rejecting reality.

Therefore, they've shown they're ready to act as if they ignore at least some facts when they're inconvenient.

[west raft]

what does it mean to act as if you're rejecting reality?

[analog urchin]

Knowing something, yet acting as if that fact wasn't one.

Somebody walking off the cliff expecting Roadrunner physics is acting as if gravity didn't fully apply to them, despite the fact they know it always did.

Deception is another imperfect example. You know the truth, but act as if you didn't.

[west raft]

but what does it mean to act as if gravity didn't fully apply? what does it mean to act as if you didn't?

[analog urchin]

You walk off the cliff.
Without preparing for a fall.
Acting as if the fact gravity applies to you somehow would stop being a fact.

Refusing to meet the burden of proof. Despite the fact you know you're holding it.
Acting as if holding the burden of proof didn't somehow mean you had to meet it.

[west raft]

I think we have derailed very much the point is that even if the Theist accepts that the BOP is a fact why should they care about it?

[analog urchin]

Again, there is no "ought" here.
Caring is subjective, you're already leaving the subject of the burden of proof.

I gave a few pragmatic responses already.
I've fully demonstrated that acting as if you didn't hold the burden of proof, which is what not caring about a burden of proof you objectively hold is, leads to people thinking you're dishonest or delusional.
I didn't start to explain why a theist should care that people don't think they're dishonest or delusional, because, really, why should they care?

[west raft]

ok but how does acting like you don't hold the burden of proof lead people to think you're dishonest and delusional?

[analog urchin]

Acting as if facts aren't facts makes people think you're either dishonest or delusional.
No other available option that I can think of.

[west raft]

how does not caring about a fact entail that you are acting as if facts aren't facts?

[analog urchin]

You can choose not to care about the burden of proof, so long as you don't act like you don't hold it.
This isn't just not caring about a fact, but acting as if that fact wasn't one.
That's the difference.

[west raft]

again how does not caring about a fact entail that you are acting as if facts aren't facts?

[analog urchin]

Our example isn't about someone not caring about the fact, but directly acting as if a fact wasn't one.
That's what the person that refuses to act like they hold the burden of proof they currently hold is doing.

If that person just didn't care about the burden of proof, but still presented proof, my point would be moot.
But that's not what they're doing.

[west raft]

what does it it mean to act as if the burden of proof is a fact?

[analog urchin]

Act as if you bear the burden of proof you factually bear.
Act as if you are responsible for bringing the proof you're burdened with presenting.
Generally done by presenting proof 😛

[west raft]

why should they care about acting as if the the burden of proof is a fact if they already accept it?

[analog urchin]

That's not accepting it. That's pretending to accept it.

You don't just say you accept there's a car coming at you at 100km/h. Move out of the way. You actually act appropriately the way someone that isn't suicidal would act if they really thought that a car was coming their way.

You don't just say you accept that you bear the burden of proof. You present the proof you think you're burdened with presenting. Or you say you don't have any proof to present, despite holding that burden.
You don't just say "Yeah, I'm responsible for bringing proof" and then let the crickets chirp while people await the now-expected proof.

[west raft]

how does not acting as if the burden of proof is a fact entail that they don't accept it?

[analog urchin]

Acting as if facts weren't facts and actually thinking facts aren't facts are different, but to an external observer, they're functionally identical.

Both will have the observers think they're either delusional or dishonest.

[west raft]

even if that is the case that does not entail that not acting as if the BOP is a fact entail that they don't accept it

[analog urchin]

Acting as if the BOP isn't a fact entails they're acting as if facts aren't facts.
It doesn't say they actually think facts aren't facts.
It just shows every outside observer they're either delusional or dishonest.
Heck, if they're not delusional, it shows to themselves that they're actually dishonest instead.

[west raft]

even if that is the case So what?

[analog urchin]

You're just left with a theist that doesn't care that people think he's delusional or dishonest. They exist.

"So what?" indeed.

I'd have a few pragmatic arguments to show, but you've demonstrated you pay no attention to those already.

[west raft]

right but you still didn't explain how acting as if the burden of proof is NOT a fact leads people to think they are dishonest and delusional.So how does acting as if the BOP is not a fact lead people to think they are delusional and dishonest?

[analog urchin]

The BOP is demonstrably a fact.
Someone holds the burden of proof. If nobody does, then nobody holds the idea being discussed, even for the sake of argument.

Acting as if a demonstrated fact is not a fact makes people think your relationship with reality veered left a while ago - delusional.

[west raft]

right that's the claim you still haven't answered my question

[analog urchin]

The burden of proof is a fact.
Demonstrably so.

Is the statement a positive claim? Because positive claims are claims that can be justified.
Is that claim being made or held by someone (something)? Because if a justification can be produced, it has to come from SOMEWHERE.

Therefore, if the claim is part of those statements that can be justified (a positive claim) and is held by someone, then the someone that holds the claim must also hold the justification. Or accept that they're holding an unjustified claim.

That's the most complex way to explain the burden of proof ever devised.

[west raft]

you still haven't answered my question

[analog urchin]

"So how does acting as if the BOP is not a fact lead people to think they are delusional and dishonest? "

The BOP is a demonstrated fact. Therefore, any statement saying "the BOP" in the original question, I can replace with "a demonstrated fact"

Doing so, the sentence becomes:
So how does acting as if a demonstrated fact is not a fact lead people to think they are delusional or dishonest?

Denying reality in an obvious way makes people think you're lying or insane.

[west raft]

right that's the claim you still haven't answered my question

[analog urchin]

Did you not read?
"Denying reality in an obvious way makes people think you're lying or insane."

THAT's why acting as if the BOP, a fact, is not a fact lead people to think you're delusional or dishonest.
Because, in that moment, you're denying reality.

[west raft]

I'm not talking about denying a fact I'm talking about how does acting as if the BOP is not a fact lead people to think they are delusional and dishonest?which you still haven't answered

[analog urchin]

Remember, because I've demonstrated that someone holding the BOP IS a fact, you're essentially asking:

• How does you acting as if a demonstrable fact is not a fact lead people to think you're delusional or dishonest?

People that act as if a demonstrable fact was not a fact are seen as either liars or loons.
Even for the very, very few conspiracies that eventually were proven true, those conspiracy theorists, the people that were acting like reality was different from what everyone else saw, were treated like loons.
Because a vast majority of them were and still are.

[west raft]

Again that's the claim you still haven't answered my question

[willow wadi]

GG @west raft, you just advanced to level 7!

[analog urchin]

It's not a simple claim. It's demonstrable.
Act as if you deny reality, people will think you're delusional.
I can show several examples of this.

[west raft]

even if you showed that many people who acted as if they denied reality was delusional that would not substantiate the claim that if you act like you didn't hold the BOP as a fact most people woulld think you're dishonest or delusional

you still haven't answered my question

[analog urchin]

I'm saying if you act as if you deny a demonstrable fact, people will think you're delusional.
So long as I can prove that the fact you hold the BOP is a fact, then the above applies.

[west raft]

again that's the clam you still haven't answered my question

[analog urchin]

"if you deny a demonstrable fact, people will think you're delusional."
examples of people denying demonstrable facts and being seen as loons

That's my claim, demonstrated.

Then, next claim:
The fact someone holds the BOP is a demonstrable fact.
demonstration above

Combine the two, and you get the results I described.

[west raft]

it's clear that you don't have any justification for your claim and I don't think I'm going to get one

[analog urchin]

...I've just justified the claim.

Deny demonstrable facts, get treated like you're a liar or a loon.
Demonstrated by pointing out many, many examples, even the ones that eventually turned out to be correct, all of them treated like loons.

It is a demonstrated fact that someone (or something) holds the BOP.
This one I've demonstrated further up the conversation.

Both of those claims are justified.
The third claim, "Denying that someone holds the BOP will make you look like a liar or a loon" is demonstrated... by the above two being demonstrated.

[west raft]

@analog urchin

[analog urchin]

My claim is that it happens to MOST people that deny reality that way.

Therefore, it would be more likely than not that you denying reality in a new (or old) way would be treated like that.

[west raft]

you keep on changing the claim ,from acting to deny reality to denial of reality which is not relevant

[hot umbra]

I have read through all of this

[hot umbra]

Do you accept the PSR

[west raft]

no

[hot umbra]

Then you're not philosophical

[west raft]

ok

then

[hot umbra]

No wonder the Bop doesn't apply to you

You don't accept the PSR ~ which follows everything happens for reasons or a Reason

[west raft]

that's right

[hot umbra]

If you accept the PSR then every claim requires a Bop

So this train can never be derailed

[west raft]

I don't see how that follows

[hot umbra]

Cool

It does

Everything happens for reasons

Making a claim, you need a reason for the claim

That's the bop

[west raft]

I agree with having justification for your beliefs but not everything happens for a reason

[hot umbra]

Wait

So what happens for a non choice , indeterministic or deterministic reason .

Is there a place where something happens for no previous cause

[west raft]

what is that?

[hot umbra]

I'm just pointing out the logical law

It may not be true

But it demonstrates to be true over and over

If it isn't true then you got a interesting thing on your hands

[west raft]

are you asking me if it is possible for something to come from nothing?

[hot umbra]

An absolute philosophical nothing , yes

[west raft]

yeah I think so

[hot umbra]

You brokeded my brain

You said yes too, without the how..

There's a 0 probable in that situation

And you're like "yes"

[west raft]

yeah there is a simple argument for it ,when philosophers talk about nothing they mean the absence of anything,if there is nothing at all there is also nothing stopping something from coming into existence without a cause ,since no laws exist ,so therefore it is possible for something come from nothing

[full sierra]

@analog urchin You never demonstrated that when @west raft ignores what you repeatedly explained then he'll be seen as a dishonest interlocutor. Please explain again why reality is reality.

[west raft]

\

[west raft]

he is just wrong on the fact that the general population would think that
and even if he were right so what?if acting as if BOP correct is just a tool to make people think your honest then I don't give a sh it about it

[west raft]

also he had already conceded that he has no reason for why the theist should care about the BOP that was the original topic ,he just pivoted to another topic 'acting as if the BOP is correct'

[full sierra]

If you go around making outlandish claims and acting like they should be believed by default without any rationalization, people are going to think you're a nimrod. This is a mundane claim that @analog urchin expected you to accept based on your own experience with talking to people. However, if you're sure "he's just wrong" about that, then I guess it's time to agree to disagree and point and laugh.

[analog urchin]

It's not another topic.
To an observer, there is functionally no difference between somebody that's thirsty and somebody that's "acting like" they're thirsty.

I was merely using the terms "acting like" to leave room for dishonesty, instead of calling all of them insane instead.
That some people might look at an insane person and think they're faking it.

You asked why anyone should care about the burden of proof.
I said it was because ignoring it shows you're acting as if a part of reality wasn't the way you know it to be.
People that think reality was something different than it demonstrably is are delusional by definition.
The reason I could think you're dishonest instead is because instead of being delusional, you could be a troll, doing it for the lulz.

[west raft]

it is a very striking claim that I object to for a very good reason because we don't know the probability of the general population thinking that people who act as if the BOP is false will think I am dishonest ,because we don't know the probability for the conditions of telling what causes people think someone is dishonest or not so we cannot take a view on it one way or the other I didn't just say "he is just wrong" I probably typed it out sloppy but that is because my keyboard is giving me problems .In my experience with talking to people and I tell them I reject the burden of proof people seem to think I am fine they don't think that I am dishonest that isn't my experience.I also never made the claim that theist should be believed by default without rationalizition that's the first thing the next thing is that I am an atheist so why would I advocate for people to believe in theism for by default I am atheist lmao third is that I don't even believe in a "default' belief I literally argued as such in this channel ,that is why I created the channel to begin with lmao.

[full sierra]

So you believe that no one has any kind of burden to rationalize their claims before we believe them, but that theists shouldn't be believed without rationalization.... for some other reason? Is it special to theists? I can't help but interpret that it is something specific to theist claims since you brought up "why would I advocate for people to believe in theism by default" when I said nothing of the sort.

[west raft]

I don't believe that any position has the burden of proof yes , I don't believe theist should be believed or not I just think that what they believe is unjustifed/ wrong/false so in that case I wouldn't want people to believe them.It's not specific to theists

[analog urchin]

Follow through with that thought.

Why do you not believe them? Do you not want people to believe them?
Because you think their position is unjustified/wrong/false.

Now, WHY is it that you feel certain ideas have not been justified?
Was it perhaps because no justification was given for them?

But, if I were to follow your previous reasoning, no justification HAS to be given. After all, nobody is responsible for giving one.

Thing is, this applies to ANY new idea you're presented with.
All new ideas are unjustified. You then get justifications for them and choose whether those were sufficient enough for you to accept them.

It even applies to your own thoughts. You get an idea first, then try to reason your way around it to see if it's a good or a bad idea. That's you, taking on the burden of proof for your own idea, and justifying it to yourself.
Because you skip that second step, any idea you get will never be justified. After all, you never take on the burden of proof, therefore, you never seek justification.

[west raft]

Not every Idea is unjustified only views that are irrational are but I would say that it is important to distinnguish the burden of proof from justification.I accept justification what I reject is BOP . So yes I accept reasoning/justification but that doesn't mean I accept BOP that would be silly

[analog urchin]

Every idea is unjustified until given a justification.
Irrational views are simply never given one.

The BOP is just a way to determine where the justification should come from when a new idea is encountered.

Of course, there's ways to properly shift that burden in honest ways.
The most common one is steelmanning or defending an idea you don't hold.

So long as you accept the following:

• That for any idea, a justification has to be given for the idea to be rational.
• That, since a justification has to be given, then someone is responsible for doing so.

Then you accept the burden of proof for what it is.

[west raft]

As I said if a view is without justification that is just to say it''s unjustified and if it is unjustifed then it is irrational, I don't believe in unjustifed views I only believe in justified views because I believe in reason an rationality.One thing I think is unjustified is the BOP so yeah.

[analog urchin]

You're misnaming again.
The BOP isn't an idea: it's a fact.

It's a part of reality.

You don't get to say "The Sun is unjustified"
It's there, doing whatever it is stars do just fine.

Facts cannot be rational or irrational, because they're not mind constructs.

[west raft]

I don't care

[analog urchin]

The fact you can say without any irony that "this fact is irrational" proves you've got some more thinking to do.

[west raft]

I also believe that facts are mind construct, I also don't believe that the BOP is a fact so there is that too.But yes facts are a part of reality.

[analog urchin]

As a reminder, THIS is what sets the BOP

1. For any idea, a justification has to be given for the idea to be rational.
   C. Since a justification has to be given, then someone (or something) is responsible for doing so.

That's it. You've reached the end, and found out that something or someone is responsible for giving justifications for any idea.
It's only a single premise long. Not that hard.

You either get to point that the conclusion doesn't follow from 1, or you get to deny your own definition for what makes an idea rational and reject 1.

[west raft]

There is no BOP as I said if I come to a new Idea It iseither rational or irrational if there is an idea wthout justification then it is irrational

[analog urchin]

But how do you KNOW the idea has no justification?

[west raft]

by evaluating the arguments for and against the view

[analog urchin]

And how do you know where to find those?

[west raft]

well typically when we are looking for arguments for views we look up papers on the view

[analog urchin]

I guess @full sierra was right.
We're at the point and laugh phase now.

You don't even understand how you parcel your own ideas.

[west raft]

you asked how do yo know where to find those .You're asking generally for the arguments for and against views you use the internet

[analog urchin]

It's the fact you don't understand your reply essentially boiled down to
"Since a justification has to be given, then someone (or something) is responsible for doing so."
Which is what the BOP is.

You find someone that should bear the burden of proof since they accept that idea as rational, and look at the proof they've provided.

Plus, you're stuck never having any original idea ever cross your mind.
Because original ideas never had any papers written about them.

[west raft]

I already addressed this there is no BOP.Yes we evaluate whether a givn view justified or not but this is simply reasoning not BOP it is important to distiguish the two which you simply keep on conflating.I accept reasoning not the BOP

[west raft]

also it's important to distinguish necessary from obligatory, it is necessary that a belief is justified for it to be rational vs it is obligatory that someone present a justification for the belief to be rational.I accept the former but reject the latter.

[analog urchin]

It is necessary for a belief to be justified to be rational.
If someone presents their belief, and does not present justification, then the rational response is to think they have not justified their belief.
That, as far as you are concerned, and until further notice, you shall treat their belief as unjustified.
...that the burden of presenting justifications for the belief they're presenting is on them.

They're not obligated to present a justification. That's called "failing to meet the burden of proof". It happens a lot.
However, if they want to show they hold a belief for which they can meet the burden of proof, (also known as: "a belief they can justify") they have to do so.

[west raft]

they don't have a burden of proof if they fail to present justification for their belief then they are not in the debate because the goal of a debate is to present reasons for your view if they fail to do so then they get booted simple as that.

[analog urchin]

Again, that's what you do with people that fail to meet the burden of proof.
That fail to justify their belief.

Remember, "meeting the burden of proof" is synonymous with "justifying the idea".

[west raft]

BOP is not synonymous with reason/justification , it is necessary that a belief is justified for it to be rational vs it is obligatory that someone present a justification for the belief to be rational.I accept the former but reject the later.

[analog urchin]

No, it's not.
Meeting that burden is.

Reading comprehension 101.

[west raft]

there is no BOP

[analog urchin]

Then nobody ever meets that burden.
Therefore, nobody ever justifies ideas, because those. terms. are. synonymous.

At this point I'm starting to think this is a language barrier issue.
It's like you don't understand the terms being used and nevertheless argue against them

[west raft]

They are not, reasoning is the mental capacity to apply concepts, justification is the right standing of an action, person, or attitude with respect to some standard of evaluation these two concepts are distinct from the BOP;is on the person making the positive claim it is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position. these are different concepts.I accept reasoning and justification but reject the BOP.

[analog urchin]

Reading comprehension yet again.

I'm not talking about the burden of proof itself, but concepts related to it.

Justifying an idea is synonymous with meeting the burden of proof for that idea.
That's what the expression "meeting the burden of proof" means.

Arguing with this is the same as arguing against "A triangle is a flat surface with 3 sides and 3 angles".
It makes it sound like you don't understand the words being used.

[west raft]

I cannot meet the BOP if there is no BOP r t ar d

[analog urchin]

Then you cannot justify an idea.
That's sad.

[west raft]

sure I can have justifictation for my beliefs since justification does not require BOP

[analog urchin]

It does.
You just don't understand why.

Again, reading comprehension.

Unable to meet the burden of proof = unable to justify an idea. They mean the exact same thing.
By saying, for any reason, you cannot do one, then you directly say you cannot do the other.

Can you, or can you not justify your own ideas?

[west raft]

ok now you're just trolling don't expect any more replies from me on this topic

[hot umbra]

I don't see the point in this discussion anymore to be honest

Do you believe in God, you believe for a reason or were taught for reasons
.

Either that or those reasons are personal experiences or they are empirical reasons . People who don't have those personal experiences want to know if any at all empirical reasons , there's allot of cost and benefits to a belief . Life changing cost and benefits . So it's not like favoring a superhero .

If there's no empirical reasons some people have the motive to convince you otherwise if you can or are willing to be unconvinced. If you cannot then the opportunity for the audience who has something to take up with it. In the bottom of the barrel truth.

You have every right to believe.

Even for the wrong reasons.

That's what makes people fascinating, they can settle .

They can deny and they can fight and they can justify and change whole methods .

See the other coins of reality.

Or even Vote.

Allot of people hate that people vote on their beliefs. Fuck that I'm glad they do.
And their wrong
It's their wrongness that gives rise to the challenge and opens up the youth to their mistakes and changes more peoples minds if anything.

Do we need a God. I would argue yes.
Of course human beings need to believe in A God as a whole. It's an evolutionary coping mechanism.

Not for none of the other excuses bar none. Not morals none of the other bullshit or physics.

It's a coping mechanism.

Some people don't need to cope and some people don't need a God to cope.

Someone's gonna disagree , but they're wrong.

In their wrongness how many atheists exist who choose to be agnostic to hold on to a higher power option. Too fucking many.

Face it.
This is the wrong species for empiricism .

Some truths don't favor the most rational position.
This inconvenient truth needs to be spelled out.

[full sierra]

Technically, a triangle is only "flat" in Euclidean geometry, so you'd have to add that qualifier to be completely accurate.

[west raft]

@copper mantle there is a simple reason why justification is a goal of debate , and the reason is just this,Knowledge , as you know to have knowledge we need Justification and true belief so yes truth is one of the goals of debate but so is justification these are just the goals of inquiry in general

[hot umbra]

I would argue we don't debate facts , but some people do.

I think for most of philosophy it isn't the facts that are debated , but the interpretation of the facts.

That's usually what a scientific debate is, the interpretation of the facts

[copper mantle]

Presumably justification itself is not the goal of a debate. The goal I would think is for each participant to acquire perspectives that would allow for them to either come to correct conclusions regarding the topic or learn why their current justification should not be relied upon to arrive at such a conclusion.

[west raft]

I mean these are just subsidiary goals at the end of the day the ultimate goal is to have knowledge ,knowledge requires having justification so having good justification for our beliefs is a goal of debate or inquiry.