|
|
Gone
Jul 21, 2018 9:26:48 GMT
Post by phludowin on Jul 21, 2018 9:26:48 GMT
I believe in Occam's razor, therefore the burden of proof is on those who claim that a deity exists.
|
|
|
|
Gone
Jul 21, 2018 9:36:27 GMT
geode likes this
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 21, 2018 9:36:27 GMT
Both, if they make a claim, then it's up to them to prove it, but you're free to believe (or not believe) anything you want. No proof necessary.  |
|
|
|
Gone
Jul 21, 2018 11:49:44 GMT
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 21, 2018 11:49:44 GMT
No one.
Both groups could have the burden of proving what they say about the other though is true, but that's really just opinion subject to normal debate.
|
|
|
|
Gone
Jul 21, 2018 11:55:01 GMT
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 21, 2018 11:55:01 GMT
"Burden of proof" is just some shit we made up. You can make up whatever you like. No answer is more right than any other, because there are no facts to get right when it comes to "burden of proof" (aside from facts such as "Joe made up that so and so has the burden of proof").
|
|
|
|
Gone
Jul 21, 2018 12:02:55 GMT
Post by Aj_June on Jul 21, 2018 12:02:55 GMT
The one making making claims that are not supported by reasonable evidence. That said, you cannot disprove existence of god even when reasonable evidence is lacking. But in general discussion the party making the claim will not make a good case for herself if evidence is not reasonable.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 21, 2018 12:28:38 GMT
The first. Imagine if our our court system worked like the second category and we just imprisoned people for baseless accusations: "Well maybe there's no evidence he committed murder, but you can't disprove it either!". There's a reason we say "innocent until proven guilty".
|
|
|
|
Gone
Jul 21, 2018 12:31:03 GMT
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 21, 2018 12:31:03 GMT
That's why this premise is silly in the first place.
It's not a legal case for anyone to defend or prosecute.
|
|
|
|
Gone
Jul 21, 2018 12:42:04 GMT
Post by Vegas on Jul 21, 2018 12:42:04 GMT
I believe in Occam's razor, therefore the burden of proof is on those who claim that a deity exists. Even that can be subjective: In order for life to have appeared spontaneously on earth, there first had to be hundreds of millions of protein molecules of the ninth configuration. But given the size of the planet Earth, do you know how long it would have taken for just one of these protein molecules to appear entirely by chance? Roughly ten to the two hundred and forty-third power billions of years. And I find that far, far more fantastic than simply believing in God. |
|
|
|
Gone
Jul 21, 2018 12:51:15 GMT
Post by Vegas on Jul 21, 2018 12:51:15 GMT
When it comes to beliefs....
You just have to explain why you believe what you have faith to be true.
The "burden of proof" lies with those who claim those who believe differently to be wrong....
If you can't prove your opponent is wrong... Then, STFU.
|
|
|
|
Gone
Jul 21, 2018 14:03:19 GMT
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 21, 2018 14:03:19 GMT
I do not recommend trying to win arguments by invoking what you believe are "the rules" outside organized, formal debates that actually have rules. That is a sign that you're not likely very good at arguing at all, isn't it?
Generally the people who try to invoke all sorts of "rules" in debate are in fact not very good at making any case. Many of the "rules" lately are used by atheists who obviously couldn't win without making up some ridiculous rule. For example "incredulity" does not arise on one side of a question, it arises between sides. Thus it cannot recommend one side or the other.
I've said it many times before, but we should not depend on using some term like "ad hominem" or "ad populum" to dismiss an opponent's claims. Rather you should explain step by step how their reasoning does not apply to your case at hand. Then there is no need to use the term. And it does not matter that there are times when those "fallacies" are not fallacies at all, since you have shown that they do not apply to your topic. And that way you avoid committing a fallacy yourself.
I've found "Occam's Razor" to be utterly useless. It is invoked by people with rather simple minds and overly simple answers. If something obviously works and is an answer, then there will be agreement. If disagreement remains then the answer given by Occam's Razor might well be too simple. Again, I cannot recommend anyone claim victory by "Occam's Razor" since it just makes you look oblivious.
|
|
|
|
Gone
Jul 21, 2018 16:38:50 GMT
Post by phludowin on Jul 21, 2018 16:38:50 GMT
I believe in Occam's razor, therefore the burden of proof is on those who claim that a deity exists. Even that can be subjective: In order for life to have appeared spontaneously on earth, there first had to be hundreds of millions of protein molecules of the ninth configuration. But given the size of the planet Earth, do you know how long it would have taken for just one of these protein molecules to appear entirely by chance? Roughly ten to the two hundred and forty-third power billions of years. And I find that far, far more fantastic than simply believing in God. Is this from a creationist site? Because there are plenty of fallacies. Nobody claimed that proteines appeared entirely by chance. The figure of the number of years sounds too precise to not have been made up. And if you allow "God did it" as an answer, you have to allow the question: "Where did God come from?" And if you start with creationist apologist nonsense like "first cause" or "unmoved mover", then you have to allow the hypothesis that the Universe always existed, with its natural laws. Since the Universe is proven to exist, unlike God, then you can drop God from the equation entirely. My opinion: Creationists are cretinists, just with more letters. |
|
|
|
Gone
Jul 21, 2018 21:10:52 GMT
Post by Vegas on Jul 21, 2018 21:10:52 GMT
Even that can be subjective: In order for life to have appeared spontaneously on earth, there first had to be hundreds of millions of protein molecules of the ninth configuration. But given the size of the planet Earth, do you know how long it would have taken for just one of these protein molecules to appear entirely by chance? Roughly ten to the two hundred and forty-third power billions of years. And I find that far, far more fantastic than simply believing in God. Is this from a creationist site? Because there are plenty of fallacies. It's a quote from The Ninth Configuration. |
|
|
|
Gone
Jul 21, 2018 21:24:08 GMT
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 21, 2018 21:24:08 GMT
Even that can be subjective: In order for life to have appeared spontaneously on earth, there first had to be hundreds of millions of protein molecules of the ninth configuration. But given the size of the planet Earth, do you know how long it would have taken for just one of these protein molecules to appear entirely by chance? Roughly ten to the two hundred and forty-third power billions of years. And I find that far, far more fantastic than simply believing in God. Is this from a creationist site? Because there are plenty of fallacies. Nobody claimed that proteines appeared entirely by chance. The figure of the number of years sounds too precise to not have been made up. And if you allow "God did it" as an answer, you have to allow the question: "Where did God come from?"And if you start with creationist apologist nonsense like "first cause" or "unmoved mover", then you have to allow the hypothesis that the Universe always existed, with its natural laws. Since the Universe is proven to exist, unlike God, then you can drop God from the equation entirely. My opinion: Creationists are cretinists, just with more letters. No you don't. Really, ones could just make up where God came from as easily as they make up where life came from. It's all about what we like as an answer. Anyone saying different is delusional. The Bible is at least smart enough to say it's more important to check yourself than to check the start of life. |
|
