mererdog Posted April 5, 2017 Report Share Posted April 5, 2017 9 hours ago, Brother Kaman said: Question everything. Wouldn't that get kind of dull? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mererdog Posted April 5, 2017 Report Share Posted April 5, 2017 On 4/3/2017 at 5:25 AM, mererdog said: A third and more common version has people deciding that any evidence shown will simply be rejected out of hand. That the other side isn't really listening, you know? This is that point where evidence stops being used as a way to try to convince others, and is only used as a weapon by people trying to make the other side look stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mererdog Posted April 5, 2017 Report Share Posted April 5, 2017 (edited) Prerequisites. If I don't have the right knowledge base, there are things I simply can't learn. Without a solid mathematical foundation, I can't learn physics. Without a solid understanding of physics, I can't learn modern cosmology. So if I don't have the maths, trying to prove claims about modern cosmology to me would be a giant waste of time. Saying that is somehow a failure on the part of the person making the claim... Well, that would also be a giant waste of time. Edited April 5, 2017 by mererdog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan H. B. Lobl Posted April 5, 2017 Report Share Posted April 5, 2017 2 hours ago, mererdog said: You say the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, which means it is your burden to prove that claim. I notice you spending zero time proving the claim, Now you're just being contrary and argumentative. No. I don't. I see no good reason to believe that God exists. What do I have to prove? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuchulain Posted April 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2017 3 hours ago, mererdog said: Wouldn't that get kind of dull? doesn't seem to for you friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mererdog Posted April 5, 2017 Report Share Posted April 5, 2017 1 hour ago, cuchulain said: doesn't seem to for you friend. No fair pointing out the punchlines... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mererdog Posted April 5, 2017 Report Share Posted April 5, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said: Now you're just being contrary and argumentative. Ad hominem does not prove your claim. Edited April 5, 2017 by mererdog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Kaman Posted April 5, 2017 Report Share Posted April 5, 2017 7 hours ago, mererdog said: Wouldn't that get kind of dull? Why ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan H. B. Lobl Posted April 5, 2017 Report Share Posted April 5, 2017 3 hours ago, mererdog said: Ad hominem does not prove your claim. What claim do I have to prove? That I don't believe in God? That I have no reason, based on the available evidence, to believe in God? What are you looking for, from me, to provide? Ad hominem be damned. Clearly you are arguing for it's own sake. Maybe you can't look at the available evidence and draw even a tentative conclusion. I can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mererdog Posted April 6, 2017 Report Share Posted April 6, 2017 14 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said: What claim do I have to prove? One set of claims you made in this topic: "In general, small claims require small proofs. Big claims require big proofs. Huge claims require huge proofs." You have offered zero proof for any of these claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan H. B. Lobl Posted April 7, 2017 Report Share Posted April 7, 2017 14 hours ago, mererdog said: One set of claims you made in this topic: "In general, small claims require small proofs. Big claims require big proofs. Huge claims require huge proofs." You have offered zero proof for any of these claims. I hold the truths of these statements to be self evident. Along the lines of -- Fire is hot. Ice is cold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokigami Posted April 7, 2017 Report Share Posted April 7, 2017 On 4/3/2017 at 11:42 PM, Dan56 said: There's really not a burden to convince anyone of anything. The gospel is what it is, and every individual chooses to believe it or not. A person who believes in God can no more convince a non-believer to believe than a nonbeliever can convince a believer that there is no God. The existence or nonexistence of God can not be definitively established in the absence of direct tangible evidence, so no sales pitch is persuasive. A person who believes doesn't feel burdened to convince others, but rather an obligation to share what they believe, especially when they're questioned about it. We all choose to believe something, even if its nothing. And thus we get back to the question of free will. It's always out there, begging to be reconsidered.. 1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said: I hold the truths of these statements to be self evident. Along the lines of -- Fire is hot. Ice is cold. And yet, hot and cold are relative terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mererdog Posted April 7, 2017 Report Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said: I hold the truths of these statements to be self evident. Along the lines of -- Fire is hot. Ice is cold. Oh. So there is no burden of proof unless you doubt you are right? So Christians have no burden of proof when it comes to the claims they make about the existence of God. They can simply label the claims "self-evident", safely implying that lack of agreement can only be caused by some sort of a character flaw in the people hearing the claims. Good to know... I certainly don't want to mess around proving my claims if I can just make up some implicit ad hominem... Edited April 7, 2017 by mererdog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan H. B. Lobl Posted April 7, 2017 Report Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, mererdog said: Oh. So there is no burden of proof unless you doubt you are right? So Christians have no burden of proof when it comes to the claims they make about the existence of God. They can simply label the claims "self-evident", safely implying that lack of agreement can only be caused by some sort of a character flaw in the people hearing the claims. Good to know... I certainly don't want to mess around proving my claims if I can just make up some implicit ad hominem... What are you playing at? You're telling me that anybody can tell me anything -- and I have to accept it without evidence -- no matter how stupid or crazy? Edited April 7, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuchulain Posted April 10, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 Some people are adversarial and simply enjoy trying to point out flaws in an argument. That's my analysis. Maybe I am mistaken, but I don't think so. Maybe it's under the auspices of getting you to think about your position a little deeper, I don't know. mererdog has informed me in the past in private messages that he doesn't like to respond to individual comments and questions directly but rather wants to do so in a broad sense to reach an audience...of course, he sure does ask a lot of individual questions for someone that claims not to answer them. It's all my personal perception of course, and I might be mistaken, just like others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mererdog Posted April 11, 2017 Report Share Posted April 11, 2017 (edited) On 4/7/2017 at 0:05 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said: What are you playing at? You're telling me that anybody can tell me anything -- and I have to accept it without evidence -- no matter how stupid or crazy? No. I am saying that "stupid" and "crazy" are just insults, and reflect opinion rather than fact. They indicate prejudice, not proof. Edited April 11, 2017 by mererdog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan H. B. Lobl Posted April 11, 2017 Report Share Posted April 11, 2017 4 hours ago, mererdog said: No. I am saying that "stupid" and "crazy" are just insults, and reflect opinion rather than fact. They indicate prejudice, not proof. You also objected to "improbable". What word would you use? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mererdog Posted April 11, 2017 Report Share Posted April 11, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said: You also objected to "improbable". What word would you use? The core problem is treating opinion as fact. It isn't the words you are choosing, but the ideas you are expressing. Paraphrased: It looks different, therefore it is different and should be treated as such. The whole "extraordinary claims" thing is just special pleading. Of course claims that seem stupid to you will be harder to prove to you. But the important words there are "seem" and "to you". Because it isn't really about the claim, just how the claim seems to you. Edited April 11, 2017 by mererdog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuchulain Posted April 11, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2017 2 hours ago, mererdog said: The core problem is treating opinion as fact. It isn't the words you are choosing, but the ideas you are expressing. Paraphrased: It looks different, therefore it is different and should be treated as such. The whole "extraordinary claims" thing is just special pleading. Of course claims that seem stupid to you will be harder to prove to you. But the important words there are "seem" and "to you". Because it isn't really about the claim, just how the claim seems to you. Everyone has bias. This is something you have said multiple times, by my recollection. If everyone has bias, then everyone has things that are harder to prove to them. Everyone has a claim they feel is extraordinary and that they feel needs superior evidence. So...it is about the claim, while at the same time it is about the person examining the claim and the evidence for that claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mererdog Posted April 11, 2017 Report Share Posted April 11, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, cuchulain said: So...it is about the claim, while at the same time it is about the person examining the claim and the evidence for that claim. Nope. It is about how the person sees the claim. The proof is simple. Take the same person and make the same claim, just with different timing. Often, what was extraordinary is now ordinary. Why? Perspectives shift over time, making claims seem different to us. Edited April 11, 2017 by mererdog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.