the default claim for God's existence...

[ZNFYRH]

Zhavric,

I'm trying to treat you with respect and dignity in my responses. If that doesn't work for you, put me on ignore. I'm just giving you answers that require effort on your part.

Saying that I failed to answer a question you posed to someone else is rather stupid. It's his question to answer because it addresses his statements, not mine. If you think that's evading, then put me on ignore. In all honesty, it's rather stupid of you to accuse me of evading questions that you directed to someone else. Perhaps I don't answer those questions because I don't agree with the basis for the questions.

Moving on... your entire post is pointless. I commented on your example and elaborated, and you didn't at all address where I elaborated.

I don't really think you want to discuss anything. I carefully specified the thought process we all go through when we hear or see a statement and it's perfectly accurate and relevant.

The point, which you missed, is that there is a step by step process we go through when we see or hear statements. You are doing it now as you read. With each word, your mind is calling up the meaning of the words faster than you notice.

You read the words "married bachelor" and that's all they are... just words. Faster than you can think it through, you assess that "bachelor" is the opposite of "married". It raises the "False" flag in your mind.

Just think it through like a computer program. Any other programmers reading this please let me know if this process is being described accurately.

X = "Steve is a married bachelor..."

If you ask the computer to tell you if X is true or false, it will give you Undefined at the start. Then it would go through word by word. If every word receives a value of True then X is True.

"is a married..." is an adjective. The computer awaits the relevant noun.
"bachelor" is a valid word. But when the computer relates it to the previous adjective, it runs into the contradiction. "married bachelor" returns a False, making anything else false.

You can practice this with a friend.

Write "Steve is a married bachelor" on a sheet of paper.

Cover it with another sheet of paper.

Ask a friend if what you wrote on the paper is true, false, or unknown.

Without evaluating it yet, the only reasonable answer is that they don't know... unknown.

Now slide the cover paper one word at a time.

The period at the end denotes the end of the statement.

If they see "Steve is a" and nothing else, and you ask them if your statement is true, they'll tell you they don't know yet... unknown. It's unknown because they have no evaluated the entire statement.

Then you reveal "married" and ask them again. Since there is no period yet, they tell you they don't know, because they don't know the relevant noun.

Then you reveal "bachelor.". Married doesn't go with bachelor. And there's the period. So then they can confidently tell you that the claim is false.

If the final word was "man." and they happened to know Steve was the guy in the next office who was married, they would tell you that your claim is true, which then makes it a fact.

That's the point I'm trying to illustrate to you.

That you are skipping over that initial evaluation because you perceive that it's instantaneous. When someone says that claims are unknown, it's because they are referring to the claim itself before any evaluation occurs.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Zhavric, I'm trying to treat you with respect and dignity in my responses. If that doesn't work for you, put me on ignore. I'm just giving you answers that require effort on your part. Saying that I failed to answer a question you posed to someone else is rather stupid.

Thank you for your permission. By the by, if you're looking to treat me with respect & dignitiy might I suggest not A) calling me stupid and B) not lying... what else can I call "I want to treat you with respect / ur stoopid"?

Furthermore, the questions I challenged you with weren't exclusively meant for any one person. They're directed at who ever agrees with a specific stance. That includes you.

I don't really think you want to discuss anything. I carefully specified the thought process we all go through when we hear or see a statement and it's perfectly accurate and relevant.

ROFLMAO

Of course you didn't.

You went on about some nonsense about computer programming that any 5th grader from 1989 could debunk and then went on to talk about asking about claims we haven't read. Yes, when I think of the human mind and our thought process it usually involves bad programming code and inane 3rd grade games.

The default position for god, like all absurdist claims that contradict existing proven claims, is 'false'. Private message me when you have some evidence to the contrary.

I honestly don't understand what it is about volconvo.com that causes agnostics and theists to lose their minds over this issue and embrace know-nothingism.

[ZNFYRH]

Zhavric,

Thank you for glossing over the whole point.

Considering that I tried another way to discuss the point with you and you chose to be a jerk, I accept your concession due to an inability to debate.

What is that little quirk of yours?

Oh yeah...

/thread over

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Fangrim, this is a very silly way to debate. If we take your logic into account everything... no matter how outlandish & flawed or proven and observed... everything defaults to unknown. If everything defaults to unknown then there's really no point in having a 'default stance'.

Even though I personally sort of dislike the idea of everything defaulting to unknown (it seems a bit dumb even to me, as things that can be thoroughly proven in a matter a seconds would remain unknown until that proof was brought forward), that is the way things do start. A child or otherwise ignorant person has no conception of ideas like God or leprechauns or even penguins. Thus, the claim "Penguins exist" remains unknown until evidence is provided for that child or ignorant person, though admittedly for a child very little evidence is needed.

By your logic all three of the following claims default to "unknown": "The sun is not the moon." "Earth's moon is bigger than the Earth." "Life exists on other planets." True, false, unknown all default to unknown in your model.

Certainly they do. The first two are then proven otherwise rather quickly.

Why? What's the point? What do we gain from this?

Refer to the rest of one of my previous posts:

Quote by: Fangrim A good reason for this besides it simply being logical is that it prevents people who...

. I'll elaborate if needed, but I provide more analysis below.

It's silly to even consider a default claim if it's always going to be unknown. Instead, think of the "default claim" as where a claim stands based on known information. We've observed the sun & the moon in detail. We know the moon is a chunk of rock and the sun is a (comparitively) giant ball of nuclear heated gasses. So what advantage do we have by tossing away this knowledge? Why declare these things "unknown" even for a moment?

Of course it's silly to even consider a default claim. What do you think I've been trying to say throughout this entire thread? If people weren't making default claims, I wouldn't care about them at all.
Also, you have now redefined what a default claim is, and in addition have made the definition in such a way that it obviously favors you and your conception that known information should influence what the default claim is. Sorry, not flying. I've contested that stance throughout this thread, stating many times that this "known information" is brought forward in the debate itself, though rather quickly and very effectively. It does not create a default claim, but is instead used as evidence itself.
Referring back to my previous post, and basically what we've been talking about throughout this thread and the OP:

EDIT: Just to make sure we're not misunderstanding one another, a default claim is a claim that places the burden of proof on those who are negating, instead of those who make the default claim.

In the OP:

He smugly replied that he wasn't the one that needed evidence, but instead I needed evidence to prove that he did exist. Essentially, he was defaulting to a negative claim, with me having the burden of proof. Of course, that's absolutely ridiculous. If an athiest is going to try to prove that God doesn't exist, he's going to have to have evidence, just as a theologist needs evidence for his respective claims.

Default claims are invalid because they place the burden of proof on the negative, those that oppose the claim, rather than on the affirmative, those who support the claim. It is obvious that the burden of proof should be placed on those who support the claim's validity. Thus, when referring to the God hypothesis, those who claim that God does not exist have the burden of proof in demonstrating this to be true rather than hiding behind a default claim and reversing the burdens on the negative. Similarly, theists who claim that God does exist would have their respective burden, and could not hide behind the default claim/taunt of "You can't prove he doesn't exist, so haha!"

[Zhavric]

Now that ZNF has dropped out of the debate in the most original way possible (LOL), we can get back on topic.

Quote by: Fangrim Even though I personally sort of dislike the idea of everything defaulting to unknown (it seems a bit dumb even to me, as things that can be thoroughly proven in a matter a seconds would remain unknown until that proof was brought forward), that is the way things do start.

I didn't bother reading any further than this. Effectively you've stated, "Even though you're right, Zhav, I don't want to admit it." There's really no point in debating further. There's no justification for the pointless extra step you're suggesting and you know it. Time to drop it and move on to more pressing threads.

Claims which contradict existing proven claims are false until proven true with evidence. My most bitter (and now banned) rival admitted as much as did you just now.

Drop it and move on.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric I didn't bother reading any further than this. Effectively you've stated, "Even though you're right, Zhav, I don't want to admit it." There's really no point in debating further. There's no justification for the pointless extra step you're suggesting and you know it. Time to drop it and move on to more pressing threads. Claims which contradict existing proven claims are false until proven true with evidence. My most bitter (and now banned) rival admitted as much as did you just now. Drop it and move on.

What the hell?
I was expressing a personal sentiment toward the general idea of having to default things at all, of having to even have this discussion. The only reason why I find it necessary is that people incorrectly use default claims to fortify their positions of belief, and this tactic is illegitimate and invalid.
In that little snippet which you have taken to be the entirety of my position, I merely stated the same practicality statement I have made throughout this discussion, albeit in a slightly more blunt way. I was attempting to aquiesce a little and show that I still thought the idea of having to "STOP. Drive tentatively forward looking for cars about to hit you..." in examining evidence was ludicrous, but only because of the way that you have described it, especially in your posts with ZFN. Maybe reading those and then making this post changed my diction in ways that confused you, but this is in no way a laying down of arms for the case against default claims.

EDIT: Btw, can we stop the reading only the first paragraph of my opponent's posts? I almost feel like there's no point in even typing the rest because you don't bother to read it, and much of it is significant to this debate we're having.
I hope the problem is not so extreme that I will have to repost this part again, only as the FIRST paragraph...

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim EDIT: Btw, can we stop the reading only the first paragraph of my opponent's posts? I almost feel like there's no point in even typing the rest because you don't bother to read it, and much of it is significant to this debate we're having. I hope the problem is not so extreme that I will have to repost this part again, only as the FIRST paragraph...

Oh, I'm fine with reading entire posts. 99.9% of the time I read everything. That .1% of the time is reserved for when someone states something so outlandish it entirely derails their argument.

If you're debating a topic don't open a post by admitting how flawed your stance is and then get angry later when someone points this out to you.

[ZNFYRH]

Fangrim,

If you want to ignore Zhavric and focus on a discussion with me then how about this...

Quote by: Fangrim Even though I personally sort of dislike the idea of everything defaulting to unknown (it seems a bit dumb even to me, as things that can be thoroughly proven in a matter a seconds would remain unknown until that proof was brought forward), that is the way things do start.

Earlier one of my responses including the process by which we evaluate statements. I posed that, by our perception, we seem to instantly understand the validity of everything we hear or see. But the reality is that we evaluate it word by word.

Do you think that presentation is accurate? If so, wouldn't it then support that until we evaluate a claim that the claim is "unknown"?

I strongly urge you to no longer respond to Zhavric. He will either provoke you to the point of you slipping up and getting in trouble (with no consequences for him, of course) or he will find that, like a small child, if no one is paying attention to his "tantrums" he will stop and go away.

[Zhavric]

LOL

If you're going to jock me, then do it right. When you post /thread over, you have to stop posting.

Really the discussion ended pages ago when you were unable to support your position and Fangrim admitted his position is flawed.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Oh, I'm fine with reading entire posts. 99.9% of the time I read everything. That .1% of the time is reserved for when someone states something so outlandish it entirely derails their argument. If you're debating a topic don't open a post by admitting how flawed your stance is and then get angry later when someone points this out to you.

Again, just what the hell? What flaw? The flaw that I dislike that I have to deal with the subject of default claims at all? I'm shocked.
I was acknowleding your statements that it was dumb by saying that it "seemed dumb to me," obviously going by my superficial viewpoints in a practical situation. If you had been reading my other posts maybe you would understand how I feel about default claims, and about practicality. But since you seem so adamant to stick to this "flaw" of my own personal viewpoint rather than that of what is logical or what should define a debate, maybe I should just give up and drop it as a debate that went horribly wrong because my opponent decided to ignore my posts and thus the entire context of the debate, of one paragraph which he found "flawed."
Can we please continue without this debate flailing because of my one stupid paragraph combined with your stubbornness in looking at nothing besides that one stupid paragraph? Address my actual analysis into why the default claim is invalid, not my viewpoint on its practicality in non-debate situations. Remember that I analyzed a default claim to set the burden of proof on the wrong side. Maybe we could address that?

[5010]

I would expect that 200 years ago a claim that the source of most sunlight was the conversion of hydrogen into helium would be considered absurd. Also the claim that a mosquito could transmit disease from human to human would be considered absurd.

Those who claim such absurdities have to back up their claims and show evidence, and even then it takes time for the scientific mainstream to accept it.

The point is, as far as the mainstream is concerned, the default is neither true, false, nor unknown, but rather rejected.

[Fangrim]

I'm rather disappointed that Zharvric dropped this thread, as we didn't really settle the issue and my points stand, so I'm bringing it back for a moment to see if he will actually respond to my analysis and read my posts. We'll see...

[ZNFYRH]

Fangrim,

Go back to post #48, if you'd like, and respond to the questions I ask you in that post. You'll not find respectful discourse, otherwise.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Fangrim, If you want to ignore Zhavric and focus on a discussion with me then how about this... Earlier one of my responses including the process by which we evaluate statements. I posed that, by our perception, we seem to instantly understand the validity of everything we hear or see. But the reality is that we evaluate it word by word. Do you think that presentation is accurate? If so, wouldn't it then support that until we evaluate a claim that the claim is "unknown"? I strongly urge you to no longer respond to Zhavric. He will either provoke you to the point of you slipping up and getting in trouble (with no consequences for him, of course) or he will find that, like a small child, if no one is paying attention to his "tantrums" he will stop and go away.

You're confusing the time it takes to read a claim with evaluation of the claim.

All claims start out neutral. "Unknown" is innacurate, because the word in and of itself requires evidence. Calling a claim known to be true "unknown" would be innacurate.

This "word by word" thing is a little ridiculous. Logic doesn't wait for the human mind to catch up.



And at that - where a claim starts is irrelevant. We're talking about the status of the "god" claim.

A status of "true" would require evidence for it.
A status of "false" would require evidence against it.
A status of "unknown" would require a lack of evidence for each side.

It's that simple. Zhavric, when pressed, will try to say that "god" violates the law of conservation of energy - which of course means he is using a definition for "god" that serves only to define the word he so desperately wants to disprove into impossibility.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: K You're confusing the time it takes to read a claim with evaluation of the claim. All claims start out neutral. "Unknown" is innacurate, because the word in and of itself requires evidence. Calling a claim known to be true "unknown" would be innacurate.

I'm not confusing anything. I happen to be very clear on this topic.

"neutral" is a term for predisposition. The validity of a statement has only three states.

In your three line segment about true, false, and unknown, you are correct. But the reason any claim is "unknown" is because the question "Is there evidence for? Or evidence against?" is still unanswered.

It's like doing logic proofs with only two values.

P = Evidence For
Q = Evidence Against

If P and Q are both Yes, then the validity of the statement is Unknown.
If P is Yes and Q is No, then the validity of the statement is True.
If P is No and Q is Yes, then the validity of the statement is False.
If P and Q are both No, then the validity of the statement is Unknown.

What I am saying is that every statement is Unknown.

By reading it, you apply validity to the statement through definitions. Which is why some statements that have contradicting words are False (married bachelor, for example).

The reason I mention the time to read a statement is because we automatically, when reading a statement, do the above validation through definitions.

If the statement uses a word we don't know, or discusses a topic we don't understand, we don't say the statement is True or False. We go look up the word or look into the topic.

As for your assessment of Zhavric's God claim at the end of your post, I also agree. Not only is God being defined where there is no "definitive definition" of God, but also he is using changeable "laws of science" when science is close to finding a way for matter to be created in ways we never thought possible.

[Kamehameha34]

By reading it, you apply validity to the statement through definitions. Which is why some statements that have contradicting words are False (married bachelor, for example).

It's validated or invalidated as soon as it is clarified in the human mind. Your confusing the time it takes to read or understand a claim with some "unknown" phase.

If two definitions contradict eachother, they do so instantaneously. There's no "wait" period.

[5010]

This whole thread is about whether or not Burden of Proof is a fallacy.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: 5010 This whole thread is about whether or not Burden of Proof is a fallacy.

Not at all. I fully support burdens of proof.

What I do not support is for the entire question of God's existence to default that he does not exist. When the God hypothesis is considered, there are two opposing claims, one supported by theists and the other advocated by hard atheists. Theists claim that God exists, while hard atheists claim God does not exist.
Both of these are claims that each have the burden of proof. Thus, if a theist declares that God exists and starts a debate, he has the burden of proof and must provide evidence for his claim, and the debate does not default in his favor should he fail to do so. If an atheist declares that God does not exist (not merely that there is no evidence for his existence), than he has the burden of proof for his claim, and he can't win by default if the opponent does not prove God's existence because the atheist actually has the burden of proof.
I'm doing this because atheists cannot claim that God does not exist, then thrust the burden of proof for the debate on the theist, and should the theist be unable to prove his existence, claim he has won, when in reality the atheist had the burden of proof for his anti-God claim, not the theist.
This thread is about to whom the burden of proof falls, and whether default claims are warranted for the God hypothesis, but it can be confusing since there are actually two opposing claims, one each from theists and hard atheists.

EDIT: I'm sorry, I might be operating under a different conception of what a burden of proof was. It was my perception that if A had the burden of proof, then A must obviously prove his claim to win, while B would win if A did not meet that burden. Thus, if A made a claim (turtles are slippery), he could not win simply by saying that B did not prove anti-claim as true (turtles are not slippery), because A had the burden of proof, not B.

[Jack]

I might be operating under a different conception of what a burden of proof was. It was my perception that if A had the burden of proof, then A must obviously prove his claim to win, while B would win if A did not meet that burden. Thus, if A made a claim (turtles are slippery), he could not win simply by saying that B did not prove anti-claim as true (turtles are not slippery), because A had the burden of proof, not B.

Precisely, except when discussing gods we're talking about something without precedent.

I can easily imagine a turtle, and the condition of slipperiness is well understood. This isn't the case with gods. To say that gods exist is an extraordinary claim. It suggests something exists for which we can detect no precedent. Therefore this extraordinary claim must be supported with extraordinary evidence. If you told me turtles could fly, I'd expect you to be able to show solid evidence of that. Otherwise I'm going to discount your statement.

[Kamehameha34]

Can evidence be conceptual?