Burden of Proof III: Zhavric

[Zhavric]

This thread is centered on burdens of proof, and their correct framing for the Zhavric debate. Note that this is a philosophical, logic-based framework, NOT a scientific one. Scientific methodology, like the court of law, requires a framework that better suits societal needs. They need to fit human pragmatism and a useful, practical means of assessing the validity of claims in a way that is relevant to human lives. This thread focuses on philosophy and logic. If you want to discuss the Zhavric debate in terms of science, you should be in the science forum.

In the debate of Zhavric's existence, the burden of proof exists for those who make claims.

If I make Claim A ("Zhavric does exist"), I have a burden to prove that claim. If I fail to meet my burden, Claim A remains unproven.
Likewise, should you make Claim B ("Zhavric does not exist"), you have the burden to prove that claim, and if you fail to meet that burden, Claim B remains unproven.

Further, should you fail to meet your burden in proving Claim B, your failure does NOT constitute proving Claim B false. It is simply unproven.
Likewise, should I fail to meet my own burden in proving Claim A, my failure does not indicate Claim A to be false.
In the case that both of us fail, both claims are simply unproven. Zhavric would not be proven to exist, nor would he be proven to not exist in spite of evidence to the contrary.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric This thread is centered on burdens of proof, and their correct framing for the Zhavric debate. Note that this is a philosophical, logic-based framework, NOT a scientific one. Scientific methodology, like the court of law, requires a framework that better suits societal needs. They need to fit human pragmatism and a useful, practical means of assessing the validity of claims in a way that is relevant to human lives. This thread focuses on philosophy and logic. If you want to discuss the Zhavric debate in terms of science, you should be in the science forum. In the debate of Zhavric's existence, the burden of proof exists for those who make claims. If I make Claim A ("Zhavric does exist"), I have a burden to prove that claim. If I fail to meet my burden, Claim A remains unproven. Likewise, should you make Claim B ("Zhavric does not exist"), you have the burden to prove that claim, and if you fail to meet that burden, Claim B remains unproven. Further, should you fail to meet your burden in proving Claim B, your failure does NOT constitute proving Claim B false. It is simply unproven. Likewise, should I fail to meet my own burden in proving Claim A, my failure does not indicate Claim A to be false. In the case that both of us fail, both claims are simply unproven. Zhavric would not be proven to exist, nor would he be proven to not exist in spite of evidence to the contrary.

If evidence exists, then the claimant should use it to fulfill his burden.

The point of this thread (and its companion thread) is that somehow we should use the scientific method because it can take into account "evidence."

What you fail to understand is that I don't prohibit evidence in the framework of The Burden of Proof. If you have evidence, it can be used.

So, really what it comes down to now is that you just don't like agreeing with me.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim If evidence exists, then the claimant should use it to fulfill his burden. The point of this thread (and its companion thread) is that somehow we should use the scientific method because it can take into account "evidence." What you fail to understand is that I don't prohibit evidence in the framework of The Burden of Proof. If you have evidence, it can be used. So, really what it comes down to now is that you just don't like agreeing with me.

Horrible mischaracterization. What you just stated is nonsense. The issue here is that you have no evidence for god, have admitted that as a scientific question, the god hypothesis is false, and are simply trying to find a way for this impotent hypothesis to be possible not by providing evidence, but by inventing your own set of rules.

Have a little intellectual honesty and concede.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Horrible mischaracterization. What you just stated is nonsense. The issue here is that 1)you have no evidence for god, 2)have admitted that as a scientific question, the god hypothesis is false, and 3)are simply trying to find a way for this impotent hypothesis to be possible not by providing evidence, but by inventing your own set of rules. Have a little intellectual honesty and concede.

1) Though true, it's not the issue here.
2) When treated as a scientific question, correct, the God hypothesis can be considered false. But that's not the issue either.

The issue is that you think that simply because the scientific method can be applied that it must be applied. And that when questioned as to why you appeal to science, you continue maneuvering out of giving an answer. In fact, you always manage to get out of debating me when you're losing.

Which comes to 3). These "inventions" are the rules of logic. A claimant has the burden of proof..

The issue, Zhavric, is that you think everyone has to abide by YOUR understanding of the world, by YOUR framework for how truth can be found or claims should be evaluated, but without any real justification. We'll see if you actually try to back your worldview up in the other thread.

[simple simon]

Quote by: Zhavric Likewise, should you make Claim B ("Zhavric does not exist"), you have the burden to prove that claim, and if you fail to meet that burden, Claim B remains unproven.

ok so you dont exist .... you are a poorly constructed computer program sent here to confound real live members and jack up an artificial post count ... your answers are not individual thoughts but mere programming strung together to meet the needs of your creator

ok ... youre right ...i have not yet proven you not to exist .... it remains unproven either way .... but it is nice trying

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim 1) Though true, it's not the issue here. 2) When treated as a scientific question, correct, the God hypothesis can be considered false. But that's not the issue either.

Nope. You're wrong.

There's no further discussion here. The only possible way for the god hypothesis to be not false is for you to provide evidence. Not look for another set of rules where not having evidence is acceptable.

Like I said, you've already got the truth. You've already admitted the god hypothesis is false. Stop trying to contradict yourself/look for a different set of rules.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: simple simon ... it remains unproven either way ....

Really. You don't honestly think "Zhavric doesn't exist" is on even footing with "Zhavric exists", do you? I'm going to assume you're joking around in your post.

If not... if you actually think that my existence is "unknown"... then I posit that my world view is superior to yours because you're ignoring evidence and equating the words "possible" and "impossible" making them meaningless which is silly.

[simple simon]

Quote by: Zhavric Really. You don't honestly think "Zhavric doesn't exist" is on even footing with "Zhavric exists", do you? I'm going to assume you're joking around in your post. If not... if you actually think that my existence is "unknown"... then I posit that my world view is superior to yours because you're ignoring evidence and equating the words "possible" and "impossible" making them meaningless which is silly.

yes i was joking .... i think a computer program would make way better replies then you

(ok that was maybe a little harsh .... but also funny at the same time .... gotta admit you walked right into that one)

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Nope. You're wrong. There's no further discussion here. The only possible way for the god hypothesis to be not false is for you to provide evidence. Not look for another set of rules where not having evidence is acceptable. Like I said, you've already got the truth. You've already admitted the god hypothesis is false. Stop trying to contradict yourself/look for a different set of rules.

See other thread.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim See other thread.

You mean the one you conceded to me?

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Zhavric In the debate of Zhavric's existence, the burden of proof exists for those who make claims. If I make Claim A ("Zhavric does exist"), I have a burden to prove that claim. If I fail to meet my burden, Claim A remains unproven. Likewise, should you make Claim B ("Zhavric does not exist"), you have the burden to prove that claim, and if you fail to meet that burden, Claim B remains unproven. Further, should you fail to meet your burden in proving Claim B, your failure does NOT constitute proving Claim B false. It is simply unproven. Likewise, should I fail to meet my own burden in proving Claim A, my failure does not indicate Claim A to be false. In the case that both of us fail, both claims are simply unproven. Zhavric would not be proven to exist, nor would he be proven to not exist in spite of evidence to the contrary.

I agree with that entire statement, other than the bold-typed part. The beginning of the OP addressed that this would be sans-science, and the sneaking-in of "in spite of evidence to the contrary" is an attempt to go back on the initial condition.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I agree with that entire statement, other than the bold-typed part.

I know you do, Z. It's exactly the sort of disingenuous sillyness you've endorsed in the past. Anything to keep god "possible", right?

[Matt W]

Zhravic, last time. Drop the attitude. You have been warned about this behaviour before.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Zhavric This thread is centered on burdens of proof, and their correct framing for the Zhavric debate. Note that this is a philosophical, logic-based framework, NOT a scientific one. Scientific methodology, like the court of law, requires a framework that better suits societal needs. They need to fit human pragmatism and a useful, practical means of assessing the validity of claims in a way that is relevant to human lives. This thread focuses on philosophy and logic. If you want to discuss the Zhavric debate in terms of science, you should be in the science forum. In the debate of Zhavric's existence, the burden of proof exists for those who make claims. If I make Claim A ("Zhavric does exist"), I have a burden to prove that claim. If I fail to meet my burden, Claim A remains unproven. Likewise, should you make Claim B ("Zhavric does not exist"), you have the burden to prove that claim, and if you fail to meet that burden, Claim B remains unproven. Further, should you fail to meet your burden in proving Claim B, your failure does NOT constitute proving Claim B false. It is simply unproven. Likewise, should I fail to meet my own burden in proving Claim A, my failure does not indicate Claim A to be false. In the case that both of us fail, both claims are simply unproven. Zhavric would not be proven to exist, nor would he be proven to not exist in spite of evidence to the contrary.

What is the subject and/or claim ?