burden of proof

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To Bluehillside

Any positive assertion has a burden of proof.
I shall certainly be on the look out for people smuggling them in by clever literary accountancy and also accusations of burden of proof where there aren't any......

Have a nice day.

[Shaker]

Nurse, he's out of bed again, nurse!

[Alien]

Nurse, he's out of bed again, nurse!

So, do you disagree with the OP?

[Andy]

Any positive assertion has a burden of proof.

That is itself a positive assertion. (Alien special there )

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

To Bluehillside

Any positive assertion has a burden of proof.
I shall certainly be on the look out for people smuggling them in by clever literary accountancy and also accusations of burden of proof where there aren't any......

Wow – will you look at that. Our Vlad finally showing an inkling of one of the various logical fallacies on which he continually relies.

Excellent! OK, let’s start with that and I’ll take you through it. (Just baby steps for now though, so no need to get frit…)

OK, so you think your personal, subjective “experience” to have enabled you to “intuit” a god who’s also real for me and for everyone else. That’s a positive statement of supposed fact, so the burden of proof is now with you to build a bridge from the subjective to the objective.

Those of us who are sceptical about your assertion (just as sceptical as you are about the different superstitious claims of others in fact despite exempting your own from the same scrutiny) have no such burden because we don’t make the positive assertion that you are necessarily wrong. All we say is that you’ve provided no reason for anyone else to think you to be right.

Incidentally, just to avoid any confusion none of your usual barrage of responses when challenged – ad hominem, irrelevance, going nuclear etc - constitute proof of any kind. They just throw sand in the way.

Good luck!

[Sebastian Toe]

Nurse, he's out of bed again, nurse!

So, do you disagree with the OP?

.....do you?

[Alien]

Any positive assertion has a burden of proof.

That is itself a positive assertion. (Alien special there )

That's my boy, Andy. There's hope for you yet.

The person making the claim having the burden of proof is more a convention than anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

If someone wants me to believe something then it should require some reasoning/evidence on their part to try to convince me. If they can't be bothered to try to supply it, I can't be bothered to accept their claim.

Stuff like that, I suppose.

It seems a reasonable thing to do.

[Alien]

Nurse, he's out of bed again, nurse!

So, do you disagree with the OP?

.....do you?

I asked first.

(Your turn now).

[Sebastian Toe]

Nurse, he's out of bed again, nurse!

So, do you disagree with the OP?

.....do you?

I asked first.

(Your turn now).

You asked Shaker, whereas I asked you!

[Alien]

Nurse, he's out of bed again, nurse!

So, do you disagree with the OP?

.....do you?

I asked first.

(Your turn now).

You asked Shaker, whereas I asked you!

Indeed you did. Sorry, old chap.

"Any positive assertion has a burden of proof." Yes, I agree. Do you, BTW?

[Sebastian Toe]

Nurse, he's out of bed again, nurse!

So, do you disagree with the OP?

.....do you?

I asked first.

(Your turn now).

You asked Shaker, whereas I asked you!

Indeed you did. Sorry, old chap.

"Any positive assertion has a burden of proof." Yes, I agree. Do you, BTW?

..ditto post #6

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

To Bluehillside

Any positive assertion has a burden of proof.
I shall certainly be on the look out for people smuggling them in by clever literary accountancy and also accusations of burden of proof where there aren't any......

Wow – will you look at that. Our Vlad finally showing an inkling of one of the various logical fallacies on which he continually relies.

Excellent! OK, let’s start with that and I’ll take you through it. (Just baby steps for now though, so no need to get frit…)

OK, so you think your personal, subjective “experience” to have enabled you to “intuit” a god who’s also real for me and for everyone else. That’s a positive statement of supposed fact, so the burden of proof is now with you to build a bridge from the subjective to the objective.

Those of us who are sceptical about your assertion (just as sceptical as you are about the different superstitious claims of others in fact despite exempting your own from the same scrutiny) have no such burden because we don’t make the positive assertion that you are necessarily wrong. All we say is that you’ve provided no reason for anyone else to think you to be right.

Incidentally, just to avoid any confusion none of your usual barrage of responses when challenged – ad hominem, irrelevance, going nuclear etc - constitute proof of any kind. They just throw sand in the way.

Good luck!

Sure Bro. Just take of the straightjacket of your present beliefs and put yourself into the ''abyss'' spoken of by Jean Paul Sartre and the French existentialists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sure Bro. Just take of the straightjacket of your present beliefs…

Staightjacket (n): Vladish for “grip on reality”

(The English/Vladish dictionary, 2nd Ed, p326: Pub. Random House)

…and put yourself into the ''abyss'' spoken of by Jean Paul Sartre and the French existentialists.

The existentialist “abyss” was the state on non-being, coupled with the belief that each of us is alone and is responsible for his or her behaviour “now that god is dead”.

How do you think that helps you?

PS How's it coming with your burden of proof to demonstrate the positive assertion you make about the existence of this god of yours by the way?

[Sassy]

Nurse, he's out of bed again, nurse!

So, do you disagree with the OP?

He obviously can only answer with a 'carry on' one liner because he cannot produce a point either way...

[floo]

Nurse, he's out of bed again, nurse!

So, do you disagree with the OP?

He obviously can only answer with a 'carry on' one liner because he cannot produce a point either way...

Pot and kettle Sass, your points are usually nonsensical!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Sure Bro. Just take of the straightjacket of your present beliefs…

Staightjacket (n): Vladish for “grip on reality”

(The English/Vladish dictionary, 2nd Ed, p326: Pub. Random House)

…and put yourself into the ''abyss'' spoken of by Jean Paul Sartre and the French existentialists.

The existentialist “abyss” was the state on non-being, coupled with the belief that each of us is alone and is responsible for his or her behaviour “now that god is dead”.

How do you think that helps you?

PS How's it coming with your burden of proof to demonstrate the positive assertion you make about the existence of this god of yours by the way?

Your grip on reality is merely the imposition of some system for organising facts and some kind of philosophical justification of it. The trouble of course comes with HAVING to have philosophical justification and a philosophy. Apparently, yours is a bit suspect.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The existentialist “abyss” was the state on non-being, coupled with the belief that each of us is alone and is responsible for his or her behaviour “now that god is dead”.

What a pity you haven't realised that state or been able to demonstrate that God is dead.

[jeremyp]

Your grip on reality is merely the imposition of some system for organising facts

... into those that are probably true and those that are probably false. It's a better system than yakking on about philosophical naturalism in the hope that nobody notices you don't have one for the supernatural/

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Your grip on reality is merely the imposition of some system for organising facts and some kind of philosophical justification of it. The trouble of course comes with HAVING to have philosophical justification and a philosophy. Apparently, yours is a bit suspect.

Wrong as ever - it's not the "imposition" of anything. Rather its the use of a method to sort the more probably true from the more probably not true. And a method of any kind is what you signally lack when asserting your "whatever-pops-into-my-head-ism" claims of fact.

Let me know if ever you feel like engaging with the argument though.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What a pity you haven't realised that state or been able to demonstrate that God is dead.

What a pity that you prayed in aid the existentialists whose position you didn't understand. "God is dead" isn't my claim, it's theirs.

Surely you're going to run out of feet soon to keep shooting aren't you? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What a pity you haven't realised that state or been able to demonstrate that God is dead.

What a pity that you prayed in aid the existentialists whose position you didn't understand. "God is dead" isn't my claim, it's theirs.

Surely you're going to run out of feet soon to keep shooting aren't you?

Hillside, I can't see you have much more to offer me and I am not turned on by your point scoring. In other words I possess as much of virtue as you do in a ''who has most toys'' competition.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside, I can't see you have much more to offer me and I am not turned on by your point scoring. In other words I possess as much of virtue as you do in a ''who has most toys'' competition.

Evasion noted. Making arguments you can't address isn't "point scoring"; it's just making arguments you can't address.

[Alien]

Nurse, he's out of bed again, nurse!

So, do you disagree with the OP?

He obviously can only answer with a 'carry on' one liner because he cannot produce a point either way...

Pot and kettle Sass, your points are usually nonsensical!

No, they usually make sense, but are often wrong. That's not the same thing.