The burden of proof requirement is only required once there is contention. “I don’t know” doesn’t trigger it unless one person makes a positive proposition and the other person rejects it.
So in your opinion, the disagreement makes the claim require proof and consequently the person making the claim, has the burden of proof?
Edit: sorry, I said disagreement but for clarity, does it have to be a disagreement? Or is the question, e.g. “how do you know?” Enough for proof to be required?
So in your opinion, the disagreement makes the claim require proof and consequently the person making the claim, has the burden of proof?
Bingo
does it have to be a disagreement? Or is the question, e.g. “how do you know?” Enough for proof to be required?
The exact requirement is that the other person does not accept the claim. Being sceptical is enough - it doesn’t need to be a flat-out rejection.
Example: I tell you I have a pet snake, you say “do you really?”. If I want to convince you I have a snake, I need to provide evidence.
Example 2: I ask “does god exist?” And you reply with:
I don’t know
I don’t believe in god
I’m not convinced there is a god
maybe
These are fine. None of these are claims.
However, if you were to assert “god exists” or “god does not exist” then you’ve got an issue, and a burden of proof to meet.
Note: negative claims can require a burden of proof (but its not a good place to be in). Take my case:
I’m an atheist. I am not convinced God exists. It is a fallacy for me to claim as a fact “God does not exist” because that is a burden of proof I cannot meet without constraints (Precise definition, time, place). For example: Zeus does not exist in my bedroom right now.
Strangely enough, people who assert as a fact the claim “God exists” are in a slightly better position (but still not a good), because they can assert their definition of God is imperceptible and everywhere, or they met god on a train last weekend while zonked out of their gourd.
It’s my choice to believe their claim without contention, or ask them to prove their claim.
The burden of proof still exists, as the claim “God does not exist” is an assertion of fact. Whether they can actually meet this burden depends on how they define God.
If my definition of God is “a giant rat who visually materialises before every human when they poop” then that would be falsifiable. But at that point, you’ve probably got more pressing matters, like getting the fuck away from me.
When you refer to ‘the person saying no’ I don’t which way you mean that.
Do you mean:
The person says “I don’t believe in god”
The person says “no, god does not exist”
Because the first one is a claim about belief, this doesn’t need to meet a burden of proof.
If it’s the second one, then that is an assertion of fact and requires evidence (assuming the person is attempting to persuade the other)
If the person asked the question “is it true that god exists?” Then they don’t need to provide evidence because the burden of proof isn’t on them, unless they want to make an assertion, and the other person rejects it.
I mean, the person saying “no” to “does god exist?”, so number 2.
And you say that number 2 has a burden of proof, right?
And if they would say “no” to “is it true that god exists?”, they would have the same burden, as the question “does god exist?” Is basically the same as “is it true that god exist?”.
A claim is not an assertion of fact.
The burden of proof requirement is only required once there is contention. “I don’t know” doesn’t trigger it unless one person makes a positive proposition and the other person rejects it.
So in your opinion, the disagreement makes the claim require proof and consequently the person making the claim, has the burden of proof?
Edit: sorry, I said disagreement but for clarity, does it have to be a disagreement? Or is the question, e.g. “how do you know?” Enough for proof to be required?
Bingo
The exact requirement is that the other person does not accept the claim. Being sceptical is enough - it doesn’t need to be a flat-out rejection.
Example: I tell you I have a pet snake, you say “do you really?”. If I want to convince you I have a snake, I need to provide evidence.
Example 2: I ask “does god exist?” And you reply with:
These are fine. None of these are claims.
However, if you were to assert “god exists” or “god does not exist” then you’ve got an issue, and a burden of proof to meet.
Note: negative claims can require a burden of proof (but its not a good place to be in). Take my case:
I’m an atheist. I am not convinced God exists. It is a fallacy for me to claim as a fact “God does not exist” because that is a burden of proof I cannot meet without constraints (Precise definition, time, place). For example: Zeus does not exist in my bedroom right now.
Strangely enough, people who assert as a fact the claim “God exists” are in a slightly better position (but still not a good), because they can assert their definition of God is imperceptible and everywhere, or they met god on a train last weekend while zonked out of their gourd.
It’s my choice to believe their claim without contention, or ask them to prove their claim.
Sorry, misread something.
So you think that the person answering the question “does god exist?” with “no”, has the burden of proof if i would ask how?
The burden of proof still exists, as the claim “God does not exist” is an assertion of fact. Whether they can actually meet this burden depends on how they define God.
If my definition of God is “a giant rat who visually materialises before every human when they poop” then that would be falsifiable. But at that point, you’ve probably got more pressing matters, like getting the fuck away from me.
So the person saying “no” has the burden of proof and not the person asking the question, right?
If the person asking the question, said instead “is it true that god exists?” Would that change who has the burden of proof?
When you refer to ‘the person saying no’ I don’t which way you mean that.
Do you mean:
Because the first one is a claim about belief, this doesn’t need to meet a burden of proof.
If it’s the second one, then that is an assertion of fact and requires evidence (assuming the person is attempting to persuade the other)
If the person asked the question “is it true that god exists?” Then they don’t need to provide evidence because the burden of proof isn’t on them, unless they want to make an assertion, and the other person rejects it.
I mean, the person saying “no” to “does god exist?”, so number 2.
And you say that number 2 has a burden of proof, right?
And if they would say “no” to “is it true that god exists?”, they would have the same burden, as the question “does god exist?” Is basically the same as “is it true that god exist?”.
It really feels like you’re trying hard to bait me into making your point by asking an ambiguous question.
If you give me an exact scenario of person 1 and person 2, I can tell you who is required to provide the evidence.