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?”.
Neither, because the question has not reached the end of the cycle - the “no” is ambiguous. We need to disambiguate it.
A: Is it true God exists?
B: No
A: How do you know?
B1: I don’t know, I just believe it’s true (This is a claim about belief and does not require evidence).
B2: I know because it’s logically impossible (or whatever bullshit they believe disproves the existence of God)
The question “how do you know?” is basically asking the question “would you like to carry a burden of proof? Or are you honest enough to admit you cannot defend that?”
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.
If the person (A) would ask another person (B) “is it true that god exists?” And B would say “no” and A would ask “how do you know?”
B has the burden of proof, right? Or A? Or Both?
Neither, because the question has not reached the end of the cycle - the “no” is ambiguous. We need to disambiguate it.
B1: I don’t know, I just believe it’s true (This is a claim about belief and does not require evidence).
B2: I know because it’s logically impossible (or whatever bullshit they believe disproves the existence of God)
The question “how do you know?” is basically asking the question “would you like to carry a burden of proof? Or are you honest enough to admit you cannot defend that?”
Ok, tbh, in my mind, no always means “no, he doesn’t exist” and the “i don’t know” answer is “i don’t know”.
But let’s say the person says, “no, god doesn’t exist” instead of just “no”. Does he have a burden of proof?