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?”
Well it really depends on whether the person who is claiming god doesn’t exist is trying to persuade the other that it’s true.
But generally speaking, yes, the person who made the claim “God does not exist” has just given themselves the possible task of needing to provide evidence to support their claim.
This is the worst position to find yourself in - only a fool would claim they know God does/not exist.
Unless we find ourselves in a less rigerous setting, and I’m surrounded by other atheists and we can all circlejerk about the fact that we’re alone in the universe.
What anyone means by “no” is confusing, many people conflate knowledge with belief, but they are different.
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?
Well it really depends on whether the person who is claiming god doesn’t exist is trying to persuade the other that it’s true.
But generally speaking, yes, the person who made the claim “God does not exist” has just given themselves the possible task of needing to provide evidence to support their claim.
This is the worst position to find yourself in - only a fool would claim they know God does/not exist.
Unless we find ourselves in a less rigerous setting, and I’m surrounded by other atheists and we can all circlejerk about the fact that we’re alone in the universe.
What anyone means by “no” is confusing, many people conflate knowledge with belief, but they are different.
Its a matrix of possibilities:
Gnostic = assertion of fact
Theism = belief
Ok, would you say that it is fair to say that the burden of proof is on the person who made a claim and tries to convince the other person?
Basically, yes.