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.
Okay. So if an user ask a llm “is it true that Elon musk drove into a group of children at the Olympics 1996?” The user has no burden of proof because the question is just like “is it true that god exists?” And the user doesn’t try to convince the llm.
And when the llm answers “no, because …”, llm is making a claim and might has a burden of proof if we believe that the llm is trying to convince the user.
And when the user challenges the response by e.g. asking “how do you know?”, the user is not making a claim; and even if it implies an implicit claim, the user doesn’t have a burden of proof as long as there is no intention to convince.
The intention would be quite unlikely as the user is aware that the llm has no beliefs or memory, as it is just a fancy text completion, consequently there is no possible way to convince it of anything anyway.
So either the llm has a burden of proof because it is trying to convince the user, or no one has a burden of proof.
So what does the llm mean when it says that someone is trying to move the burden of proof to someone else?
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.
Okay. So if an user ask a llm “is it true that Elon musk drove into a group of children at the Olympics 1996?” The user has no burden of proof because the question is just like “is it true that god exists?” And the user doesn’t try to convince the llm.
And when the llm answers “no, because …”, llm is making a claim and might has a burden of proof if we believe that the llm is trying to convince the user.
And when the user challenges the response by e.g. asking “how do you know?”, the user is not making a claim; and even if it implies an implicit claim, the user doesn’t have a burden of proof as long as there is no intention to convince.
The intention would be quite unlikely as the user is aware that the llm has no beliefs or memory, as it is just a fancy text completion, consequently there is no possible way to convince it of anything anyway.
So either the llm has a burden of proof because it is trying to convince the user, or no one has a burden of proof.
So what does the llm mean when it says that someone is trying to move the burden of proof to someone else?