I think we agree on most of the issues we've discussed. But to be clear, when I say "I reject p" (where p is some proposition), it means I believe ~p. This is irrespective of any justification I may have, and it doesn't mean I'm closed minded about it. I'd use different language to reflect a withholding of judgment.

This is why I object to saying anyone has some abstract "burden of proof". If our goal is rational beliefs, the beliefs must be rationally justified, which is weaker than "proof". More often than not, the justification is an inference to best explanation - and these can be quite weak. — Relativist

-"Anyone" doesn't have some abstract "burden of proof''. Only claims have burden of proof. Those you accept them and promote them are oblige to meet it....if of course they are interested in accepting reasonable beliefs.

-". If our goal is rational beliefs, the beliefs must be rationally justified, which is weaker than "proof"."
Only in a mathematical aspect proof has a stronger value.
In the colloquial usage of the term, when we demand proof we literally demand Objective facts that can falsify or verify a claim.

-" More often than not, the justification is an inference to best explanation - and these can be quite weak"
-It still remains a standard by which we justify a position based on what feedback is currently available to us. No one is or should make absolute claims about knowledge or proof or certainty.
That said no one should ever believe or promote claims with zero justification just because there is a weakness in the way we can verify/falsify things.

that's your problem Mr Hillary, not mine. To be precise its an intrinsic problem of unfalsifiable claims based on non naturalistic principles.
Fortunately the burden is on the claim and as a believer you will have to meet it. — Nickolasgaspar

The burden is on you, dear Nickolast. Try to disprove your claim. You can't.

Grow up Mr Hillary! You are the magical thinker who talks about gods. you are the one who needs to provide evidence.
I don't promote any claims. I only point out that your claims are unfounded and qualify as irrational beliefs...that's all.

Doesn't 'rational justification' count as meeting a burden of proof - this latter term is archaic English. Isn't proof traditionally just an argument that establishes the validity of a proposition? — Tom Storm

It could, but it's ambiguous and leads to misunderstanding. There's an active thread on the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA). The KCA is purported to be a "proof" of God's existence. Someone making this claim has the burden to demonstrate its soundness - this is a real "burden of proof". On the other hand, a theist may provide a perfectly rational justification for his belief (e.g. God spoke to him directly) even though it has no power to persuade. No burden of proof.

I don't promote any claims — Nickolasgaspar

You promote gods don't exist. Why should I prove them in the first place? But if you want. They cant show themselves directly. That would fuck up the material order. They could use hidden variables of QM but only on microscale. So who knows in what QM experiments they show up as a divergent chance. Or i dreams, like they did for me. You think they would show themselves in you? Don't think so.

I make many scientific claims. They need evidence. But gods are no scientific claim. They don't need evidence. Believe would not be believe anymore with evidence.

"I reject p" (where p is some proposition), it means I believe ~p. — Relativist

That is a problem because "I believe ~p" is NOT a direct logical negation of the proposition P!
I reject p only points to one thing......that I.......reject P.
IT says nothing about ~p. As you said reserving judgments can be the reason behind of the non acceptance of P and its the "minimum" reason one should have to reject a claim.
Again you you think that the statement"I reject P" means "I believe~p" then it is really easy to strawman the reason of the non acceptance.

I'd use different language to reflect a withholding of judgment. — Relativist

I know that this is the problem. What I point out that the usage and meaning of words have one purpose, to be practical enough so that they can cover all the needs of our communication.
If this was a simple matter of semantics I wouldn't bother at all, but as you can see, using "non acceptance/rejection'' in the way you suggest it allows logical fallacies and non direct logical negations to sneak in our arguments.
This is a common problem between Atheists and Theists.
The theistic claim is that a god exists. The direct negation made by Atheism is that Atheists are not convinced/do not believe in the claim that god exists. Unfortunately theists accuse Atheists for a Non Direct logical negation which is "you believe god doesn't exist".
Atheism doesn't address this negative claim and if it does we are dealing with Antitheism or Hard atheism which both are not the minimum requirement to be an Atheist.

Grow up Mr Hillary! You are the magical thinker who talks about gods. you are the one who needs to provide evidence. — Nickolasgaspar

I'll defend Hillary (a bit). He is free to hold irrational beliefs. He is free to hold rational beliefs and decline to share his justification. We are free to remain unconvinced that he could justify it. If he'd like to convince others that his belief in God is rational, then (and only then) he would need to demonstrate that its rational by sharing and discussing his reasoning.

I make many scientific claims. They need evidence. But gods are no scientific claim. They don't need evidence. Believe would not be believe anymore with evidence. — Hillary

-Ok I saw in my sleep that your claims about god are all wrong. its not a scientific claim, it doesn't need evidence and that proves that you are wrong...

Dude I don't want to believe that someone old enough to vote, raise children and drive can make such silly claims....I think you are a troll...

"I reject p" (where p is some proposition), it means I believe ~p.
— Relativist
That is a problem because "I believe ~p" is NOT a direct logical negation of the proposition P! — Nickolasgaspar

It is a statement of my attitude toward p: i believe p to be false. Why is that a problem?

think you are a troll... — Nickolasgaspar

You believe in trolls? Did the gods tell you in a dream they don't exist? How did they tell you if they don't exist?

Dude I don't want to believe that someone old enough to vote, raise children and drive can make such silly claims....I think you are a troll... — Nickolasgaspar

I believe they do on a base of scientific knowledge. They provide a reason for existence.

. If he'd like to convince others that his belief in God is rational, then (and only then) he would need to demonstrate that its rational by sharing and discussing his reasoning. — Relativist

Well said! :up:

I'll defend Hillary (a bit). He is free to hold irrational beliefs. He is free to hold rational beliefs and decline to share his justification. We are free to remain unconvinced that he could justify it. If he'd like to convince others that his belief in God is rational, then (and only then) he would need to demonstrate that its rational by sharing and discussing his reasoning. — Relativist

I am getting really tired with accusations about things that I didn't do...by Universewoowoo, Hillary and you now.
WHEN DID I say that he is not free to hold irrational beliefs??????????????????????????
I only pointed out the reason why they are irrational, why all claims have a burden, why special pleading is a fallacy, why Unwarranted Assumptions in arguments pollute our philosophical arguments , why soundness is needed for an explanation to be logical.
He is free to say whatever he wants...but he can not make up his own facts on the Ontology of the universe and push them as science (he is entitled to his own opinion not his own facts) or insisting in using theology as an authority figure in philosophy or claim that making up invisible agents is the most reasonable explanation.
I don't know why you think you need to defend HIllary from me....seriously....when did I attempt to limit his freedom.....ITs the job of Logic and Objectivity to do that.

. If he'd like to convince others that his belief in God is rational, then (and only then) he would need to demonstrate that its rational by sharing and discussing his reasoning. — Relativist

DUde Hillary....this is what I am saying you from post one mate!!!! You need to demonstrate the objective and epistemic values of your reasons when trying to communicate your claims in public forums.......holy cow, Am I talking to a 5yo!!

I believe they do on a base of scientific knowledge. They provide a reason for existence. — Hillary

There aren't scientific bases for gods and you haven't presented any.
They first have to be demonstrated as true before one claims they provide a reason for existence......

wants...but he can not make up his own facts on the Ontology of the universe — Nickolasgaspar

I don't make up claims about the ontology of the material universe. Science investigates that universe and material is bound to certain behavior. But insofar the reasons for the material universe,and life in it, are concerned, how can I use scientific inquiry?

It is a statement of my attitude toward p: i believe p to be false. Why is that a problem? — Relativist

As you said its your attitude......not other people's attitude or the Default Position one should hold for p.
If you project your attitude on others then you will end up with a Strawman.
This is what I am telling you. If you only reject P when you believe it is false then that should mean that you accept P when you are not convinced/reserve judgment of P?
I suspect not. You reject all Ps that you think they are false and all Ps that haven't convinced you yet....right?

You believe in trolls? Did the gods tell you in a dream they don't exist? How did they tell you if they don't exist? — Hillary

I don't learn the truth in my dreams by gods! Floberhulfter comes and informs me on what is true or not.

Anyone" doesn't have some abstract "burden of proof''. Only claims have burden of proof. Those you accept them and promote them are oblige to meet it....if of course they are interested in accepting reasonable beliefs. — Nickolasgaspar

A "claim" is a statement made by a person; it is a statement of a belief held by the person. The person (not the statement) has a burden to defend it, and only if he's promoting it - trying to convince others.

In the colloquial usage of the term, when we demand proof we literally demand Objective facts that can falsify or verify a claim — Nickolasgaspar

But we all hold falsifiable beliefs, and this can be rational. Demanding proof is expecting too much, because in practice it often means "convince me". Rather, request a justification and (if the guy is being rational), you'll find it's based on something else you disagree with. You can take such a conversation down several levels without being convinced - but you can (perhaps) learn to appreciate he has some depth to his reasoning.

No one is or should make absolute claims about knowledge or proof or certainty.
That said no one should ever believe or promote claims with zero justification just because there is a weakness in the way we can verify/falsify things. — Nickolasgaspar

I agree on both these points

They first have to be demonstrated as true before one claims they provide a reason for existence...... — Nickolasgaspar

The existence of the universe is sufficient proof for me. Science offers no reason, only mechanisms. The mechanisms and the material it offers can't provide reason for its own existence.

In other words, its no gods of the gaps I believe in. That would be too easy. And you can get to know the gods by looking at the universe and life in it. It resembles a temporally finite version of eternal heaven. All animals, all humans, all life, has a god counterpart. They just got bored living eternal heavenly life. So they created us. For me that's an absolute truth. Other people might have different absolute truths. There is not one, an idea the old Greek invented and we are stuck with.

It is a statement of my attitude toward p: i believe p to be false. Why is that a problem?
— Relativist
As you said its your attitude......not other people's attitude or the Default Position one should hold for p. — Nickolasgaspar

Sure, but that's not a problem. If you've used p to try and convince me that q is true, it suffices to tell you "but I reject p". You are then free to challenge my position on p.

If you project your attitude on others then you will end up with a Strawman.

You're assuming a context. Some contexts might call for more discussion about p, but I'm just defending my usage of the simple statement.

If you only reject P when you believe it is false then that should mean that you accept P when you are not convinced/reserve judgment of P?

No. There are 3 possible attitudes I can express, not 2:
1) I accept p as true; or
2) I reject p (believe p false); or
3)I reserve judgment on p (e.g. because I have insufficient information to either accept it or reject it).

don't learn the truth in my dreams by gods! — Nickolasgaspar

Neither do I. But they showed themselves. I can't help it. Flober can tell you they don't exist but then he's lying. Did you ask him proof?

The existence of the universe is sufficient proof for me. Science offers no reason, only mechanisms. The mechanisms and the material it offers can't provide reason for its own existence. — Hillary

So you seem to believe there has to be a reason for everything. Why think so?

To be honest, that seems to me to be an assumption rooted in theism.

WHEN DID I say that he is not free to hold irrational beliefs? — Nickolasgaspar

You didn't. I was responding to this:

you are the one who needs to provide evidence. — Nickolasgaspar

I was explaining why he doesn't "need to" do anything. You come off as overly aggressive. You can ask him to justify his beliefs, you can express skepticism that his position is justifiable. You can ask him to explain his reasoning. I just think you should soften it up, a bit..

So you seem to believe there has to be a reason for everything. Why think so? — Relativist

Well, not for everything. Only for the existence of the universe... which is pretty much everything...

I just can't imagine we are the result of coincidental quantum fluctuation leading to an evolving universe. Or that we are the result of evolving life whose only purpose it is to pass on genes or memes. There has to be something unexplainable in the universe and gods put that in it. Why there are eternal gods who got bored? Bored virus gods, bored whale gods, bored human gods? Dunno! A mystery, which makes the universe mysterious again. So you could say that the scientific explanation is the cause!

A "claim" is a statement made by a person; it is a statement of a belief held by the person. The person (not the statement) has a burden to defend it, and only if he's promoting it - trying to convince others. — Relativist

-Correct to a degree. We as thinkers also have the freedom to learn about those claims and find out from those who presented them in public forums whether they have met their burden.

Demanding proof is expecting too much, because in practice it often means "convince me". — Relativist

What do you mean...its too much. We are here to discuss ideas. Some of us, like Mr Hillary comes with beliefs and makes absolute statements for their truthiness. I challenge that and ask for his reasons and evidence.(To prove his reasonableness ).
Where do you see the problem exactly? Did I pointed a gun at him and forced him to come on line and make all those arrogant unfounded claims of his "mystical knowledge" about the universe?
No he accepted the challenge when he agreed to interact with others in a public forum.

Listen you are making excuses by making a no True Scotchman fallacy.
You literally claim, that he is here (in almost all Discussions that include gods), claiming that gods are real...but because he isn't here to convince people(here is your Scotchman) we shouldn't ask for evidence or as we commonly say proof with a small p.
I don't know what criteria you use to distinquish a rhetoric from "I am just expressing my beliefs in many many posts".
My criteria are really simple.When a claim appears in public I want to learn from the author or the believer whether his belief have meet their burden...that simple.
If he keeps arguing for the truth value of his belief, I take that as an effort to convince me of his unfounded beliefs. If you have a criterion that proves that I am wrong pls present it to me.

Rather, request a justification and (if the guy is being rational), you'll find it's based on something else you disagree with. — Relativist

This is what proof means in its colloquial sense. By providing objective facts he has the change to prove that his belief is rationally justified.
Don't you ever use that word in your every day life? don't you ever demand from other to "prove it to you''?

You can take such a conversation down several levels without being convinced - but you can (perhaps) learn to appreciate he has some depth to his reasoning. — Relativist

Does he really have depth to his reasoning?By pointing to argument from ignorance fallacies, or appealing to mysteries (dreams) or reject the burden an unwarranted assumption has?
Sorry I can not see a depth but only chaos in his reasoning.

Some of us, like Mr Hillary comes with beliefs and makes absolute statements for their truthiness — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. But Im not trying to convince you. If you dont believe it then it's up to you. If I would use my believe to teach you morals, it would be different. But I dont. Be hetero, be gay, be socialist, capitalist, aboriginal, whatever. But when you say my belief is childish and needs proof, Ill get defensive, naturally.

For me, it's true, for you its not. As simple as that. If you ask positive proof, I ask you for negative proof. And you havent. The proof I gave you, you dont accept. What more can I do? You want me to get all gods from heaven and show you? So they can meet their mortal counterparts?

Sure, but that's not a problem. If you've used p to try and convince me that q is true, it suffices to tell you "but I reject p". You are then free to challenge my position on p. — Relativist

No No No....don't introduce ifs in the topic of this discussion. The example is specific.
Non acceptance(rejection) includes Ps that we are not convinced of and Ps~ that we think they are false.
The non acceptance of a P should always be a Direct logical Negation or else your conclusions are acceptable to logical fallacies. A Logical Negation can only address your rejection of that P.... NOT the reason of the rejection of P and not your belief in a P~
i.e. "I reject all god claim" tells you nothing about the statement "I believe gods don't exist".

No. There are 3 possible attitudes I can express, not 2:
1) I accept p as true; or
2) I reject p (believe p false); or
3)I reserve judgment on p (e.g. because I have insufficient information to either accept it or reject it). — Relativist

You are totally confused. Attitudes are irrelevant to the misuse of the term "rejection"!
You need to understand that that 2 and 3 attitudes lead you to NOT ACCEPT the claim. Non acceptance is rejection BY DEFINITION...why is this so difficult for you !!!??????