18
votes
Do atheists bear the burden of proof in showing why/how the reasons presented by theists are unconvincing?
I'd say the burden of proof is on the theist. The theist asserts the existence of some god. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.
- 313
18
votes
Accepted
Do atheists bear the burden of proof in showing why/how the reasons presented by theists are unconvincing?
I think gnasher729 and NotThatGusy make a great first point - "God" is too fuzzy a concept. Any discussion of God first needs to establish what properties we are assuming God has.
However, ...
- 1,409
17
votes
Do atheists bear the burden of proof in showing why/how the reasons presented by theists are unconvincing?
The answer is not going to be "the theist has the burden of proof" nor "the atheist has the burden of proof".
Before you can answer "Who has the burden of proof?", you ...
- 603
14
votes
Can philosophy be useful?
Absolutely.
I think especially in the realms of the personal, but also in the social and scientific as you've said.
For a start, being a theist and Catholic, I will of course have to point to how ...
- 538
12
votes
Do atheists bear the burden of proof in showing why/how the reasons presented by theists are unconvincing?
Unless one is a fideist, one is essentially bound to onus probandi. From WP:
[T]he burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who negates... is the obligation on a party in a dispute ...
- 23.1k
9
votes
Accepted
What is the burden of proof? Has this principle ever been challenged?
The burden of proof falls on the one who makes the claim because, usually, they don't make this claim in a vacuum, without any goal in mind: they want other people to accept their claim and adjust ...
- 5,133
8
votes
Do atheists bear the burden of proof in showing why/how the reasons presented by theists are unconvincing?
Practically in informal circumstances the burden of prove lies with whoever needs to convert the doubter. If you are an atheist trying to persuade a Catholic their belief is misguided, the burden of ...
- 13.5k
8
votes
Can I know something but not be able to justify it to anyone else?
Yes. And this is true of most of what we know.
Almost everything we know, we learn thru first person empiricism. It may be possible to translate and detail at least some first person empirical ...
- 10.6k
7
votes
Do atheists bear the burden of proof in showing why/how the reasons presented by theists are unconvincing?
Supernatural claims always carry a severe burden of proof. Since the typical theistic claim involves supernatural causes or effects, it also carries a burden of proof.
In general, skeptics carry no ...
- 633
7
votes
Accepted
Can disputes over what is reasonable or unreasonable to believe be resolved objectively?
It depends on what you mean by 'objectively'. If objectivity is taken to be the consensus of subjective agents, for instance, by subscribing to a convention, then there is, let's call it, a first-...
- 23.1k
5
votes
Do atheists bear the burden of proof in showing why/how the reasons presented by theists are unconvincing?
I strongly disagree with the accepted answer. Proving the non-existence of something is in most cases impossible. In science, most of the time we need to prove the existence.
That's what the Russel's ...
- 190
5
votes
Accepted
Can an extraordinary hypothesis ever be the best explanation for a set of historical facts?
Sure, and have been so. 'Extra-ordinary' is contingent upon historical accident and context.
Let's take germ theory of disease. When miasma theory was dominant, the notion of tiny living beings ...
- 23.1k
5
votes
Accepted
To what extent is intersubjective agreement required for one to be justified in trusting one's own subjective experiences?
Intersubjective agreement isn't required at all, strictly speaking. But it does help.
For one particular topic, if we grant that some reasonable portion of humans are rational, it suggests that those ...
- 5,598
5
votes
Accepted
Can private experiences justify private belief in supernaturalism?
It is important to discriminate between certainty and knowledge. Certainty is a subjective feeling, which can be highly convincing for oneself. Knowledge requires the ability to give supporting ...
- 24.6k
4
votes
Do atheists bear the burden of proof in showing why/how the reasons presented by theists are unconvincing?
The basic rule of a philosophical discussion is to support one's thesis by some arguments.
History of philosophy shows that neither the theist nor the atheist have succeeded in convincing the opponent ...
- 24.6k
4
votes
Accepted
Can God make the belief in His own existence justified (if He exists)?
Reliabilist and skeptical claims notwithstanding...(as pointed out by Conifold)
this is the crux of the atheistic Argument from Divine Hiddenness:
(1) Necessarily, if God exists, then God perfectly ...
- 1,409
4
votes
Can I know something but not be able to justify it to anyone else?
The skeptic view (in the sense of questioning beliefs, not radical philosophical skepticism) is, roughly speaking, that if you cannot justify something, you shouldn't believe it.
The above means being ...
- 5,598
4
votes
To what extent is intersubjective agreement required for one to be justified in trusting one's own subjective experiences?
I just watched a Star Trek episode in which someone says "I know this, trust me". The captain immediately swings into action, because he knows the person and trusts their judgement. In the ...
- 2,004
4
votes
To what extent is intersubjective agreement required for one to be justified in trusting one's own subjective experiences?
To what extent is intersubjective agreement required for one to be justified in trusting one's subjective experiences?
There's no convention by which one can answer this question across all societies....
- 23.1k
4
votes
To what extent is intersubjective agreement required for one to be justified in trusting one's own subjective experiences?
There should always be some room for skepticism, even in the face of high intersubjective agreement.
For example, there are many common optical illusions, which most people mis-interpret (even if you ...
- 1,148
4
votes
Chaos vs statistical mechanics vs complexity science
As far as I understand it, I think chaos theory basically says:
There are some functions that depend so strongly on their initial conditions, that a very small difference in the initial conditions ...
- 603
4
votes
Can philosophy be useful?
The question refers to the essay Everything of value is useful: How
philosophy can be socially relevant by the contemporary
philosopher Hans Radder.
Radders main thesis
As a discipline, philosophy is ...
- 24.6k
4
votes
Can philosophy be useful?
What is useful to one person might be useless to another. So my reading of the question is: "Can philosophy be useful to me?"
Generally, when someone asks this question, it is because one ...
- 1,831
4
votes
Do people who "withhold judgement" also have a burden of proof?
First of all, "the burden of proof" is not a hard and fast rule but more about sportsmanship. So as asserting a claim is easier than defending or disproving one the former usually is ...
- 4,597
3
votes
What is the burden of proof? Has this principle ever been challenged?
The "burden of proof" is the principle that if you have a good reason to believe what you believe, and you want me to believe what you believe, you ought to say your good reason to believe ...
- 3,585
3
votes
What is the burden of proof? Has this principle ever been challenged?
The burden of proof is merely the result of trying to figure out what beliefs we should start with and what should be proven from there.
It stops you from believing anything and everything without ...
- 5,598
3
votes
Can God make the belief in His own existence justified (if He exists)?
Nothing is preventing God from revealing to you in person if you are eligible. Just like this site doesn’t tolerate every kind of question and every kind of person for a good reason , similarly God ...
- 1,841
3
votes
Can an extraordinary hypothesis ever be the best explanation for a set of historical facts?
TL;DR: To answer your question, the answer is yes, but only if it can be argued that it explains something better than ordinary hypotheses. Every extraordinary hypothesis usually comes at the cost of ...
- 8,278
3
votes
Can an extraordinary hypothesis ever be the best explanation for a set of historical facts?
Trivially so, yes
Question is: can an extraordinary hypothesis ever be the best explanation for a set of historical facts?
Well, yes, because before any explanation for any kind of phenomenon exists, ...
- 5,036
3
votes
Can I know something but not be able to justify it to anyone else?
The examples @Dcleve gives in his answers for knowing "from pure first person thinking" seem to me examples for the experience of inner certainty. In most cases there is no problem to ...
- 24.6k
Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible