Surely it's their burden to demonstrate that their objection has grounds by showing that there could be other options, rather than just claiming — Jon Sendama
The person in question refused to accept that you must either believe God/s exist is more likely, or no God/s exist is more likely, or you believe that the likelihood of Gods existence is perfectly balanced. — Jon Sendama
f a person argues that there seems to be just to options to pick from, ie heavier than or lighter than or more likely or less likely, and invites his opponent to pick one, and the opponent says "i don't need to pick one because you have not proven there are only these options", what is that fallacy? — Jon Sendama
The idea is that in argumentation, the one who presents the scenario that there's only two options/choices has the burden to avoid the fallacious argument of false dichotomy. You're not supposed to present a scenario where you artificially limit the choices of another to force them to answer one of only two ways.Surely it's their burden to demonstrate that their objection has grounds by showing that there could be other options, rather than just claiming, — Jon Sendama
you must either believe — Jon Sendama
"When did you stop hitting your wife?". I don't see how it's an unjustified presupposition to assume someone believes something is more likely, less likely, or equally likely. — Jon Sendama
↪john27 An implied or can do just as much work as an express one. Be careful that they understand that discussing evidence of G is separate from discussing evidence of ~G. If they understand from go that any question about G supports your claim of ~G, you won’t get far.
Here is a related type argument: Russell’s tea pot. Notice the contrast of agnosticism as to a particular belief in or belief in not. We can functionally act as if not in the absence of compelling evidence for, but that doesn’t mean we have to actively believe not. Why commit to a position for which you have no evidence and which, in principle, you cannot have such evidence. — Ennui Elucidator
Yes, you can say that. This is called modality. When you present an inquiry or a problem this way, you are implying the modal auxiliaries.So, with your responses in mind I am thinking that I could just hack through the issue by seperating the questions.
Do you believe it's more likely than not that God/s exists?
Do you believe it's more likely than not that no God/s exist?
This way, I cannot be seen to be limiting their choice or assuming they have one belief, as there is no implication that i've presupposed there are only two options. The real issue is that "or". — Jon Sendama
Sorry, i'd love to be able to comment because your point sounds interesting, but I am not philosophically educated. I am only capable of understanding in words. — Jon Sendama
If a person argues that there seems to be just to options to pick from, ie heavier than or lighter than or more likely or less likely, and invites his opponent to pick one, and the opponent says "i don't need to pick one because you have not proven there are only these options", what is that fallacy?
Surely it's their burden to demonstrate that their objection has grounds by showing that there could be other options, rather than just claiming, but i've ran in to this countless times and I don't feel I am very effective at dealing with it. Can anyone explain it more effectively than I have, or direct me to a resource that I can just send people to, to show that my logic is correct? — Jon Sendama
I am not philosophically educated. — Jon Sendama
......what is that fallacy? — Jon Sendama
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.