If I accept a proposition, that means I believe it true. — Relativist

-Correct.

-"Rejection means I believe it false."
-No it doesn't. Rejection means that you are not convinced of the truth value of the claim.
Think of the jury standard. The jury finds the defended guilty or not guilty but they don't address innocence because its a completely different claim.
Reserving belief in a claim means that you don't accept the claim in question. You reject it until evidence can warrant belief.
I dont accept/reject A ≠ I think A is wrong. ITs an logical error to address two different claims based on a single rejection.

A I said, we're using the words differently, particularly "reject". You use reject to mean "reserve judgement".

A judgment in a criminal trial is a bit different. I may believe a dependent guilty based on it seeming more likely than not, but acquit because there is reasonable doubt. IOW, I can believe something without being absolutely certain.

:up:

A judgment in a criminal trial is a bit different. I may believe a dependent guilty based on it seeming more likely than not, but acquit because there is reasonable doubt. IOW, I can believe something without being absolutely certain. — Relativist

-No it isn't. Don't focus on why we demand to demonstrate guiltiness beyond reasonable doubt (its for obvious reasons....the freedom and life of the defendant are in stake).
Focus that we ONLY address guiltiness (guilty/not guilty), we don't address an additional claim (innocent).
This is the error you do when you introduce "falseness" .
My acceptance or rejection of a claim addresses ONLY my belief towards a specific claim.
It Doesn't address the reasons why I reject it or the opposite claim!
The minimum requirement is to NOT be convinced....not to be convinced of a different claim (to be false).
This is a really basic rule. Its how we avoid false dichotomies..!!!

So you also don't understand why I don't accept/reject A doesn't ≠ I think A is wrong????

From what you've written, it seems you don't understand ...

So you don't understand why we should address a single claim...not its opposite?

You c
You can either reject a claim either because you are not convinced, or because you are convinced of the opposite.
That is not defined by stating your rejection!
i.e. By rejecting the claim (god exists) that makes me an Atheist...not an Antitheist.(Hard Atheist).
In order to be an Antitheist, I must accept the opposite claims (God's do not exist).

When a jury finds the defendant not guilty , it doesn't mean that they think he is innocent. They only examine whether the prosecution can meet the burden of proving him guilty. We don't demand from the defendant to prove his innocence because the burden is on those who make the claim (accusation). We don't simultaneously examine two different claims (innocent and gulity) because not proving A doesn't mean B!!!!!!

I have no idea what you're asking about, Nick.

I know...its part of the problem.

You c↪Relativist
You can either reject a claim either because you are not convinced, or because you are convinced of the opposite.
That is not defined by stating your rejection!
i.e. By rejecting the claim (god exists) that makes me an Atheist...not an Antitheist.(Hard Atheist).
In order to be an Antitheist, I must accept the opposite claims (God's do not exist). — Nickolasgaspar

What I reject is your terminology. I explained what I meant, and you seem to insist I use the words the way you choose to use them.

When a jury finds the defendant not guilty , it doesn't mean that they think he is innocent. They only examine whether the prosecution can meet the burden of proving him guilty. We don't demand from the defendant to prove his innocence because the burden is on those who make the claim (accusation). We don't simultaneously examine two different claims (innocent and gulity) because not proving A doesn't mean B!!!!!!

Sure, but the standards jurors apply to verdicts do not prevent a juror from privately forming a belief based on a lower standard. In everyday life, we form most of our beliefs on a much lower standard than that. Consider a civil trial in which jurors are instructed to base judgment on a preponderance of evidence (i.e.slightly more evidence in one direction). Do you allow them to form a private belief on that basis? If so, you should allow them to form a private belief on the same standard in a criminal trial. A private belief needn't correspond to the jury instruction. Belief formation doesn't work that way.

I think Nick's point may be that one is not convinced there are good reasons to accept the proposition that gods exist. This is not the same thing as saying they do not exist or are false.

(Legally a person is found not guilty which does not mean they did not do it, only that the case for their guilt was not made.)

I would say this model amounts to being an atheist regarding your belief, but an agnostic in terms of your knowledge. This a position held by a lot of atheists I know, including me.

So why do you use Objective evidence to verify your economic state...but you reject them in other existential claims?? Special pleading.....right? — Nickolasgaspar

No. I use the same evidence. My bankaccount is as much a proof that I'm no billionaire, as that gods exist. Your claim is that gods don't exist. Can you prove that?

First of all your bank account can not be as much a proof that you are no billionaire, as that gods exist. You will need objective evidence either than your bank account to demonstrate the existence of magical agents.
Now you need to be honest and avoid strawmanning other people's position.
I am constantly saying that you don't have evidence, that believing in gods is irrational not wrong that you use fallacies to conclude to gods.
So why are you asking me to prove something I have never claimed ??????
When did I say "gods don't exist".
Again I am pointing out that you are using false equivalencies, arguments from ignorance, special pleadings and poisoning the well fallacies to promote your irrational belief in invisibile magic agents.

So why are you asking me to prove something I have never claimed ????? — Nickolasgaspar

You claim they don't exist. Then prove it. You can't.

What I reject is your terminology. I explained what I meant, and you seem to insist I use the words the way you choose to use them. — Relativist

You shouldn't and you need to understand that when we don't accept a claim from becoming our belief, our dictionaries provide the opposite of that action.
accept
Opposite verb
1.consent to receive or undertake (something offered).
Opposite refuse, reject, turn, down
Those two terms (accept reject) CAN ONLY inform us if one believes a claim or not....NOT if he thinks it is false or not. As you said your self "not convinced" can also be a reason why we reject a claim!

Now when , according to your words, youreserve belief to a claim, have you accepted it? No ! so what have you done? You rejected it from becoming your belief not because you think it is wrong, or not true, but because you are not convinced to proceed to a judgment.

You need to understand that by saying "I reject that claim" you can only know whether I accept it or not! That statement doesn't inform you whether I think it is false or not, untrue or not. You know what I did to that claim....not not the REASON I did it.


-"

Sure, but the standards jurors apply to verdicts do not prevent a juror from privately forming a belief based on a lower standard. — Relativist

"
-Sure but you can never know what he believes by just knowing that he rejected the accusations of the prosecutor!!! right? You committed the same error when you equated " I reject A" = "I believe A is false"!

In everyday life, we form most of our beliefs on a much lower standard than that. — Relativist

-Correct, I agree, but that doesn't change that acceptance and rejection ONLY describe how we react to a claim and says nothing about the reasons behind our reaction.
Your objection about what a juror might believe and how we evaluate beliefs in our everyday life do not justify your assumptions that any rejection is based on the opposite belief.Can you see that problem?

Consider a civil trial in which jurors are instructed to base judgment on a preponderance of evidence (i.e.slightly more evidence in one direction). Do you allow them to form a private belief on that basis? If so, you should allow them to form a private belief on the same standard in a criminal trial. A private belief needn't correspond to the jury instruction. Belief formation doesn't work that way. — Relativist

-Again what you allow to a jury in a trial with different standards of evidence is irrelevant to the basic rule of logic. I don't accept/I reject A can only inform you on whether I accept or reject A.
It can never tell you why I reject A. IT can never tell you if I believe it is wrong, or insufficient or untrue.
Do we agree on that.?
Addressing a claim /point at a time is how we avoid fallacies.
When you say to you accept the claim that god exists and I say no...I just informed you that I reject that claim from becoming by belief.
If you say "so you believe that the god claim is false" then you are making a Strawman arguement, because your initial question "Do you accept the claim that god exists" and "Do believe the god doesn't exist" Are two different claims. You are committing a false dichotomy and that leads you to your strawman and you demand a Burden of Proof from a claim I never made.

Seriously, this is Logic 101....it can't get more basic than that!

You claim they don't exist. Then prove it. You can't. — Hillary

No I only point out that you are an irrational individual for accepting god claims that you can not Objectively demonstrate to be true.
I never accept the burden of the opposite claim.
Do you also have issues with Basic Logic mam?

arguments from ignorance, — Nickolasgaspar

The point is, I argue from knowledge. I know how the universe works, how it came to be, what there was before the big bang, etc. The only thing to logically conclude is that gods made it.

The default state is gods plus the universe. Any claim about gods not existing must be proven right before I accept they are not there.

Basic logic is great! So when I start from the default state as being true, I don't need to prove it. Its true by fiat and not because of the scientific need for proof, which only applies to the material universe.

↪Relativist
I think Nick's point may be that one is not convinced there are good reasons to accept the proposition that gods exist. This is not the same thing as saying they do not exist or are false. — Tom Storm

Thank you Tom. Acceptance and Rejection inform people of my position towards a claim.
For them to know the reason they will need to ask an additional question.
To assume the reason from my rejection, is a fallacy (Strawman).

(Legally a person is found not guilty which does not mean they did not do it, only that the case for their guilt was not made.) — Tom Storm

Again, you are Correct.

I would say this model amounts to being an atheist regarding your belief, but an agnostic in terms of your knowledge. This a position held by a lot of atheists I know, including me. — Tom Storm

Me too. I don't need an indefensible burden...no matter how desperate mr Hillary is to force that belief on me.

Me too. I don't need an indefensible burden...no matter how desperate mr Hillary is to force that belief on me — Nickolasgaspar

Where do I force it on you? If you don't want to believe it's completely up to you mr. Strawman!

I never accept the burden of the opposite claim. — Nickolasgaspar

And neither do I accept the burden to prove gods. You might feel the urge to prove, but something so obviously clear doesn't need proof.

The point is, I argue from knowledge — Hillary

No , unfortunately you don't. Knowledge is by definition objective so you should be able by now to point to Good evidence for your belief.

I know how the universe works, how it came to be, what there was before the big bang, etc. — Hillary

YOu can only know what our Systematic Epistemology allow us to know. SInce I am also informed of that epistemology, gods are not mentioned or demonstrated objectively or empirically.

The only thing to logically conclude is that gods made it. — Hillary

I am not convinced you understand the meaning of the work "logically". Logic is a tool that works with facts and describes their analogies, differences equations and relations in general.
Logical fallacies are formulas of logic that allow us to identify unjustified conclusions when people jump to them without epistemic support. You are making this jump and the only "logical" aspect oin your conclusions is that of a "fallacy."
IN order for a belief to be logical it will need to be justified by objective facts.

The default state is gods plus the universe. — Hillary

That can never be default. I suggest you to study Parsimony and the Null hypothesis.
The Universe...and the gods are is an unparsimonious claim and in direct conflict with the Null hypothesis , a tool that allows us to identify the Default position in a belief.
You need to revisit your arguments because they are in direct conflict with Basic Logic.

Basic logic is great! So when I start from the default state as being true, I don't need to prove it. — Hillary

lol...hahahahahahahahaha. In order to define the Default Position you need to know how the Null Hypothesis work.
The Null Hypothesis dictates that we SHOULD nullify our claims thus remove elements in our claims that aren't demonstrated or accepted objectively and work on the falsification of our initial nullification.
The fact is that we can not objectively verify any gods(this is why we are having debates on the topic) and we will need significant results to add this value in our nullified default position.

When you add things in your default position that aren't observed or accepted by everyone you are introducing a value in it so that can never be the Null Hypothesis.
So your default position should go like this.
There isn't a connection (significant value) between A. Existence B. God until we can objectively falsify our initial rejection through objective evidence.
If you try to equate the Existence of the Universe with god...that is a fallacy(fallacy of ambiguity, false equivalency).
At least we now understand why you hold those irrational beliefs...You understanding of Logic is really bad.

Where do I force it on you? If you don't want to believe it's completely up to you mr. Strawman! — Hillary

-You are unable to stick to the topic mr Hillary! I am just pointing out that your conclusions are objectively irrational. This is called "critique" and it is something common in public forums.
This is what people expect when share their magical and irrational beliefs in public.
There i no way that you can force your belief on me! (well only if you can provide objective evidence.)
And there is NO way that you can force me NOT to provide my critique (only if we both were in North Korean and you were a member of the Party lol).
In simple terms people discussions and other people point out the problems in their syllogisms.
There is nothing you can do to avoid this...only if you stop posting irrational claim.

And neither do I accept the burden to prove gods. You might feel the urge to prove, but something so obviously clear doesn't need proof. — Hillary

-Hillary...you are really bad in reasoning. Its not for you to decide whether your claim comes with a burden. EVery claim has a burden, whether you want to meet it or not.
I know that you don't want it but that choice of yours only renders your belief in that claim irrational.
There is nothing "obviously clear" in superstitious claims either than they qualify as irrational beliefs.
The fact that you don't want to accept the burden of proof for that claim means that you are just making excuses by saying "it doesn't need proof".
All claims need to meet their burden of proof IF our goal is to hold reasonable beliefs.

All claims need to meet their burden of proof IF our goal is to hold reasonable beliefs. — Nickolasgaspar

Well said! :smile: :clap:

Your objection about what a juror might believe and how we evaluate beliefs in our everyday life do not justify your assumptions that any rejection is based on the opposite belief.Can you see that problem? — Nickolasgaspar

We're discussing propositional attitudes developed through judgment. I don't believe there's anything controversial about my usage: In simplest terms, I may judge the proposition true, false, or withhold (suspend) judgment. Nuances can be added, such as degree of belief. Your usage appears to be non-standard in the realm of philosophy. Defending your usage with a standard dictionary is problematic, since these are general use and reflect common usage - not prescribing a particular systematic usage as is done in philosophy. If I'm mistaken, and you believe you are consistent with standard epistemology, please point me at a reference.

All claims need to meet their burden of proof IF our goal is to hold reasonable beliefs. — Nickolasgaspar

What if the proof can't be given? How can I possibly give a proof? If I tell you I saw it in a dream you say it's just a dream. What if an outcome in the double slit experiment gives unexpected results? Say that instead of an interference pattern a one slit pattern shows up? What if there was proof of gods?



Maybe, dear Nickolas, you should learn some real Physica, Science, before engaging in philosophical debate. You will find then that Metaphysica is a lot more than engaging in logic and that ontology includes Theology as well as Science.

We're discussing propositional attitudes developed through judgment. — Relativist

Actually we are talking about logical negation and their importance to be direct.
A Direct logical negation allow us to avoid addressing other irrelevant aspects of a claim.
i.e. -Do you accept my god claim
-No I don't, I reject your god claim.
This is a direct logical negation. the negation No I believe no gods exists is not a direct one to the initial question.

-" I don't believe there's anything controversial about my usage: "
-your usage "reaches out" to possible reasons , that's all.

I may judge the proposition true, false, or withhold (suspend) judgment. — Relativist

-Correct! If you judge the proposition as true it means you Accept it. In both remaining cases where you withhold or judge it as false you just Don't Accept/reject the claim. Withholding a judgment has the exact same implications...The claim is not accepted as part of the body of your beliefs. (it doesn't make the cut).
Lets take a real life example. When you give ad interview and you end up not getting that job can you be sure that you were rejected because the interviewer believes you suck at that job? Is it possible that you didn't convince him that you are suitable for the position? Both positions can be responsible for your rejection.

Nuances can be added, such as degree of belief. — Relativist

I will agree with that but again a specific degree of belief will allow us to accept a claim and all other degrees bellow will force us to reject a claim.

Defending your usage with a standard dictionary is problematic, since these are general use and reflect common usage - not prescribing a particular systematic usage as is done in philosophy. I — Relativist

Did I???...in fact I didn't point to a dictionary at all. I pointed to Logic,that a non Direct Logical Negation can easily derail us to a Strawman or a false dichotomy.
I pointed to the fact of what happens to a claim that is either not convincing to us(reserving belief) or convincing us to be false. In both case we don't accept the claim...the claim is rejected for not meeting our standards, not because it is false.
Those logical rules have a very important role in Philosophy.

All claims need to meet their burden of proof IF our goal is to hold reasonable beliefs.
— Nickolasgaspar

What if the proof can't be given? How can I possibly give a proof? — Hillary

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.

What if the proof can't be given? How can I possibly give a proof? — Hillary

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.

-" If I tell you I saw it in a dream you say it's just a dream."
-No, dismissing your dream by just calling it a dream isn't the best response. I can come with a better one that is compatible with your claim.
I will say. I also had a dream that revealed to me that your dreams are not true.
So we have two people making two antagonistic claims based on the same crappy subjective evidence. "my dream told me so".
How do we go around finding out whose dream is the real deal?????

What if an outcome in the double slit experiment gives unexpected results? Say that instead of an interference pattern a one slit pattern shows up? What if there was proof of gods? — Hillary

-Hillary.....the problem with your position is that currently there are no proofs for gods! When we come up with proofs that would be the moment to justify your belief ...not a second sooner!
"What ifs" do not qualify as sound premises for arguments ...you just express a wishful thought.

Maybe, dear Nickolas, you should learn some real Physica, Science, before engaging in philosophical debate. — Hillary

Let me get this straight....this comments comes from you...the guy who introduces gods in science? the guy who declares the universe to be god? The guy who pretends to know the cause of the big bank....that guy tells me to learn more science?
The guy who doesn't understand how we arrive to a default position, what is the Null hypothesis, why soundness is important for reasonable beliefs, why all claims have a burden,why fallacies render a conclusion irrational....that guy tells me that I am not skilled enough for philosophical debates.
I may not be educated scientifically or philosophically enough.....but You Hillary? You really think you are in a position to judge that? lol

You will find then that Metaphysica is a lot more than engaging in logic and that ontology includes Theology as well as Science. — Hillary

The problem is that your philosophy is Pseudo-metaphysika....and only Pseudo ontology includes Theology since none of your claims can be investigated for their truth value. Without a known truth value we can never evaluate them for their wisdom. Without wisdom you don't have philosophy...you have pseudo philosophy.
You are a pseudo philosopher mr Hillary and a really bad "scientist"

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? Or sufficient warrant? We run into a lot of trouble around here regarding terms like true, fact, evidence, proof...