Do "Knowing" And "Believing" Carry The Same Burden Of Proof?

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3387
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 264 times
Been thanked: 940 times

Do "Knowing" And "Believing" Carry The Same Burden Of Proof?

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.


If a theist says "I know there's a god," and another theist says "I believe there's a god, do each have the same burden of proof? Why or why not?


"A burden of proof is the obligation to prove one's assertion."
source: Oxford Languages




.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10538
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1143 times
Contact:

Re: Do "Knowing" And "Believing" Carry The Same Burden Of Proof?

Post #2

Post by William »

Miles wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:09 pm .


If a theist says "I know there's a god," and another theist says "I believe there's a god, do each have the same burden of proof? Why or why not?


"A burden of proof is the obligation to prove one's assertion."
source: Oxford Languages




.
Yes they do have a similar obligations re burden of proof connected with such statements of knowledge or belief.

However, a theist who says that they think there's a God [or Mind behind creation etc] does not have any such burden.
One such can simply explain why one thinks it might be the case and argue the points re that...

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3387
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 264 times
Been thanked: 940 times

Re: Do "Knowing" And "Believing" Carry The Same Burden Of Proof?

Post #3

Post by Miles »

William wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 4:10 pm
Miles wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:09 pm .


If a theist says "I know there's a god," and another theist says "I believe there's a god, do each have the same burden of proof? Why or why not?


"A burden of proof is the obligation to prove one's assertion."
source: Oxford Languages




.
Yes they do have a similar obligations re burden of proof connected with such statements of knowledge or belief.

However, a theist who says that they think there's a God [or Mind behind creation etc] does not have any such burden.
So what do you see as the crucial difference between one who believes there's a god, and one who thinks there's god?


One such can simply explain why one thinks it might be the case and argue the points re that...
Couldn't one simply explain why one believes it might be the case and argue the points re that. . . ?


.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10538
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1143 times
Contact:

Re: Do "Knowing" And "Believing" Carry The Same Burden Of Proof?

Post #4

Post by William »

[Replying to Miles in post #3]
Yes they do have a similar obligations re burden of proof connected with such statements of knowledge or belief.

However, a theist who says that they think there's a God [or Mind behind creation etc] does not have any such burden.
So what do you see as the crucial difference between one who believes there's a god, and one who thinks there's god?
Probably similar to what you think is the crucial difference between one who knows there is a god and one who believes there is a god?

One who knows, likely does not need faith.

One who believes does need faith.
One such can simply explain why one thinks it might be the case and argue the points re that...
Couldn't one simply explain why one believes it might be the case and argue the points re that. . . ?
Yes. The difference would be that one who thinks it might be the case does not think so on account of any faith-based beliefs.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3387
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 264 times
Been thanked: 940 times

Re: Do "Knowing" And "Believing" Carry The Same Burden Of Proof?

Post #5

Post by Miles »

William wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 6:14 pm [Replying to Miles in post #3]
Yes they do have a similar obligations re burden of proof connected with such statements of knowledge or belief.

However, a theist who says that they think there's a God [or Mind behind creation etc] does not have any such burden.
So what do you see as the crucial difference between one who believes there's a god, and one who thinks there's god?
Probably similar to what you think is the crucial difference between one who knows there is a god and one who believes there is a god?
Someone who knows is asserting what they, at least, consider to be fact. Someone who believes is putting trust or confidence in something that does not measure up to being fact.

One who knows, likely does not need faith.
Well they certainly shouldn't.

One who believes does need faith.
What do you see as the difference between the two: belief and faith?

One such can simply explain why one thinks it might be the case and argue the points re that...
Couldn't one simply explain why one believes it might be the case and argue the points re that. . . ?
Yes. The difference would be that one who thinks it might be the case does not think so on account of any faith-based beliefs.
Why would it necessarily have to be a faith-based belief?


.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10538
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1143 times
Contact:

Re: Do "Knowing" And "Believing" Carry The Same Burden Of Proof?

Post #6

Post by William »

[Replying to Miles in post #5]
Someone who knows is asserting what they, at least, consider to be fact.
Someone who knows and asserts that they know is past the 'considering' stage...
Someone who believes is putting trust or confidence in something that does not measure up to being fact.
Or in the case of BJ's return to Earth to fix stuff that humans could fix all by themselves, it cannot be established as a fact until it actually happens.

Therefore it can only be believed in as something which WILL eventually happen - or as Tam recently put it along the lines of "My LORD SAID he would return, therefore He WILL return."...

...There is no room for debate therein. Reading the Christians loud and clear on that...

That is faith-based belief, rather than fact-based knowledge.
What do you see as the difference between the two: belief and faith?
There is probably no difference at all between them, truth be known. Perhaps we can agree together that faith is belief and belief is faith and therefore there in no real need to use the expression "Faith-based Belief" because it might be confusing if we thought the two were different things?

Perhaps "Faith/Belief-based notions" or some such other wordy phrase?
Why would it necessarily have to be a faith-based belief?
For such things as the eventual return of BJ scenario?

It is a faith-based belief system. Are there any identifiable beliefs which we can have which do not require faith?

Nothing springs to mind so I will have to think about it...and get back to you...

Meantime, here is evidence that appears to make me look like I am magic;
Image

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3387
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 264 times
Been thanked: 940 times

Re: Do "Knowing" And "Believing" Carry The Same Burden Of Proof?

Post #7

Post by Miles »

William wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:27 pm [Replying to Miles in post #5]
Someone who knows is asserting what they, at least, consider to be fact.
Someone who knows and asserts that they know is past the 'considering' stage...
:D Knowing can embrace both a conviction---a position of absolute certainty that X = Y---and an actual awareness that X = Y. A conviction, no matter how well grounded, may, in fact, turn out to be wrong. At one time people were convinced the Sun orbited the earth. Their knowledge was based on a well known "fact" supported by observation. But, as we came to recognize, this was not a fact, which stripped this knowledge of its validity. So, what we knew at one time was not, an actual fact of nature, but knowledge of a misapprehension of fact. So when I said "Someone who knows is asserting what they, at least, consider to be fact." I was pulling my punches, leaving room for what we consider to truly exists (to be a fact) and what actually exists (a fact).

...There is no room for debate therein. Reading the Christians loud and clear on that...

That is faith-based belief, rather than fact-based knowledge.
What do you see as the difference between the two: belief and faith?
There is probably no difference at all between them, truth be known. Perhaps we can agree together that faith is belief and belief is faith and therefore there in no real need to use the expression "Faith-based Belief" because it might be confusing if we thought the two were different things?

Perhaps "Faith/Belief-based notions" or some such other wordy phrase?
It's been said by others that faith is the excuse people use when they don't have good evidence, which I think is pretty much spot on; however, I prefer to think of it as belief with trust. I can believe the car pulling up to my left at the intersection will stop, as it's suppose to, but for me to pull ahead and pass through the intersection it will take faith (trust) that he wont T-Bone me as I do.


.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10538
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1143 times
Contact:

Re: Do "Knowing" And "Believing" Carry The Same Burden Of Proof?

Post #8

Post by William »

[Replying to Miles in post #7]
I was pulling my punches, leaving room for what we consider to truly exists (to be a fact) and what actually exists (a fact).
Point being, until there is more information to consider, one can stop considering and just know.

When it come to the finer details, we know that everything we experience first goes through a process that we then might know it as 'real'.

In that, we do not even know if what we are being asked to consider, is even real or has the process been fudged by the brain first - and then placed on the mind-screen we consciousnesses can then consider?

We know very little about the mind and consciousness except that they are immaterial things interacting with material things, so there is much still to consider really...

But I know my wife loves me and therefore do not have to believe that she does. I have already considered it real enough to know...
It's been said by others that faith is the excuse people use when they don't have good evidence, which I think is pretty much spot on; however, I prefer to think of it as belief with trust. I can believe the car pulling up to my left at the intersection will stop, as it's suppose to, but for me to pull ahead and pass through the intersection it will take faith (trust) that he wont T-Bone me as I do.
That appears to be natural enough and requires no more consideration than to know that can happen but don't let it stop you from living in the experience of the knowledge.

We will all pass on from this eventually thus risks are considered part of knowledge rather than faith, by me re that.

mgb
Guru
Posts: 1666
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
Location: Europe
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Do "Knowing" And "Believing" Carry The Same Burden Of Proof?

Post #9

Post by mgb »

Miles wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:09 pmdo each have the same burden of proof? Why or why not?
Realistically there is no burden of proof for theists or atheists since these things are beyond dis/proof. But there is a burden, on both sides, of evidence and reasonable argument. The burden of proof only applies to primitive knowledge like science etc.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 819 times

Re: Do "Knowing" And "Believing" Carry The Same Burden Of Proof?

Post #10

Post by nobspeople »

Miles wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:09 pm .


If a theist says "I know there's a god," and another theist says "I believe there's a god, do each have the same burden of proof? Why or why not?


"A burden of proof is the obligation to prove one's assertion."
source: Oxford Languages




.
Belief can use proof and data for it to exist, but it doesn't have to use anything other than the whim of the individual to accept it as such (see FAITH).
Knowing, to me, is more geared towards facts and data.
Example:
I believe there's a purple unicorn on Mars.
This suggests one has the opinion of such, but no proof. If they had proof, they typically won't use the term 'believe' (to accept or regard (something) as true).
I know there's a purple unicorn on Mars.
This suggests one has facts to support their 'knowledge' (to have (information of some kind) in your mind).

This doesn't mean people don't (many times, incorrectly) use these terms interchangeably.

I know 1+1=2 isn't the same as I believe 1+1=2, as using 'believe' tends to suggest the possibility of being wrong and or changing the belief, while 'know' tends to be more certain (though can be proven wrong once more and better data is supplied).

Do they have the same burden of proof? Not if used I see seem them. If used interchangeably, yes.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

Post Reply