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: 3388
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 265 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
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

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

Post #11

Post by Purple Knight »

mgb wrote: Sun Dec 26, 2021 7:02 amThe burden of proof only applies to primitive knowledge like science etc.
There's a general assumption among people (all people, I think, or almost all) that the one who must prove his claims must be in the weaker position. I've observed that most people do think like this, I see no reason or basis to question it, and merely applying that to reality does generate the idea that science is a primitive source of knowledge.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1147 times
Contact:

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

Post #12

Post by William »

Purple Knight wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 3:35 pm
mgb wrote: Sun Dec 26, 2021 7:02 amThe burden of proof only applies to primitive knowledge like science etc.
There's a general assumption among people (all people, I think, or almost all) that the one who must prove his claims must be in the weaker position. I've observed that most people do think like this, I see no reason or basis to question it, and merely applying that to reality does generate the idea that science is a primitive source of knowledge.
I think of mystics as scientists and mysticism as science re primitive knowledge...

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1690
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 84 times

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

Post #13

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

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?

One who knows, likely does not need faith.
Surely one would need faith, trust, in whatever basis they had for claiming to know?
William wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 6:14 pm 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.
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1147 times
Contact:

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

Post #14

Post by William »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #13]
Surely one would need faith, trust, in whatever basis they had for claiming to know?
That is a common enough presumption which depends upon both ones idea of "What God Is" and what conditions are attached to that idea.

My own understanding of "God" = "Mind Behind Creation" and in that there are no known conditions attached to motivation of said Mind. Thus there is no requirement for faith-based beliefs to be attached to the idea of "God" nor is there a necessity to trust said mind, because trust itself requires conditions which effectively create layers superimposed upon what is known re creation/nature.

It is what it is and there is neither requirement to trust it or to distrust it, as far as I can tell. The "Problem of Evil" is therefore not really a problem of nature so much as a problem humans have created through faulty perception of nature as an attempt to explain death and suffering and the like - thus trust has to be formed where in reality, it is not required.

Post Reply