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

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 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
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 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: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 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...

Sherlock Holmes

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.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 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.

Ozzy_O
Student
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 3:34 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 7 times

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

Post #15

Post by Ozzy_O »

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




.
Atheists "think" there is no God, but have never been able to "prove" there is no God

In still waiting for them to prove their assertions.....

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #16

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




.
Nether have any burden of proof as either way, they are simply expressing a statement of belief, one belief stronger in the knowing.
One can ask a theist what meaning they give to "GOD" in relation to their knowing or believing the "GOD" exists, and generally the answer is along the lines of personal subjective experience which cannot be shown to another, but only experienced by another in a similar manner.

For those who say that they know, generally this position has evolved from one of believing...belief has turned into knowing...

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

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

Post #17

Post by Miles »

Ozzy_O wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:58 am
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




.
Atheists "think" there is no God,
Not necessarily at all. In fact, most atheists contend that atheism is a lack of belief in a god, (that god exists).

In still waiting for them to prove their assertions.....
Then you'll first have to get hold of atheists who "'think' there is no God," and as far as I know no such atheist posts here on DC&R.

Good luck in your search.

.
Last edited by Miles on Wed Dec 07, 2022 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

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

Post #18

Post by Miles »

William wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:12 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




.
Nether have any burden of proof as either way, they are simply expressing a statement of belief, one belief stronger in the knowing.
One can ask a theist what meaning they give to "GOD" in relation to their knowing or believing the "GOD" exists, and generally the answer is along the lines of personal subjective experience which cannot be shown to another, but only experienced by another in a similar manner.

For those who say that they know, generally this position has evolved from one of believing... belief has turned into knowing...
In which case the acceptance ceases to be a belief. Correct? Of course it is, because knowing something is not expressing a belief.


"I don't believe... I know."
............. -Carl Jung, founder of a neopsychoanalytic school, on the question of belief in 'god'..

Believe: 1 a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept as true 2 : to have a firm conviction 3 : to hold an opinion

Know: 1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of (3) : to recognize the nature of 


Believing is holding an opinion.

 Knowing is to have direct experience, to understand, and to have a practical understanding of some concept. To further delineate the two different terms, it is important to realize that while one can "make- believe", one cannot "make-know".

____________________________________________________________________________________

Main Entry: [1]make-be·lieve

........ "pretending to believe"

One can pretend to believe, because in order to believe, one does not need factual knowledge. When you were a child, and "made believe" that you were a doctor, you didn't actually know how to be a doctor.

When one maintains in an argument: "I don't believe, I know", without actually possessing direct cognition of, or evidence for, their proposition, they are in fact doing one of two things:

1. Using a persuasive definition (i.e. one that is purposely misleading)

2. Lying
(source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

PRIMARY SOURCE


TO NOTE! Asserting one knows X exists and asserting one believes X exists are still statements that carry a burden of proof. Even asserting that X does not exist carries a burden of proof; however, a lack of belief that X exists, the most common definition of atheism ("X" being god), carries no such obligation.


.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #19

Post by William »

To what do you mean by 'burden of proof' then?

I can understand if for example, someone says they know a god exists because the god is visible and lives in a cave, we could expect that some proof could be provided since the expressing of that knowledge allows for such proof to be accessed.

However, if someone says that they know a god who is invisible and lives in another dimension, the demand for proof of such, would be superfluous.

Ozzy_O
Student
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 3:34 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 7 times

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

Post #20

Post by Ozzy_O »

Miles wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:34 pm
Ozzy_O wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:58 am
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




.
Atheists "think" there is no God,
Not necessarily at all. In fact, most atheists contend that atheism is a lack of belief in a god, (that god exists).

In still waiting for them to prove their assertions.....
Then you'll first have to get hold of atheists who "'think' there is no God," and as far as I know no such atheist posts here on DC&R.

Good luck in your search.

.

So you are one of the atheists that DOESbelieve in God? Cool

Post Reply