Who has the burden of proof in a debate?

[tonychanyt]

I'm responding to A1's assertion of P1. If I fail to accept that proposition as 'true', that doesn't mean that I'm taking up a directly contrary position that it is 'false'.

Then you don't have the burden of proof

 

[tonychanyt]

If the statement is about the existence of God, then is ¬P1 there is no God, you have no burden of proof?

You have the burden of proof if and only if you make an assertion.

 

[sjastro]

You have the burden of proof if and only if you make an assertion.

I have a problem with your P1 statements “there is a God, you have the burden of proof.” and “there is no God, you have the burden of proof.”
Each statement is ambiguous as it contains two separate claims concerning God and the burden of proof.

If the P1 statement is meant to be a conjunction of the two claims there is a missing logical and operator where it should read “there is a God and you have the burden of proof.” and “there is no God and you have the burden of proof.”
Alternatively if the P1 statement is meant to be conditional there is a missing If then condition where it should read “If there is a God then you have the burden of proof.” and “If there is no God then you have the burden of proof.”

Since you introduced ¬P1 into the thread brings the ambiguity into context since the outcomes are different if P1 is a conjunction or conditional statement.
If P1 is a conjunction statement P1 ≡ A Λ B where A and B are the individual claims.
¬P1 ≡ ¬(A Λ B) ≡ ¬A V ¬B where Λ, V are the and, or logical operators respectively.
¬P1 should read “Either there is no God or you do not have the burden of proof.” and “Either there is a God or you do not have the burden of proof.

If P1 is a conditional statement P1 ≡ A → B where → is the if then operator and should read “If there is a God then you have the burden of proof.” and “If there is no God then you have the burden of proof.”
¬P1 ≡ ¬(A → B) ≡ A Λ ¬B.
¬P1 should read “God exists and you do not have the burden of proof.”, “God does not exist and you do not have the burden of proof.

When using mathematical logic one needs to be extremely careful with the terminology

 

[tonychanyt]

I have a problem with your P1 statements “there is a God, you have the burden of proof.” and “there is no God, you have the burden of proof.”

Let P1 = There is a God.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I have a problem with your P1 statements “there is a God, you have the burden of proof.” and “there is no God, you have the burden of proof.”
Each statement is ambiguous as it contains two separate claims concerning God and the burden of proof.

If the P1 statement is meant to be a conjunction of the two claims there is a missing logical and operator where it should read “there is a God and you have the burden of proof.” and “there is no God and you have the burden of proof.”
Alternatively if the P1 statement is meant to be conditional there is a missing If then condition where it should read “If there is a God then you have the burden of proof.” and “If there is no God then you have the burden of proof.”

Since you introduced ¬P1 into the thread brings the ambiguity into context since the outcomes are different if P1 is a conjunction or conditional statement.
If P1 is a conjunction statement P1 ≡ A Λ B where A and B are the individual claims.
¬P1 ≡ ¬(A Λ B) ≡ ¬A V ¬B where Λ, V are the and, or logical operators respectively.
¬P1 should read “Either there is no God or you do not have the burden of proof.” and “Either there is a God or you do not have the burden of proof.

If P1 is a conditional statement P1 ≡ A → B where → is the if then operator and should read “If there is a God then you have the burden of proof.” and “If there is no God then you have the burden of proof.”
¬P1 ≡ ¬(A → B) ≡ A Λ ¬B.
¬P1 should read “God exists and you do not have the burden of proof.”, “God does not exist and you do not have the burden of proof.

When using mathematical logic one needs to be extremely careful with the terminology

This would be so much more understandable if it was written in a proper language like Fortran.

 

[sjastro]

Let P1 = There is a God.

This one line answer is changing the subject.

 

[sjastro]

This would be so much more understandable if it was written in a proper language like Fortran.

Here is another one of my AI challenges using DeepSeek.

Write up code in Fortran using DeMorgan equations to derive the conjunction and conditional statements for ~P1, ~P2, ~P3, ~P4 where : P1 = “there is a God and you have the burden of proof.” P2 =“there is no God and you have the burden of proof.” P3 = “If there is a God then you have the burden of proof.” P4= “If there is no God then you have the burden of proof.”

Before providing the Fortran code I was admonished by DeepSeek for using the term DeMorgan equations instead of De Morgan's laws .
Referring to De Morgan gave DeepSeek the clue this was an exercise in mathematical logic.

program DeMorganLogic
implicit none

! Define atomic statements and their negations
character(len=30) :: A = "there is a God"
character(len=30) :: not_A = "there is no God"
character(len=30) :: B = "you have the burden of proof"
character(len=30) :: not_B = "you do not have the burden of proof"

! Define proposition type structure
type Proposition
character(len=2) :: name
character(len=11) :: stype ! 'conjunction' or 'conditional'
character(len=30) :: part1 ! First part of statement
character(len=30) :: part2 ! Second part of statement
end type Proposition

! Initialize propositions
type(Proposition) :: props(4)
props = [ &
Proposition('P1', 'conjunction', A, B), &
Proposition('P2', 'conjunction', not_A, B), &
Proposition('P3', 'conditional', A, B), &
Proposition('P4', 'conditional', not_A, B) & ]

character(len=100) :: negation, output_line
character(len=30) :: current_notA
integer :: i

! Process each proposition
do i = 1, 4
associate(p => props(i))
select case(p%stype)
case('conjunction')
! Apply De Morgan's Law: ¬(A ∧ B) ≡ ¬A ∨ ¬B
current_notA = merge(not_A, A, p%part1 == A)
negation = "Either " // trim(current_notA) // " or " // trim(not_B)

case('conditional')
! Negate conditional: ¬(A → B) ≡ A ∧ ¬B
negation = trim(p%part1) // " and " // trim(not_B)
end select

! Format output
output_line = "¬" // trim(p%name) // ": " // trim(negation)
print *, output_line
end associate
end do

end program DeMorganLogic

It was able to recognize the the conjunction and conditional statements and came up with the correct answers.

¬P1: Either there is no God or you do not have the burden of proof
¬P2: Either there is a God or you do not have the burden of proof
¬P3: there is a God and you do not have the burden of proof
¬P4: there is no God and you do not have the burden of proof

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here is another one of my AI challenges using DeepSeek.

Write up code in Fortran using DeMorgan equations to derive the conjunction and conditional statements for ~P1, ~P2, ~P3, ~P4 where : P1 = “there is a God and you have the burden of proof.” P2 =“there is no God and you have the burden of proof.” P3 = “If there is a God then you have the burden of proof.” P4= “If there is no God then you have the burden of proof.”

Before providing the Fortran code I was admonished by DeepSeek for using the term DeMorgan equations instead of De Morgan's laws .
Referring to De Morgan gave DeepSeek the clue this was an exercise in mathematical logic.



It was able to recognize the the conjunction and conditional statements and came up with the correct answers.

Fabulous. I think I almost understand it.

 

[tonychanyt]

This one line answer is changing the subject.

What is the subject?

 

[d taylor]

-

​

So Jesus states there is a God, then goes on and does a miracle.

 

[Larniavc]

Let P1 be a proposition.

Who has the burden of proof?

If A1 asserts P1, then A1 has the burden of proof.
If D1 denies P1, then D1 has the burden of proof.

Whoever asserts a claim, either positively or negatively, has the burden of proof.

If you say there is a God, you have the burden of proof.
If you say there is no God, you have the burden of proof.
If you say you don't know, then you don't have the burden of proof.

This is different from a legal court case, where you are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The accused does not need to prove his innocence.

Define ‘let’.

 

[sjastro]

What is the subject?

The subject in this case is your failure to address the flaws in your thread as described in post #23.

 

[tonychanyt]

The subject in this case is your failure to address the flaws in your thread as described in post #23.

What is the subject of this OP? This is the last time I have asked.

 

[sjastro]

What is the subject of this OP? This is the last time I have asked.

This is an all to familiar pattern I have noticed in your posting history of using red herrings.
If I'm supposed to take your question seriously it puts you in the absurd light of asking what the subject matter is given you are the originator of this thread.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What is the subject of this OP? This is the last time I have asked.

I assume that this "exposition" on formal logic and burden of proof (which is not in the scope of the board) is a preliminary to another thread where you will use the claims of this thread to support your position in some apologetic argument (which is very much not allowed here) on this sub-forum. As @sjastro has noted you did this already. First you posted a single post "thread" about Bayes theorem noting that it works if you don't insert arbitrary numbers into it. Then you created an apologetic thread (that was utterly off topic) where you inserted arbitrary numbers into Bayes theorem. I'm only mildly surprised that the forbidden thread hasn't been posted already. (or maybe you're just trying to hide it here under the sybolic logic.)

 

[The Barbarian]

Not Physical & Life Sciences

Right. Proof isn't part of science. One merely adds statistical confidence to the point that disagreement is unreasonable.

However, in all debates, the burden of evidence falls on the person making assertions or denials.