Butters

Clearly we think about snag potential differently. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

No problem with that. You have no reason to believe that God exists and no proof that God doesn't exist. All this means is that in future claims you can't use the existence/non-existence of God as proof for the future claim. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

If you make the claim that God exists then the burden of proof is on you. The opposite is true, if you claim that God doesn't exist then the burden of proof is also on you. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I think the confusion lies in the difference between asking for proof of a claim and making a contrary claim. If you present me with a claim and I ask for proof, I am not making a contrary claim, and the burden of proof is on you. If you lack proof then your claim is false. If I make a contrary claim then the burden of proof is on me. If your claim is false it does not make my claim true. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I'm fully aware that the human body can be described in terms of sensors, processors, and actuators and that our perception of reality is based on our sensors and processors. Our "inside" world may not be an accurate representation of the "outside". However, by using the scientific method we have been able to deduce that the "outside" world exists and is independent of our "inside" world. As you mentioned before, just because you don't like it doesn't make it so. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

If you use (at any point) "to me" in regards to your evidence then it's subjective. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I'll give you a hint how you can test such a thing, it's called ... the scientific method. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

that's the point - the truly faithful should not feel compelled to make these claims - if they had strong enough convictions. It's all about recruitment (or ego) - or it wouldn't be necessary ditto for the anti-religious As mentioned, the video uses religion as context but this thread is not about religion it's about making claims and bearing the burden of proof. There are plenty of other topics in Speakers Corner (and elsewhere) where individuals are making claims ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

No they don't. Yes they do. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it so. You're correct, it doesn't matter if someone likes the evidence but it does matter whether the evidence is subjective or objective. Do you have any objective evidence? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Do you understand why this is an invalid argument? This shows that you have faith (or believe) that your doctor is looking out for you best interests but it does nothing to prove it. As before, you should reread what I wrote and what I was responding to. You've missed the point entirely. I'll break it down so you don't have to guess and make assumptions. It was stated that faith is belief without evidence. I was stating that as far as the OT/NT is concerned, that is not nor ever has been the case for the usage and understanding of "faith" in either the Greek or Hebrew texts. I then went to explain that the real usage was more synonymous with what we consider "trust". Big, big difference. I didn't miss the point. Faith (or trust) can be devoid of proof. Good, great, grand. The thread is about making a claim and bearing the burden of proof ... you missed the thread. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

nonsense, in matters of faith, neither "side" has a burden of proof at all. they just have their positions there isn't even a constructive purpose for the debate They can have their position (faith). However, when a claim is made then the individual making the claim bears the burden of proof which must be satisfied before using the claim to make other claims. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Do you understand why this is an invalid argument? This shows that you have faith (or believe) that your doctor is looking out for you best interests but it does nothing to prove it. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Do you understand the difference between subjective and objective? An individual should supply objective evidence to substantiate their claim. Do you have any objective evidence? Regarding religion, there are individuals on both sides who are steadfast in their beliefs regardless of proof. However, that does not change who bears the burden of proof. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Did you watch the video? I ask because this question shows that you do not understand who bears the burden of proof. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

While the video was in regards to religion the thread is about burden of proof in general. I understand, you don't require proof to distinguish between reality and fantasy. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Watch this if you're confused about who bears the burden of proof ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Something like this would be more snag resistant (especially if the screw wasn't protruding from the mount. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

First, congratulation on making your own mount. Second, why didn't you make a more snag resistant mount? PS: I've been wanting a 3D printer for a while (for things like this). "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Wow, that is fast. I was debating between upgrading my Phantom 2 or getting a Ghost 3 and went with the Ghost 3 ... can't wait for it to arrive so I can begin putting it through its paces. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

My arms feel tired just thinking about it ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

In aviation is a controlled crash considered a landing? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Exiting in a large suit with wings wide open ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Watch out in the pattern when people start to upload their photos and videos before landing ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Ding, ding, ding ... we have a winner. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I've heard it and said it but that suit comes close to proving it ... we fly the smallest canopies from inside the cells. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch