Today, we're going to be discussing this little bit of wonderful glossolalia.
This is going to be fun.
A funny thing happens with the concept of the "burden of proof." People keep claiming over and over that the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the positive claim.
I'm not sure what's so funny about this, but it's correct.
They claim this repeatedly;
It isn't a claim. You're conflating that word with another here to try to make your point seem more valid than it actually is. That's several fallacies all at once, but most importantly it's the fallacy by conflation. Here's a
nice wikipedia page on the very subject. Also, as you'll see soon enough, the author presumes that her god existing is the null hypothesis, which it is not. Until evidence arises for whichever god(s) she's believing in (presumably the Jesus one), the null hypothesis remains
that there is no god. There's equally much evidence to support any god, and many mythical characters who aren't gods, like Beowulf or Odysseus. However, until we find evidence independent of someone's story, the null hypothesis is that they were not real.
so by their own principle, the burden of proof should lie with them to prove their claim that the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim.
Sure, we just did. The null hypothesis is that all gods are equally probable, including the absence of a god. It is from this point we present our evidence. Christians like to claim a global flood, but stratified rock is a clear example of evidence against that god. Greco-Roman Pantheists will claim that from Chaos (the deity) appeared Gaea (the literal, living god who is earth), but the fact that the Earth doesn't appear to be a god is evidence against this.
Again, as Eve failed to discuss the null hypothesis, it's understandable why she might not understand the significance of burden of proof, or how to prove who has it. Even if the null hypothesis were that a god exists, there is currently no evidence to support that assertion, but plenty against. With regard to Christianity, for example, we have a distinct lack of reports of the sun being gone for three days. We do, however, have texts from that time period, none of which anywhere in the world mentioned this particular phenomenon. Most things in the bible do not have evidence to support them, therefore the null hypothesis would become invalid and the previous null hypothesis (there are no gods) would return.
And yes, they consistently refuse [to] do this. Why is that?
I'm not refusing here, exactly as others have tried to explain this to you, but keep ignoring that. Also, about that evidence you were discussing, isn't this a positive claim?
My guess i that they don't really mean...lies with the one who makes the claim
This part is more of that positive claim she's making. Which, oddly enough, applying her logic earlier, she hasn't proven why she (or anyone else) has such burden.
I've yet to see anything beyond mere (and repeated) assertion.
Well, that's some top-tier pot-kettle right there, folks.
But an ad-naseum fallacy is not an argument. Something doesn't become true after being repeated many times.
Oh really?
What was it she said up there again? Repeating a thing over and over doesn't make it true? Repeatedly saying that someone is wrong
because they disagree with you is not an argument. I'm glad we agree there. Arguing that you don't like the way logic works, over and over, doesn't actually prove that logic doesn't work. You see, when you claim someone's got a fallacy, you've got to try to explain why, even by your own logic. The picture you posted in the first tweet doesn't do that, and now I'm explaining why. In fact, it's pretty self-referential, your picture, because it just keeps repeating your assertions without breaking them down logically.
Argumentum Ad Naseum, as it were.
Also, most people who use "burden of proof" talk seem to be hypocrites engaged in special pleading...
You're the one ignoring the null hypothesis, and then repeatedly telling everyone else they're wrong. I agree, that is kinda hypocritical, and a clear use of the special pleading fallacy...
...asking for special exemption from having to give arguments for their own position...
Maybe she'll explain why it's an error of reification, maybe not. Just for fun, let's see what 'God' means. According to
Merriam-Webster,
1: a being having superhuman powers and control over a particular part of life or the world <in some belief systems, natural forces like the wind and the sea (are) gods>
Synonyms: divinity, deity
2: (cap) the being worshipped as the creator and ruler of the universe <let us give thanks to God>
Synonyms: Allah, Almighty, Author, Creator, Divinity, Eternal, Everlasting, Father, God, Godhead, Jehova, Lord, Maker, Providence, Supreme Being, Yahweh
So, again, asserting that your god doesn't fall into the category of all gods
is not a category error, because anything which can be described within those confines is a god.
...while demanding their opponents do so.
See also: Eve's entire feed, more or less.
The rational response to special pleading is, of course, "No."
That's kinda been our entire point. Thanks for at least saving me the trouble of making that point!
Note on Theism/Atheism: ...There is an entire anthology of essays...
Unless one of those essays references something other than the bible (again, I'm presuming you're attempting to defend YHWH, though you've not said so directly), it's not evidence. If you don't understand why, perhaps see my Secular Sunday School responses, both here (the past couple entries) or on my youtube channel,
here and
here.
I think I'll leave it there for today. She had a TL:DR on her thing that was half as long as her original post. Here's a better way.
TL;DR: If you want to prove who has the burden of proof, start by defining the null hypothesis.
