When burden of proof applies.
Something interesting I noticed.
When something is established as "true" the burden of proof will be on those trying to disprove it.
For court, if the cops says they did x, y and z, the burden of proof doesn't rest on the cop but the defense attorney to disprove it. Evidence>any claim or testimony.
We can say truth>perceived truth>authority>claim with regular arguments.
For a claim anyone can make a claim. Doesn't mean jack if there is not some type of truth to it. So the burden relies here first.
Authority generally is genuinely has a decent grasp of truth. Even if they are wrong, they'll still be considered correct unless a claim's "proof" is just accurate to deny. Simple example scary tiny goblins liveing on your body. Authority in science laughed at the person making this claim, but because of him we now know about bacteria.
With truth and perceived truth we get into something a little tricky. We can never truly know the truth. Even if our perception is 1:1 the fact that we know, doesn't mean our knowledge is absolute. If something, anything changes from the absolute that we didn't know about then our knowledge needs to adapt.
When arguing with a religious person, an atheist will just put the burden of proof on God. But here is a claim that puts the burden on the atheist.
God is everything. Simple claim but not believable. So here is the truth to back this up.
Anything that exists either exists as a standalone existence or because of something else. This can't be disproven. Just like the mona lisa, that exists because of something else that being paint as the medium for its existence. Even this post relies on electricity as a medium.
We also can claim since you can take the mona lisa and other paintings stack them like a tower of cards, something that exists because of another existence can also be a medium for something else as well.
Two more important claims that can't be denied. Anything that exists due to a medium must obey the medium, this is none negotiable. And anything that exists due to a medium doesn't truly exist for its an idea.
For 2, it's an ideal and always has been. After all get two of anything like an apple. That is 1 apple + 1 apple. So we simplify it down to 2. But those apples aren't equal to each other. You'll probably never find two apples that are perfectly the same. In other words everything we named unless it equals itself 100% of the time is nothing more than an idea based on the shape of the medium. Just like a human, we aren't the same but we share similarities forming this idea we call human. As long as something close enough, we can edit our ideas to accommodate a variety of changes. Just like how someone who only saw red apples can accommodate for green apples. Since it's the perception of truth that has to bend the knee to truth.
After all none of us can truly defy our medium of existence. If we could we could just jump to the moon. This is where the idea of god was ultimately created from.
Even tho we know more about atoms, sub particles and all that stuff. People in the past figured out we must have a medium to exist on. Even phythagrious created the term monad for this. But we can reach a simple conclusion.
Everything we know exists because of some the medium that is used to create us is everywhere. Could it be quarks lepton and what not? Possibly but that could also break down further and we don't know about that yet. But that part doesn't matter. Those things, we can't defy them since it's what creates us.
Probably even noticed how I worded some things, kinda sounds like I'm saying sub particles are conscious. But this is what people don't get about god.
GOD IS NOT A CONSCIOUS ENDITY.
It's just the medium that exists as a standalone existence used to create everything else from. Just pure random chaos from the beginning of existence to now
But no one can deny this standalone existence that Pythagoras called monad and what I call god. Since to do that is to claim an ideal can exist without a medium. Like 2 can exist without 1+1. For those "smarty pants" who say that 2 exists without a 1+1. That 2 and this one exist because of who knows how many basic building blocks of existence ala god/monad allows it to exist. Far more than just 1 electron plus one more electron .
You can make the argument "you know this is not the gid we are talking about right?" With a rebuttal of this is the same god. People of the past did figure this stuff out since they understood it. But you can pass knowledge down, not understanding. So people who knew this didn't understand the logic reaching these ideas so over time it simply got twisted. That is all.
Even something like god is all knowing, all love and all good makes sense with this because removing absolutely everything. Whats left? Nothing, no good, knowledge, or even love. In other words god existence enables all love, all knowledge and all good to exist. Just like how electricity enables this post to take place.
