Posts: 8719
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
53
RE: WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
February 17, 2022 at 10:53 pm
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2022 at 12:13 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
(February 17, 2022 at 10:42 pm)Jehanne Wrote: (February 17, 2022 at 9:23 pm)Belacqua Wrote: I repeat: if someone is claiming the monster is real, and I want to discuss it with him, I will give reasons why I believe what I believe.
I don't believe; I suppose that there isn't too much to discuss. As for Jesus of Nazareth, I believe that he existed and was one of the David Koreshes of his day. The Romans knew, of course, exactly how to deal with such individuals, and dealt with him they did, without so much as a historical footnote, and no one else of his day bothered to notice, either. A few years after Jesus' crucifixion, Pontius Pilate ordered an aqueduct to be built.
As for smart people believing in weird things, lots of examples exist for that. I was a member of Mensa for a few years; lots of nutty ideas in that group of individuals.
Indeed, Jesus was nothing in the eyes of Rome. He was the least among us.
<insert profound quote here>
Posts: 12052
Threads: 30
Joined: December 8, 2019
Reputation:
14
RE: WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
February 17, 2022 at 11:19 pm
Quote:That's exactly right. That's why both sides have a responsibility to provide (what they consider to be) facts.
Nope only the side claiming something has that responsibility
Quote:"You can't prove X is false, therefore X is true" is obviously a ridiculous argument.
This is true
Quote:however
"You assert that X is true, and I reject that but I don't have to say why" is an evasion -- just a way of saying that you don't want to have a conversation.
Nope, it's you stating the reason you don't accept their claim and it's the only reason you need to reject a claim. You can still hear them out but that's it.
Quote:Neither tactic is acceptable in grown-up discussions.
Too bad the latter is not a tactic and yes it's totally acceptable. The negative position has no burden nor any need other than the lack of a reason to accept the claim.
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
![[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0630%2F5310%2F3332%2Fproducts%2FCanada_Flag.jpg%3Fv%3D1646203843)
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Posts: 4742
Threads: 13
Joined: September 27, 2018
Reputation:
16
RE: WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
February 17, 2022 at 11:29 pm
(This post was last modified: February 17, 2022 at 11:42 pm by Belacqua.)
(February 17, 2022 at 11:19 pm)Helios Wrote: yes it's totally acceptable.
You have the burden of proof to prove that this statement is true. I will need scientific evidence.
Posts: 12052
Threads: 30
Joined: December 8, 2019
Reputation:
14
RE: WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
February 17, 2022 at 11:53 pm
(This post was last modified: February 17, 2022 at 11:54 pm by The Architect Of Fate.)
Quote:You have the burden of proof to prove that this statement is true. I will need scientific evidence.
What more needs to be proved? I already stated the reason it's a valid method in discourse and no scientific is required for that.
Now you are free to reject the reason and that's fine but I'm afraid this attempt at a gotcha has not gone your way.
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Posts: 34008
Threads: 1429
Joined: March 15, 2013
Reputation:
152
RE: WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
February 18, 2022 at 12:33 am
When it comes to theistic philosophy, the burden of proof should only lie with the one making the positive claim of existence.
Have you ever seen a god? Can this god be experienced via any of the five senses. Is there an empirical way of showing this god exists?
The simple answer is no.
Therefore, realizing the god concept is as an imaginative idea as a unicorn should be all too apparent. And that should be the end. No amount of apologetics or philosophizing is going to make god a reality.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
Posts: 7259
Threads: 506
Joined: December 12, 2015
Reputation:
22
RE: WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
February 18, 2022 at 12:36 am
(February 17, 2022 at 10:53 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: (February 17, 2022 at 10:42 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I don't believe; I suppose that there isn't too much to discuss. As for Jesus of Nazareth, I believe that he existed and was one of the David Koreshes of his day. The Romans knew, of course, exactly how to deal with such individuals, and dealt with him they did, without so much as a historical footnote, and no one else of his day bothered to notice, either. A few years after Jesus' crucifixion, Pontius Pilate ordered an aqueduct to be built.
As for smart people believing in weird things, lots of examples exist for that. I was a member of Mensa for a few years; lots of nutty ideas in that group of individuals.
Indeed, Jesus was nothing in the eyes of Rome. He was the least among us.
They recognized a religious loon when they saw one; even Jesus' own family thought that he was nutty (Mark 3:21).
Posts: 4742
Threads: 13
Joined: September 27, 2018
Reputation:
16
RE: WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
February 18, 2022 at 1:19 am
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2022 at 1:20 am by Belacqua.)
(February 18, 2022 at 12:33 am)Foxaire Wrote: When it comes to theistic philosophy, the burden of proof should only lie with the one making the positive claim of existence.
Have you ever seen a god? Can this god be experienced via any of the five senses. Is there an empirical way of showing this god exists?
The simple answer is no.
Therefore, realizing the god concept is as an imaginative idea as a unicorn should be all too apparent. And that should be the end. No amount of apologetics or philosophizing is going to make god a reality.
Here you are giving your reasons for rejecting the claim that God exists.
The fact that (according to you) it has never been seen, experienced via the senses, or known empirically, is your counter evidence -- the reason you put forward as sufficient to deny the claim. (Actually you are saying the same thing three times, but it still constitutes a reason.) So you are not just saying that the burden of proof is on the believer -- you are arguing back. This is what I think we should all do.
Posts: 12052
Threads: 30
Joined: December 8, 2019
Reputation:
14
RE: WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
February 18, 2022 at 1:23 am
(February 18, 2022 at 12:33 am)Foxaire Wrote: When it comes to theistic philosophy, the burden of proof should only lie with the one making the positive claim of existence.
Have you ever seen a god? Can this god be experienced via any of the five senses. Is there an empirical way of showing this god exists?
The simple answer is no.
Therefore, realizing the god concept is as an imaginative idea as a unicorn should be all too apparent. And that should be the end. No amount of apologetics or philosophizing is going to make god a reality. Of course, you wouldn't need to go that far simply pointing out that no reason was giving to accept the claim is enough
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Posts: 3022
Threads: 5
Joined: September 21, 2018
Reputation:
33
RE: WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
February 18, 2022 at 3:03 am
(February 17, 2022 at 11:19 pm)Helios Wrote: Quote:That's exactly right. That's why both sides have a responsibility to provide (what they consider to be) facts.
Nope only the side claiming something has that responsibility
Quote:"You can't prove X is false, therefore X is true" is obviously a ridiculous argument.
This is true
Quote:however
"You assert that X is true, and I reject that but I don't have to say why" is an evasion -- just a way of saying that you don't want to have a conversation.
Nope, it's you stating the reason you don't accept their claim and it's the only reason you need to reject a claim. You can still hear them out but that's it.
Quote:Neither tactic is acceptable in grown-up discussions.
Too bad the latter is not a tactic and yes it's totally acceptable. The negative position has no burden nor any need other than the lack of a reason to accept the claim. I am starting to think Mr. "i am a super smart philosopher" actually doesnt understand the concept of burden of proof at all.
I apologize for insinuating he was dishonest.
Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Cetero censeo religionem delendam esse
Posts: 7259
Threads: 506
Joined: December 12, 2015
Reputation:
22
RE: WLC: "You can't prove the negative"
February 18, 2022 at 8:43 am
(February 18, 2022 at 1:19 am)Belacqua Wrote: (February 18, 2022 at 12:33 am)Foxaire Wrote: When it comes to theistic philosophy, the burden of proof should only lie with the one making the positive claim of existence.
Have you ever seen a god? Can this god be experienced via any of the five senses. Is there an empirical way of showing this god exists?
The simple answer is no.
Therefore, realizing the god concept is as an imaginative idea as a unicorn should be all too apparent. And that should be the end. No amount of apologetics or philosophizing is going to make god a reality.
Here you are giving your reasons for rejecting the claim that God exists.
The fact that (according to you) it has never been seen, experienced via the senses, or known empirically, is your counter evidence -- the reason you put forward as sufficient to deny the claim. (Actually you are saying the same thing three times, but it still constitutes a reason.) So you are not just saying that the burden of proof is on the believer -- you are arguing back. This is what I think we should all do.
That's fine, but many of us place God in the same category as the FSM.
|
