RE: You can't prove a negative (parody)
April 8, 2013 at 7:08 pm
(This post was last modified: April 8, 2013 at 7:09 pm by Mystic.)
(April 8, 2013 at 6:59 pm)Darkstar Wrote:(April 8, 2013 at 6:53 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Yet it would not prove the universe exists. In fact, in philosophy, it's pretty much admitted, you can't prove physical world exists. It's a properly basic belief.
Yes, that is true, for properly basic beliefs. But how does this apply to things that can be proven?
Well properly basic beliefs can be both properly basic and possibly proven.
For example, right now, it's a properly basic belief. However you die, and then you come to know it is real, because it is revealed to you by the Creator which you come to know is truthful.
So it can be proven, even though it's a properly basic belief.
It is the Job of the Creator or everyone who believes in a properly basic belief, to prove it? No.
It's not the burden of anyone to prove the physical universe exists if they want to believe in that.
Furthermore, if someone denied the physical universe existing or said he doesn't believe it exists, they are allowed to wonder "Well why the heck do you believe that?".
And perhaps there is a reasonable explanation, perhaps not.
If the person responded "The burden of proof is on you to show it exists, not on me to show it doesn't exist or why I don't believe it doesn't", how does it sound?
It sounds very irrational right? Perhaps there is a rational explanation the person has.
Perhaps he says, well I don't think it exists because of x and y or don't believe it exists because of x and y, and understands that it's counter intuitive to not believe in the physical existence of the universe.
Which one sounds like a more reasonable human being?
