You can't prove a negative (parody)

[Mystic]

The physical universe can be just an experience with the five senses.
I deny the physical universe existing.
The burden of proof is on you to show it truly exists.

I can't show it doesn't exist, but I don't need to, since you can't prove a negative. The burden is on you to show it exists.

After all, is it the burden of me to show an invisible dragon doesn't exist in your room right now? Nope.

Have fun.

(I do this parody, because really, it's getting silly this repeated none-sense)

[Nine]

The universe doesn't exist. Were all just playing pretend.

[CapnAwesome]

The difference is that the universe can be measured and the results can be shown to you. God can't be measured. I think most people simplify this argument, it's not that you have to positively prove something to an individual. You have to show that something is capable of existing. Anything that exists can be measured in some way, whether that is light spectrum or electronic weight. Since most Theists agree that there is no way to measure God I think they would be better off just admitting that they believe in his existence on faith rather than even bother with the evidence.

It's really an oversimplification of the argument although I don't blame you, since most people using it over simplify it as well.

[Mystic]

The difference is that the universe can be measured and the results can be shown to you.

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.

You have to show that something is capable of existing.

Show me it's possible for the physical universe to exist. Prove it ontologically. Prove it's not the case that only spiritual existence is ontologically possible and we are not just experiencing the physical world like a computer simulation (game).

It's really an oversimplification of the argument although I don't blame you, since most people using it over simplify it as well.

It's just plugging a different thing, to show it's absurdity.

[Darkstar]

The difference is that the universe can be measured and the results can be shown to you.

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?

[CapnAwesome]

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.

Well now we are just talking about degrees of certainty. Lets say I measure the radiation levels of the sun, I measure it's light waves, I measure the gravity effect it has on us. Can I say with absolute certainty that it exists? No. I could posit that it's a very complex hallucination or I'm in the Matrix, etc. However what's the evidence for either of those? Nothing. It's the same with God. That's why I think the argument is not absurd. Dealing with things in a strictly black and white 100% or 0% terms is the only way in which the argument can be made to look absurd. Since that's not the case, and things have various probabilities, it stands.

[Mystic]

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?

[Anomalocaris]

The physical universe can be just an experience with the five senses.
I deny the physical universe existing.
The burden of proof is on you to show it truly exists.

I can't show it doesn't exist, but I don't need to, since you can't prove a negative. The burden is on you to show it exists.

After all, is it the burden of me to show an invisible dragon doesn't exist in your room right now? Nope.

Have fun.

(I do this parody, because really, it's getting silly this repeated none-sense)

When I beat you to a pulp with a club, you can explain to yourself how the universe in which this is drubbing is happening has not been proven to exist.

[Mystic]

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.

Well now we are just talking about degrees of certainty. Lets say I measure the radiation levels of the sun, I measure it's light waves, I measure the gravity effect it has on us. Can I say with absolute certainty that it exists? No. I could posit that it's a very complex hallucination or I'm in the Matrix, etc. However what's the evidence for either of those? Nothing. It's the same with God. That's why I think the argument is not absurd. Dealing with things in a strictly black and white 100% or 0% terms is the only way in which the argument can be made to look absurd. Since that's not the case, and things have various probabilities, it stands.

You can measure how tall Mario is in Mario 64 relative to the pixel, it doesn't mean it's a real world at all. You haven't even show it's possible for physical world to exist, let alone evidence that it does exist.

[Darkstar]

It is the Job of the Creator or everyone who believes in a properly basic belief, to prove it? No.

But if it is properly basic, why would it be denied (by sane people)?

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 unusual, but there is nothing to be gained from denying the existence of the universe. Would we not still act in the same way regardless? What evidence is there that the universe doesn't exist? (And if it does not, how are we capable of thought?)

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?

Some counter-intuitive things are true, but there still doesn't appear to be any reason to doubt the existence of the universe.

---

You can measure how tall Mario is in Mario 64 relative to the pixel, it doesn't mean it's a real world at all. You haven't even show it's possible for physical world to exist, let alone evidence that it does exist.

Mario can't actually think, so he couldn't even ponder these questions in the first place.