WLC: "You can't prove the negative"

[DLJ]

...
"We can prove there are no living T-Rexes"
...

Well, I'm no expert but... Nessie.

[Belacqua]

We had a recent thread about how the burden of proof works.

Some people seem to think it's a law, as if it was handed down by Moses, or is some kind of law of nature. Others disagree. It may not be as self-evident as it seems.

I gave a bit of reasoning to why the burden of proof is where I said it was. Not sure you if think I'm using it as you mentioned. Then again you did post "some people" use it that way, maybe you're shading someone who you don't like in hopes they are reading.

Anyway, same thing applies to proof of gods/relgion. We shouldn't try to prove "there is no god" because that's impossible, and leaves the imagination to insert any number of gods, monsters, mythical creatures. If a god is proposed, whether it be by viking pagan seers or a monotheistic prophet, the burden of proof would be on the one claiming there is a god.

Burden of proof is an important principle in the legal system. It protects the innocent.

When adults are talking in good faith, they can describe their beliefs and give reasons for them. If you feel that religious claims are something we shouldn't accept, I assume you have reasons why you think so, and can articulate these reasons. Obviously you wouldn't want to have this opinion for no reason at all.

Here I'm talking about people who are discussing what they think, not people who are trying to "win" a debate on the Internet.

If I met someone who sincerely believed in the Loch Ness Monster, I would be able to explain why I think he's probably wrong.

[Cavalry]

I gave a bit of reasoning to why the burden of proof is where I said it was. Not sure you if think I'm using it as you mentioned. Then again you did post "some people" use it that way, maybe you're shading someone who you don't like in hopes they are reading.

Anyway, same thing applies to proof of gods/relgion. We shouldn't try to prove "there is no god" because that's impossible, and leaves the imagination to insert any number of gods, monsters, mythical creatures. If a god is proposed, whether it be by viking pagan seers or a monotheistic prophet, the burden of proof would be on the one claiming there is a god.

Burden of proof is an important principle in the legal system. It protects the innocent.

When adults are talking in good faith, they can describe their beliefs and give reasons for them. If you feel that religious claims are something we shouldn't accept, I assume you have reasons why you think so, and can articulate these reasons. Obviously you wouldn't want to have this opinion for no reason at all.

Here I'm talking about people who are discussing what they think, not people who are trying to "win" a debate on the Internet.

If I met someone who sincerely believed in the Loch Ness Monster, I would be able to explain why I think he's probably wrong.

Yes the same or similar explanation on why they're probably wrong can be applied to other imaginative beings like god and santa. 

But then they hit you with "you cannot prove there is no Loch Ness Monster" and eventually you'd need to explain to them that that's not how it works and will probably involve burden of proof being mentioned. Then in your discussion they hit you with "I'm trying to discuss not win internet debates".

[Belacqua]

Yes the same or similar explanation on why they're probably wrong can be applied to other imaginative beings like god and santa. 

But then they hit you with "you cannot prove there is no Loch Ness Monster" and eventually you'd need to explain to them that that's not how it works and will probably involve burden of proof being mentioned. Then in your discussion they hit you with "I'm trying to discuss not win internet debates".

It seems as if you've had many such experiences. Mine have been different.

[Deesse23]

Yes the same or similar explanation on why they're probably wrong can be applied to other imaginative beings like god and santa. 

But then they hit you with "you cannot prove there is no Loch Ness Monster" and eventually you'd need to explain to them that that's not how it works and will probably involve burden of proof being mentioned. Then in your discussion they hit you with "I'm trying to discuss not win internet debates".

It seems as if you've had many such experiences. Mine have been different.

Noticed his evasion? Root cause is his dishonesty.
Bel does not like others to throw around their ideas unchallenged. Quod licet Bel non licet bovi.

[Jehanne]

So Craig is correct in what he says both about T. Rexes and married bachelors.

Agreed. Craig is correct about married bachelors but not about invisible Loch Ness monsters with mind control powers.

[polymath257]

Craig is an opportunistic moron; I saw the video years ago.  Mathematicians have this statement, "In general..."; and, in general, one cannot prove a negative.

Of course it is possible to prove a negative.

For example, there is no rational number whose square is 2. There is no injective function for the power set of a set into that set. There is no continuous injective function from the circle to the line.

To get away from math, there is no adult african elephant living in my kitchen. In this case, absence of evidence (is* evidence of absence.

Craig is right that it *can* be possible to prove a negative. But, in order to do so, the basic concepts need to be very precisely defined and the range of applicability needs to be strictly distinguished.

And yes, Craig is an opportunistic moron who likes to spout off about things he clearly does not understand. His arguments about infinity and Hilbert's Hotel are classic ignorance.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It seems as if you've had many such experiences. Mine have been different.

Noticed his evasion? Root cause is his dishonesty.
Bel does not like others to throw around their ideas unchallenged. Quod licet Bel non licet bovi.

IRL I do not talk about religion with strangers and have also never heard a believer huff and say you cannot prove god doesn't exist. But it is a commonly reported experience among AF membets. YMMV What I can say is that every time I hear the story told, "you cannot prove god exists" happens at the end of the debate. And to me, it sounds like an exasperated theist wanting to be left alone by an incessent preachy athiest, as in "Guy, you don't know everything and have to be right all the time."

[polymath257]

Noticed his evasion? Root cause is his dishonesty.
Bel does not like others to throw around their ideas unchallenged. Quod licet Bel non licet bovi.

IRL I do not talk about religion with strangers and have also never heard a believer huff and say you cannot prove god doesn't exist. But it is a commonly reported experience among AF membets. YMMV What I can say is that every time I hear the story told, "you cannot prove god exists" happens at the end of the debate. And to me, it sounds like an exasperated theist wanting to be left alone by an incessent preachy athiest, as in "Guy, you don't know everything and have to be right all the time."

I have had many people lead with that claim you can't prove God does not exist, as if it was conclusive that belief in God is a reasonable position.

Generally, holding the belief in God to the same standards of evidence as, say, whether vaccines work, leads to fulmination among many believers. Most clearly believe that God is a 'special case'.

[Deesse23]

Noticed his evasion? Root cause is his dishonesty.
Bel does not like others to throw around their ideas unchallenged. Quod licet Bel non licet bovi.

IRL I do not talk about religion with strangers and have also never heard a believer huff and say you cannot prove god doesn't exist. But it is a commonly reported experience among AF membets. YMMV What I can say is that every time I hear the story told, "you cannot prove god exists" happens at the end of the debate. And to me, it sounds like an exasperated theist wanting to be left alone by an incessent preachy athiest, as in "Guy, you don't know everything and have to be right all the time."

I have no problem with entertaining ideas. I have no issue with other people entertaining other ideas. I have no issue with entertaining ideas together with people. Its not necessary to prove something in order to properly entertain ideas ("do philosophy"). Many of those ideas have a possibility to turn out to be true, and many actually turned out to be true.

Now, everyone is entitled to have a different standard as to what does it require until he accepts some idea as being true*. That being a given, noone is entitled to prescribe what everyone else should have as a standard, ok? Bel can have his standards, and i have mine. We are both free to choose.
But when our epistemology is (for the sake of argument) is exactly the same, but i have an additional requirement, and that requirement is observation/proof/evidence, not just mere thought and conjecture, then i happen to have a higher standard, a factually higher standard, its not a matter of opinion.
Ans thats where i am starting to have problems with (people) like Bel. He is projecting his own smug arrogance (your mileage may vary) onto others and accuses them of elitarianism, of trying to shut down conversation by asking for evidence, when its clear that Bel wants to have his own ideas (and epistemology) be taken as least on par, if not being superior to anyone else.

Sorry, but higher standard is higher standard. Not my fault Bel chooses to stick to lower standards (aka puts less effort in trying to learn what is true and what not). Hell, if he wasnt so smugly full of himself, i (any maybe others) wouldnt try to pull him back down to (common) ground by asking for evidence. I could be completely happy with discussing and entertaining whatever idea is his favourite pet. Aquinas, metaphysics. Fascinating stuff. For some reason however, its not sufficient to him for his ideas to be treated equal, he seems to have a need to come out superior. But sorry, not with lower standards than everyone else.

He can throw around any idea around here if he wants. But asking them to be taken as being true while making less effort to investigate (compared to others´) if they actually are true, and that in such a thinly veiled condescending manner, sorry, that doesnt fly, at least for me.

* no big sideshow please about what "true" means. Lets stick to the good old "What comports with reality as we all experience and observe it commonly/together", for sake of simplicity.