WLC: "You can't prove the negative"

[GUBU]

There is some video that youtube algorithm has been recommending to me LINK and that is how William Lane Craig is supposedly "owning" some atheist student who told him how god can't be disproved because "you can't prove the negative". To which WLC says it's not true and that you can prove the negative.

And then WLC gives examples, like:

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

Not really. One (scientists) can give great odds that there are no living T-Rexes but no one can prove 100% that some T-Rex is not hiding somewhere, the probability is extremely small, but it still exists. And indeed, there are some people who believe that dinosaurs still exist, or at least that they could exist.


"We can prove there are no Muslims in the US Senate"

And how can he prove that someone is not a secret Muslim in the senate? Not to mention that many Christians believe that Obama is (secretly) a Muslim because you can't prove with 100% certainty that Obama is not a secret Muslim.


"You can show that if something is self-contradicting that it can't exist"

In that case, God doesn't exist because as an omnipotent being he would have to be able to create a rock that he can't lift. But I guess you could always say "have you looked everywhere?" Even if something doesn't make sense it doesn't mean that it is 100% sure it doesn't exist.

And as a "self-contradicting" thing/ example he goes with:
"There are no married bachelors"

Well, I guess I could say "have you looked everywhere?" but this is wrong because it doesn't mean that if someone is married that he is not a bachelor. Take polygamists men - some guy has two wives, but is still looking for the third one and fourth wife - so he is in a way a bachelor.   Or men who are in gay marriage - an institution that Craig certainly doesn't acknowledge, so to him a gay man married to some other man is a bachelor.

So what do you think, is WLC right? Can one prove the negative, as he says, or does it go so far that one can only give good probabilities that something doesn't exist?

Of course Craig the idiot loves using the exact same argument when he tries to prove god.

---

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.

You're new here so I'll explain belaqua's modus operandi for you. He starts every argument from the premise that every single time he's right and you're wrong. He then "logically" deduces from that assumption that for him no amount of evidence is necessary and that from you no amount of evidence is sufficient. You'd sooner get blood out of a turnip than you'd get an admission of error from belaqua.

[Jehanne]

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.

Unless the elephant is invisible with Jedi mind control powers.

[Belacqua]

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".

I don't doubt that this is your experience of such discussions. I'm not saying you're wrong. 

No doubt I've come at this from a different background, and this has allowed me to avoid the kind of thing you describe. I'm also not very patient with people who are obviously silly or vulgar, so I just walk away from discussion with them and don't prolong the agony. 

I was raised completely without religion. We were in a small town but this was back in the old days before the Republicans weaponized Christianity, as described in the book What's the Matter with Kansas?. Religion was still considered a private thing, and I had no idea what anybody else thought. Nor had the "New Atheists" started to fight. Then as soon as I was able I ran to academia and the art world in big cities (Chicago, New York, London, Hiroshima), where atheism is pretty much the norm. 

When I first started discussing stuff like this on the Internet I was on a much bigger web site with more people and more diverse views (sadly, now defunct). As I say, I ignored the foolish people. There were three Christians who largely undid my prejudices about Christianity. 

One was an elderly woman who had been one of the first women to be ordained as a minister in her denomination. She was a brilliant and fascinating person. Her husband had been a lead editor of the DSM-3, and her son founded a famous rock band. 

There was also an economist who had worked in the Clinton White House. When his term ended, his wife got some kind of international job in Geneva and he took a few years off, which meant he had free time to discuss his religion with us. His theology was very much in the vein of Simone Weil and Martin Buber, so he was completely uninterested in proving the existence of supernatural entities, and he was pleased to find a church in Switzerland that was entirely in line with these beliefs.

And there was a nuclear physicist who was doing some kind of research in Europe. I don't know what it was exactly, but I expect I wouldn't have understood it. He was fluent in Russian and knew a lot about supercomputers. Like the economist, he saw Christianity more as a moral commitment and never tried to persuade us about metaphysical truths. He was Protestant but very much drawn to the Catholic aesthetics he saw in Europe.

And there was a guy who was doing his PhD in philosophy at the University of Chicago. He wasn't religious at all, but he knew about the "God of the Philosophers," Prime Mover arguments, and things like that, so he could tell us what these arguments really say, as opposed to the caricatures we usually see.

With all of these people we just had conversations. No one was interested in debate formalities or Robert's Rules of Order, so no one ever mentioned burdens of proof. 

All this time I was working on my doctorate in the philosophy of art, and doing (far more than I had imagined when I began) research on the relationship between theology and aesthetics. So there were lots of seminars where religion was discussed, and if anyone in an academic setting had tried to offload the burden of proof onto someone else, rather than make his own case, he would have been laughed at.

[Cavalry]

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".

I don't doubt that this is your experience of such discussions. I'm not saying you're wrong. 

No doubt I've come at this from a different background, and this has allowed me to avoid the kind of thing you describe. I'm also not very patient with people who are obviously silly or vulgar, so I just walk away from discussion with them and don't prolong the agony. 

I was raised completely without religion. We were in a small town but this was back in the old days before the Republicans weaponized Christianity, as described in the book What's the Matter with Kansas?. Religion was still considered a private thing, and I had no idea what anybody else thought. Nor had the "New Atheists" started to fight. Then as soon as I was able I ran to academia and the art world in big cities (Chicago, New York, London, Hiroshima), where atheism is pretty much the norm. 

When I first started discussing stuff like this on the Internet I was on a much bigger web site with more people and more diverse views (sadly, now defunct). As I say, I ignored the foolish people. There were three Christians who largely undid my prejudices about Christianity. 

One was an elderly woman who had been one of the first women to be ordained as a minister in her denomination. She was a brilliant and fascinating person. Her husband had been a lead editor of the DSM-3, and her son founded a famous rock band. 

There was also an economist who had worked in the Clinton White House. When his term ended, his wife got some kind of international job in Geneva and he took a few years off, which meant he had free time to discuss his religion with us. His theology was very much in the vein of Simone Weil and Martin Buber, so he was completely uninterested in proving the existence of supernatural entities, and he was pleased to find a church in Switzerland that was entirely in line with these beliefs.

And there was a nuclear physicist who was doing some kind of research in Europe. I don't know what it was exactly, but I expect I wouldn't have understood it. He was fluent in Russian and knew a lot about supercomputers. Like the economist, he saw Christianity more as a moral commitment and never tried to persuade us about metaphysical truths. He was Protestant but very much drawn to the Catholic aesthetics he saw in Europe.

And there was a guy who was doing his PhD in philosophy at the University of Chicago. He wasn't religious at all, but he knew about the "God of the Philosophers," Prime Mover arguments, and things like that, so he could tell us what these arguments really say, as opposed to the caricatures we usually see.

With all of these people we just had conversations. No one was interested in debate formalities or Robert's Rules of Order, so no one ever mentioned burdens of proof. 

All this time I was working on my doctorate in the philosophy of art, and doing (far more than I had imagined when I began) research on the relationship between theology and aesthetics. So there were lots of seminars where religion was discussed, and if anyone in an academic setting had tried to offload the burden of proof onto someone else, rather than make his own case, he would have been laughed at.

We are not debating. We're discussing philosophy. Burden of proof in philosophy is connected to the loch ness statement/example you gave. Do you agree it's silly for someone to claim that the LN monster is real because you cannot prove it isn't real?

[Foxaèr]

Do you agree it's silly for someone to claim that the LN monster is real because you cannot prove it isn't real?

Assuredly. Anyone claiming otherwise is being intellectually disingenuous, not philosophical.

[arewethereyet]

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".

I don't doubt that this is your experience of such discussions. I'm not saying you're wrong. 

No doubt I've come at this from a different background, and this has allowed me to avoid the kind of thing you describe. I'm also not very patient with people who are obviously silly or vulgar, so I just walk away from discussion with them and don't prolong the agony. 

I was raised completely without religion. We were in a small town but this was back in the old days before the Republicans weaponized Christianity, as described in the book What's the Matter with Kansas?. Religion was still considered a private thing, and I had no idea what anybody else thought. Nor had the "New Atheists" started to fight. Then as soon as I was able I ran to academia and the art world in big cities (Chicago, New York, London, Hiroshima), where atheism is pretty much the norm. 

When I first started discussing stuff like this on the Internet I was on a much bigger web site with more people and more diverse views (sadly, now defunct). As I say, I ignored the foolish people. There were three Christians who largely undid my prejudices about Christianity. 

One was an elderly woman who had been one of the first women to be ordained as a minister in her denomination. She was a brilliant and fascinating person. Her husband had been a lead editor of the DSM-3, and her son founded a famous rock band. 

There was also an economist who had worked in the Clinton White House. When his term ended, his wife got some kind of international job in Geneva and he took a few years off, which meant he had free time to discuss his religion with us. His theology was very much in the vein of Simone Weil and Martin Buber, so he was completely uninterested in proving the existence of supernatural entities, and he was pleased to find a church in Switzerland that was entirely in line with these beliefs.

And there was a nuclear physicist who was doing some kind of research in Europe. I don't know what it was exactly, but I expect I wouldn't have understood it. He was fluent in Russian and knew a lot about supercomputers. Like the economist, he saw Christianity more as a moral commitment and never tried to persuade us about metaphysical truths. He was Protestant but very much drawn to the Catholic aesthetics he saw in Europe.

And there was a guy who was doing his PhD in philosophy at the University of Chicago. He wasn't religious at all, but he knew about the "God of the Philosophers," Prime Mover arguments, and things like that, so he could tell us what these arguments really say, as opposed to the caricatures we usually see.

With all of these people we just had conversations. No one was interested in debate formalities or Robert's Rules of Order, so no one ever mentioned burdens of proof. 

All this time I was working on my doctorate in the philosophy of art, and doing (far more than I had imagined when I began) research on the relationship between theology and aesthetics. So there were lots of seminars where religion was discussed, and if anyone in an academic setting had tried to offload the burden of proof onto someone else, rather than make his own case, he would have been laughed at.

I would take the time to say 'Wow, you really have lived a fascinating life." But, it seems you are impressed enough for both of us, and then some.

[Belacqua]

Do you agree it's silly for someone to claim that the LN monster is real because you cannot prove it isn't real?

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.

[Cavalry]

Do you agree it's silly for someone to claim that the LN monster is real because you cannot prove it isn't real?

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.

All good for a tea party. Philosophically, not so much. Maybe try off topic thread or facebook. On an atheist forum philosophy thread I assume people want to discuss facts and proofs not their personal beliefs.

---

I could be wrong though, maybe fantasies and beliefs do have their space in philosophy. I'm not an expert.

[Belacqua]

I assume people want to discuss facts and proofs not their personal beliefs.

That's exactly right. That's why both sides have a responsibility to provide (what they consider to be) facts.

"You can't prove X is false, therefore X is true" is obviously a ridiculous argument.

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.

Neither tactic is acceptable in grown-up discussions.

[Jehanne]

Do you agree it's silly for someone to claim that the LN monster is real because you cannot prove it isn't real?

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.