Burden of proof (philosophy)

I would say Darth Vader doesn't actually think. He may say that he does, but that's not the same thing. His actor thinks, but that is if anything proof that the actor exists, not Dart Vader. Similarly us thinking about a person who thinks is not the same as that person thinking. It also depends on what we mean by exist. If I think of a person who thinks "I think therefore I am" counts as thinking, then I could say being thought of by me counts as existing.

Gets a bit confusing either way.

 

Is "I'm not dead" not a negative assertion?

 

I would like to refer to it properly, and I don't want to be accused of pointing out the wrong argument. Most of what I've seen you show has been just saying it over and over. There was also something about any information being subjective, but that's no more a problem for negative statements than it is for positive ones.

 

Well, I guess I see no reason to get into muddy waters around what a negative claim and how to treat it if a positive claim is available.

 

yes, but you are proving the positive assertion "I am alive".

 

then read the thread. I have no obligation to keep posting the same refutations over and over.

 

Is that in itself not a proof that I am not dead?

 

This could be the argument you refer to, but I have dealt with it by amending "visible" to the problem. You went on for a while about things not being in the visible spectrum or too small to see, even though I had resolved it through the addition of the word "visible". You then refrained from replying to my post, so I'm not sure what your argument was or how you tried to resolve mine.

So, to some extent, I'm worried that you're thinking about some technicality which I haven't included (like the visibility thing, I thought it was obvious that it could be added, so I left it out, maybe there is a similar amendment for whatever complaint you have now). However, I found the following

Someone else complained about that the unicorn might be an illusion, so it doesn't seem like you complaint is just a technicality. It seems to me that in so far as looking in the box and finding a unicorn is a proof of a unicorn in the box, looking in it and finding no unicorn is proof that it is not there. We can set aside illusions and the like (or add them if we feel like it, but I think that's mostly going to be a waste of time).

So in what sense is looking in the box and finding no unicorn not a proof that there is no unicorn in the box? I see no possibility for there being a visible unicorn in the box if you can't see it when looking in the box. Maybe there is some resolution, but it has not been clear from your posts.

 

no, it is a proof that you are alive.

 

which I pointed out you are unable to account for all variables, even when you amend your claim.

but that isn't proof there isn't one, as has been explained.

asked and answered.

you are mistaking your ability to comprehend with there being an actual problem with the explanation. I have repeatedly shown why you can't prove a negative or non existence.

 

But being dead is by definition not being alive.

What variables are those? I can't think of any variables that couldn't be amended to the example the same way visibility was. In fact, the point of "visible" is to encompass as many unknown variables as possible. There could be any number of reasons why a unicorn would be invisible, but I circumvent them by asking for a visible one.

Well, that's why I'm asking for clarification. From my perspective, what you have provided is indistinguishable from you being wrong, at the moment. In any normal discussion, this would spur us to try to pin down what part it is we disagree on, so we can examine if either of us have misconceptions there.

 

My wording changes the burden of proof on the part of athiests to proving they don't believe the theist cleim that gos exists. They don't have to prove god doesn't exist just that they don't believe the claim.

 

meaning its not.

 

Not to put too fine a philosphical point to it, lets say the use of "Prove" is beyond all reasonable doubt as opposed to absolute absence of same.

 

ok?

asked and answered. I'm not going to nor am I obligated to continue to re refute something that's already been refuted.

 

Yes those guys can be found in equivalent numbers to those of the speckled mountain unicorn. Great bunch.

 

I still don't get what you are trying to say? the burden ALWAYS lies with the one asserting existence.

 

I can prove conclusively as an athiest that I don't believe the theist claim that god exists. I cannot prove that god doesn't exist but I can and just did prove I don't believe the their claim

 

ok

 

The problem of not knowing all variables in our real world is a serious one.

There are many known variables that the unicorn being "visible" doesn't really cover. The box could be too large to examine visually, there could be no light source, the unicorn could be capable of light speed, the box could contain other particles making a visible unicorn hard to find, etc. And, there could be variables that we simply don't know about today.

Real world mistakes get made because of this problem. The oft cited example is Newton, who didn't notice the impact of the speed of light on his model for gravity.

I think the discussion of logic is interesting, but I don't really see it as informing the question of whether there is a god.

Humans can not be relied upon to find a unicorn in a box.

Yet, we talk about proving something about god, where nobody has even proposed what might be considered evidence - one way or the other.

 

Without loss of generality, the variables you mention can all be corrected for. I could just chose to change the statement to "There is no visible, still-standing unicorn in this well lit, otherwise empty, medium sized box" (easiest thing is if you refer to a specific box which is medium sized and does not contain anything but air and possibly a unicorn).

There are certainly negative statements (as well as positive ones) that may be impossible to prove, but that is not the same as saying that they all are.

I agree, I don't think this will have any bearing on the real meaty questions. I have pointed out in the past that the non-existence of God is indeed a statement which is impossible to prove, given that he can be arbitrarily good at hiding. I'm just discussing the statements that I find interesting. Many negatives can hypothetically be arbitrarily good at hiding, like corrections to natural laws. Some are not, like a unicorn in a medium sized box.

 

So if the statements are equivalent and you prove one, you have proven the other.

You gave answers to variables that you thought were relevant. I showed that they could be added to the model and proposed that without loss of generality, any such variable can be added to the model.

 

No, you have only proven one.

And I showed why that is wrong.

 

So you are saying it is conceivable that my thinking could be that of a dead person (with Cartesian level certainty)?

Not really. You said something about light spectra which are invisible to the human eye. I don't understand how something invisible can interfere with my viewing of something that is visible.

 

I suspect we're beating on a horse that may or may not be dead, but isn't likely to be carrying us home.