Burden of proof (philosophy)

huh?

yes, really

 

"I am not dead" is a negative. It can be proven with cartesian certainty (it's basically the negative version of "I think therefore I am").

Or maybe "True is not false". Negative statement, and can be shown to be true by tautology/definition.

Anyone could "show" anything if they just remove or ignore the arguments they don't like.

 

I suspect so too, but I'm not in a hurry.

 

Already refuted this. You are proving the positive “I am alive”

I have ignored nothing. I’ve shown you how and why you can’t prove a negative

 

What do you mean by a negative statement? Why is "I am not dead" not a negative statement? I can imagine a pretty straightforward statement "I am dead", and I can negate it.

You have stated that you can't know everything. You have not mentioned how this relates to negative statements (well, you have stated it, but you haven't shown it).

 

I'm going to restate my case if we make a circle on a piece of paper and we are inside it and the border is the upper limits of all of our reason and science and outside of that are these deities in some alternative existance the only party to me that holds the burden of proof are those outside the circle. If you put a skeptic and theist in the center as the best minds humanity has in knowledge its pretty simple these deities have the obligation if they want a relationship to make contact so both parties can be sure of the beings reality contacting them, the message is clear, the desires of these beings are clear and what they can get if they worship them if the deity is asking that.

The two in the circle can prattle on all day for a million years and not get proof of anything outside the circle, so what is the point, to prattle the skeptic can't disprove deities and the theist has no basis to claim their are deities its all frankly making a hell of a leap in raw belief. While what if there are scores and scores and scores of deities but unless they do something and act they might as well be the fat guy on the couch eating nachos and cheese and drinking beer watching a movie its the same thing they don't register so shouldn't be considered real unless they make the effort to openly come here and talk to the human race. Even if they did that why worship them unless they force us to do something say threaten us or do good things for the effort.

 

You know perfectly well what s negative is. Stop it.

 

Well, I thought I did until you said "I am not dead" wasn't a negative statement. Given that we seem to mean different things by the words, I would ask you to clarify.

 

I never said “I am not dead” wasn’t a negative statement. I said you can’t prove a negative statement. You can prove the positive “I am alive”

 

A negative is a reaction to a positive.

Example:

John: "X is true."

Bob: "Until you have evidence of X being true, I see no reason to believe that X is true."

 

So if I claim that Harry Potter is fake, it's my burden to prove this?

 

Why is the fact that I am thinking not a proof that I am not dead? If I was dead, I could not think, so the fact that I think means that I have to be not dead.

 

It means you are alive

 

Unless you are a dualist and your substance has stayed here

 

The question was why it's not a proof that I'm not dead, not what it is instead a proof of.

 

because it's a proof that you are alive. You can't prove a negative. You are proving the positive.

 

The argument you have provided does not seem to argue your point. Yes, it's proof that I am alive, but in what way does that mean that it's not at the same time a proof that I'm not dead? Why couldn't it be both?

 

That barely seems like a relevant claim at all. Or rather, that seems like the claim "I have found no reason to believe", which seems to me a claim as good as any, and a rather easy one to prove (for all practical purposes).

 

of course it does.

 

That does not at all seem "of course" to me. I'm pretty certain I'm not dead (as sure as I am that I am alive). The fact that I'm alive and that I also know that I'm alive does not detract from that at all.

Edit: Again, you leaving out questions does not resolve the issues. If you leave them out, that's where my lack of understanding will be, so I will have to ask them again.

 

which isn't my problem. I've shown you how and why you can't prove a negative. Your comprehension is your problem.

 

Yes. It is.

If you say, "harry potter most likely doesn't exist, and since I see no reason to believe he doesn't, I personally do not believe he does " that is one thing.

However, many theists treat theists as idiots and mock them for beleiving something that the atheist can not disprove using only direct provable facts. The lack of evidence of god's existence does not disprove their existence, and science allows for undiscovered evidence. Nothing is considered to not exist in science unless there is direct proof that it does not ecist.

 

I don't think my conclusions here are at all unreasonable. I mean, sure nobody's forcing you to post on the internet at all.

 

I've already shown why you can't prove a negative. repeatedly asking me to repeat that isn't going to change anything

 

The only explanation you have given, I have had complaints about. You can't use your own conclusion to support itself, that would be circular reasoning.