"You cannot prove a Negative" Another Claim?

Do you believe in Thor? As a christian.

 

I'll paraphrase Dawkins to set an example and pose a question.

Most human beings are atheists regarding most of the gods which have ever been believed in. Atheists just go one god further.

I assume that the christians here do not believe in these other gods.

If not, can I ask where is your evidence that these gods do not exist? And please, again, keep your answer to non-biblical quotes.

 

What are you talking about? I'm now agreeing with you for the THIRD time that both the words non-theist and atheist are negations of the word theist. What's wrong with you? Please do not again assert that I say otherwise, ok?

 

My answer depends on the definition of "God". Once you can clarify that, I can give an answer.

 

Try the God that is claimed in the Bible.

Try one that created the universe.

Try an actual thesis statement about your position regarding God.

 

Once again, most of the world believes in the SAME God.

Most of the previous Gods have been proveable falseified.

And unlike you, any religion that I cannot falseify is something to tolerate and explore - its why I get along with Hindus and Buddhists.

You, on the other hand, have examined none honestly apparently, and yet you overtly reject them all and think your personal opinion trumps storied narratives with centuries of wisdom and culture behind them?

 

This is true, but once you have two negative statement together, the overall logical value is no longer negative. A statement containing a double negative is NOT a "negative statement".

Are you daft? How many times do I have to specifically say that I'm not arguing for or against the idea that one can prove a negative? I have only been discussing the validity of the specific arguments in the paper you linked to by Steven Hales.

But then to support your thesis, you presented a paper that is wrong. In other words, doesn't support it at all.

No it isn't. It's called either "you aren't paying attention", or "you aren't understanding".

Suppose I state a premise, "It's cold outside", but then my argument to support that premise is, "because the air conditioner in my apartment has been blasting for 3 days". Obviously, an air conditioner only lowers the temperature inside, not outside. So, my argument is wrong, as it doesn't support the premise. Now, that says nothing about the premise itself, which may or may not still be correct - only that the argument for it was wrong.

If you are unable to grasp this concept, then you are not equipped to participate in a debate forum.

No, see above.

If someone makes a claim "X", but doesn't back it up with valid/verifiable/falsifiable/empirical evidence, I can rightly say, "lacking actual evidence, I cannot believe X" without having any burden of proof whatsoever.

That's just the way the logic ball bounces. If you don't like it, tough (*)(*)(*)(*) - deal with it.

You have provided no context for this quote (specifically, what "this" is referring to). I'm pretty sure it is in context of making a specific claim, such as "no god exists". But since most atheists (including myself) don't say that, you're just setting up another straw man.

So, please provide the context for the above quote.

Just abject dishonesty in an attempt to cling to your failed worldview of atheists.

 

That one is easy. The God of Abraham cannot exist as described/defined in the Bible.

I'll be specific - in this case, I do mean to make the definitive claim that "the God of Abraham can/does not exist", and not a dismissal of "I do not believe in the God of Abraham". And I can back it up with pure logical deduction...

1. omniscience and omnipotence are necessary attributes of God
2. omniscience and omnipotence cannot coexist (nor arguably individually) as this creates logical paradoxes (the reasoning for this has already been discussed at great length in various threads, I'm not going to get into it again now)
3. God cannot exist

There are many other contradictions that can be brought up (e.g. omniscience and freewill, the problem of evil or "argument from evil", etc) to disprove this specific God, but only one is necessary.

 

That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you can prove a negative. I can indeed prove that I am not non-existant, just like the article says.

Why that is a logical contradiction to you, based solely on your word, is called an excuse - not a fact.

If I can do something, and you claim that its not possible or logical .... that would be a problem for your side, not mine.

Because you are being dishonest.

My thesis statement and teh articles thesis statement have always been that you can prove a negative.

Your entire stupidity about double negatives not being a negative, was your attempt to say that the entire reasoning was flawed because of a logical fallacy.

Only I can indeed prove that I am not non-existant. Only you can indeed prove that, and many other negatives - just like both I and teh article have explained repeatedly.

But for some reason, when confronted with the facts, when your vehement denial of everything I have said coupled with petulant accusations hurled - well, you weren't wrong, you were simply never argueing about that.

That is pure BS.

You can prove a negative.

Furthermore, if you can prove a negative and Christians can prove a strong probability for a God, then there is most definitely a burden of proof on your end to explain that there is no God or that no God is probable.

But that would be the second point - that atheists have no proof and are nothing but hypocrites who demand proof and prsent nothing but excuses and fallcies and opinions taht they term logic.

After all you tell me why teh lot of professional logicians states taht a double negative is indeed a negative statement, but that YOU think differently? As if your opinion alone is evidence of factual basis?

Well, there is an awful lot of that in atheism. The more militant and anti-religious they are, the less actual evidence seems to matter to them.

Nope, I did not.

You contention is merely an opinion, backed by nothing. Just like your opinion about not being able to prove a negative.

All you have are opinions.

Once again, if I can do something that you say is not possible --- that makes you wrong.

No, its called an immature, emotional excuse to avoid following where the evidence leads.

Unless of course there is a temp gauge anging in the window that reads -20 degrees.

I am not sure why you even wrote that above, it is strawman arguement with no bearing on ANYTHING that I have actually presented. It is another irrational excuse in which you claim your opponents are using flawed logic - but it is your imposition of logic on others that is the problem.

No one is making that arguement but you.

And you are being a dick about it too boot. Excellent.

Yes, strawman galore.

What part of teh proof oresented a hundred times thatt says BOTH sides have a burden of proof lead you to the irrational conclusion that my side does not have one?

It is YOU claiming your side does not have a burden of proof.

It is our side pointing to a preponderance of teh evidence case, and indicating strong probability, but not conclusion, and acknowledging the requirement of faith in final, albiet it probable, determination.

And yet, despite this, you continue to claim there is no evidence, and that your side has no burden of proof?

That is simply pulling an ostrich, and just like the article says, is indicative of a person who is unwilling to challenge their beliefs - beliefs that they clearly can neither define, and this not support.

What exactly is your thesis statement? That religious people are too stupid to be able to determine whether or not it is Cold outside?

One of us is quoting logic, the other is merely claiming it.

THat is indeed how the logic ball bounces, evidenced and facts based arguementation, and all you offer up are opinions and the irrational belief that your opinions alone equate to logic.

They equate to emotional bias, nothing more.

That is how the logic ball bounces.

You keep saying that, but you are simply wrong. Whether you believe that God is definitively not real or rather just improbable - there should be an evidence trail that lead you to that conclusion.

If all your arguementation is that there is no God because you don;t have aburden of proof? Then you literally have nothing but a malicious, illogical excuse.

I've only written this a dozen times to you, and you keep pulling a three monkeys on it and pretending that your opinion that this is not so makes it so.

Again, even providing you with atheists stating that conclusions require support, sighting logical reasoning and rules of evidential arguementation make no effect.

Your obstinate opinion that it is not so is apparently all that matters. You sound like a member of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Oh look, more spurious accusations devoid of proof.

Just another deperate attempt to cling to a bunch of excuses and avoid actually questioning your ego centeric view of the world in which you are on a pedestal above all others - apparently, and narcassistically, blind to all those who are actually shocked at your behavior rather than enraptured by the excuses you hurl that fool no one but yourself.

You can prove a negative.

Atheists have a burden of proof.

Contentions otherwise are simply wrong.

 

An omnipotent being can do anything - including violate logic.

If you put barriers on omnipotence, you've just elimnated omnipotence - which IS a logical paradox.

An omnipotent being, by definition, can do anything.

Try harder. Try an orginal evidenced based arguement that is grounded in claims made in the Bible rather than just a cheap rip off of the same tired, rebutted, and flasified atheist propoganda.

 

Just, wow.

But you can't prove a strong probability for a God, so the burden is most definitely still yours.

You have made it abundantly clear that you don't have a clue what "logic" is/means.

Except they don't. None of the other links you posted tried to make the same arguments as the original paper - I assume because they're smarter than that.

LMFAO. Even with this simple example, you show that you still have a complete lack of comprehension.

The whole reason for the premise was because of the air conditioning inside. In other words, the argument is stating that the air conditioning is causing it to be cold outside. Which is obviously not true. Which was my whole point - proving the argument wrong, not the premise itself. If there was a thermometer hanging outside which read -20, then the premise is shown to be true, but the original argument for that premise is still wrong (the air conditioning).

How the (*)(*)(*)(*) can you not understand this?

Of course it did. It was a very simple analogy to try and get you to understand ... again ... the difference between proving a premise incorrect and proving the arguments for that premise incorrect. You don't seem to be able to separate the two.

Sorry you took it that way, but it was just a simple matter of fact. There's no other way to say it. This is a very basic logical principle of debate. If you can't grasp the principle, how can you adequately debate?

LOL, what? The person making a claim has a burden of proof. The person disbelieving said claim does not. I've never stated any differently.

Anyone can toss literally anything on the table and say, "here's your evidence", but unless it meets the basic standards of empiricality (I don't think that's actually a word) of being verifiable/falsifiable/etc, then it isn't actually evidence and can be dismissed. This is the position you're in now. Sure, you've presented "evidence", but it just doesn't hold up. So until you do, the burden is still on you.

Don't drag all the other religious people into your circle on this one.

No, it is specifically because there is a lack of evidence trail to the contrary, that I have reached this conclusion.

You really just don't get anything, do you?

(That was rhetorical, I already know the answer.)

You are either unwilling or incapable of simple reading comprehension. If I tell you "this color is red", and you keep arguing, "no it's not blue, because..." the discussion will never get anywhere. You have to at least be able to understand what it is I'm saying, and you're just not willing to do that. So, I have nothing left to say.

 

I don't have to try harder. This is a perfectly simply and elegant proof. You are wrong. Sorry.

 

Well, there is logical arguementation for you, You are wrong because I said the word wow and put a picture up.

Like I said, logic is not your strong suit is it?

Well, that would be a positive claim, now back it up. I've done so repeatedly, all you respond with is, "Nu Uh!"

No, you have once again stated an opinion, another one which is wrong.

Like I keep telling you, evidenced based arguementation, fact based arguementation, is not your strong suit.

Arrogance, which is what that claim is, does appear to be something you are good at.

Agh yeah, they do. They all make the same claim, using different methodologies and manners of arguementation to prove the same thesis statement - you can indeed prove a negative.

The concept of thesis is logical, and yet you don;t seem to be able to grasp it, while calling others stupid?

Everyone knows what a strawman is. Except apparently you.

Are you trying to demonstrate that you are an idiot?

If someone is trying to prove it is cold outside and arguing about an air conditioiner, they are an idiot. No one is doing this accept you.

There are PLENTY of methods available to prove that it is cold outside - you address none of them.

No one is argueing in this manner EXCEPT YOU.

This is not hard, unless you are in deep, deep denial.

Its very simply a strawman.

How about you address OUR arguements rather than the ones that you introduce.

You think the evidence we have is not relevant - why that has a burden of proof - not an analogy that restated your opinion in a highly illogical and insulting fashion.

Do you have anything besides insults and accusations?

Appears not.

h, the principle of arrogance is very easy to grasp.

The idea that you are wrong? Not in your ego centeric world apparently.

So you claims are not derived from evidence.

Atheists disagree with you: Again:

Even honest atheists acknowledge this burden of proof.

"The first thing to keep in mind is that the phrase “burden of proof” is a bit more extreme than what is often needed in reality. Using that phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case. A more accurate label would be a “burden of support” — the key is that a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof."

http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgode...denofproof.htm

But go ahead, keep offering your opinion that this is not so.

Good at pulling the old ostrich, not so good at evidenced based arguementation are we?

My my, does hypocrisy know no bounds today.

The guy tossing out NOTHING but his opinion is accusing others of doing this, and then stating that it is bad to do so?

Why do atheists have such a hard time with standards? Acknowledging that standards apply to their positions as well as everyone elses?

Conclusions require support.

Evidence must be verifiable, and opinions are just that - unless they come from an atheist, then all opinion are facts.

Obtuse much?

Daft. You already drag ALL religious people into the debate when you claim that everyone else, except atheists, has a burden of proof.

Now, you are trying to make this a personal issue? Well, that once again goes to the emotional state of your arguementation.

That statement has a burden of proof. There should be a investigative process whereby you can look at places where we should find evidence, and then ... not find any.

Only you state an opinion without support. Exactly as charged again.

YOU do not understand logic do you?

I understand which one of us is actually winning this debate.

More arrogance.

So long as you insist that you can say whatever you want and never have to back it up, but everyone else does, then a discussion will indeed go no where.

Its not because you are the only person in the world that comprehends things. That just goes right back to what I have long said, atheists are simpley derisive self worshippers who enjoy crapping on people.

Ask them for the intellectual process that lead them to atheism? Nothing but excuses and fallacies, and mean spirited lump of accusations.

You can prove a negative.

Atheists have a burden of proof.

And anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong.

(Either than or everyone who disagrees with atheism is a blind, babbling, idiot, who can neither read nor write.)

Atheism is nothing more than self delusion. Narcissium. Nothing more.

 

I am wrong because you say so? That is called an appeal to authority (namely you, and you are clearly no authority) and it is a logical fallacy.

Another fallacious arguement from an atheist. Go figure.

So, when someone believes a bunch of logical fallacies .... what does this say about their belief system? Why that it is fallacious of course.

But we already knew that.

Once again, atheism as a faith choice? No issues. Atheism as a logical thought process that is 'better' than anything? Nothing but fallacies and invented rules that only apply to atheists.

 

Response: The burden on proof is on the person making the claim. So if an atheist claims that they know that there is no God, such a claim means that they have proof. So an atheist who says that asking for such proof by a theist is irrational is not the case. It is rather the atheist trying to duck the responsibility of providing their alleged proof that there is no God. If one saya that you can't prove that there is no God because you can't prove a negative, then one can not claim that they know that there is no God.

 

Wait, how did this liberate you from your own fear of death ? I understand you were bummed out about the news at age 7,etc... became somewhat happier with the reincarnation hope and then went back to your initial fear.

lol sure, me too ... But that is still a fear of some sort.

 

"Did you know that the static on your television is caused by radiation left over from the Big Bang?"

http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html

 

it's a theory not proof.
the radiation can come from elsewhere no?

 

Theory is all you get regarding these matters. I'm sorry to hear if you have other expectations for the concept of theory.

It is ALWAYS possible that the background radiation can have another source than an emerge of the current universe but for all practical purposes, meaning that this explanation is useful for all that we currently observe, know and understand, it doesn't.

 

i see.
i'm just trying to empathize and maybe understand the leap of faith
towards the science rather than Allah (God)...

so i'm basically on the religious segment of this thread.
questioning this:
one can't see the big bang, but rely on the theory based
on "the static in television". on the other hand, the design (universe)
indicates the designer but one don't see the idea of a creator approachable.

i guess what i'm trying to get at:

since a theory does not provide proofs.
where does this statement go?

"i only believe in what i can see".

 

How many times does it need to be explained to you people that most atheists do not claim there is no god, they say that they do not believe in any gods due to a lack of evidence. That is not ducking, that is simple fact.

 

That's not how it works. This is: If background radiation is evidence of the Big Bang and if the noise in your television set is evidence of background radiation, then the noise is an observation of the Big Bang.

Notions of designers or creators are entirely irrelevant to observation and experimentation.

If such notions satisfy whatever you're in pursuit of then good for you. But it's also good for you to know where the attempt of implying that it has an application in the particular pursuit that we call science puts you.

Belief is never confined to sensory perception, only to the faculty of thought.

 

Response: Then the question is how many times must it be expained to you that even according to your own statement, that means that there are atheists that don't believe that there is no God, but state that it's a fact. Therefore, those atheists are in fact ducking the responsibility to bring their alleged proof, according to your very own statement.

 

Interesting thing there Fatihah is that when looking at the definition of 'fact', it can be seen that when a person 'believes that something is true or real', it is a 'fact' by definition of the term. See here:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fact
definition 2 c.

 

If I may ask, who stated that there is no God, in this entry of yours?

polscie