Burden of proof (philosophy)

Well, I doubt that philosophical conclusion can be proof. You'd have to accept that there may be more than one answer, but more importantly, you'd have to accept that theories are simply not proven. That is what whole societies are based upon. Many civil and criminal laws are passed on this concept of proving negatives.

In reality, if there is no proof, there can be no consequences or real changes to beliefs. The intangible is not a part of this world in the same way as your phone. Yes, the phone uses processes and technologies based upon theories, but those theories have been proven. In those instances, we don't need to prove a thing, since actions cause reactions.

We can say that our beliefs cause us to heal faster or be happier. Those are all intangible. They are also specific to an individual, since we may experience something different.

 

I've no issue with the general discussion of logic. The bit I (and others) have objected to in several of your threads is your instance in telling atheists what they think and being rather insulting about it at he same time.

They do have a position on the existence of gods though (in fact I'd say a range of different positions). You can certainly present the simple "exists or doesn't" binary but there's clearly much more to the subject and no individual, whichever side of that they fall on, isn't also going to have some kind of further ideas, thoughts and beliefs on the matter.

I'm not convinced a hypothesis that something does exist is logically equivalent to a hypothesis that something doesn't exist. For example, I could easily demonstrate that I have an apple in my house (I can see it from where I'm sitting ) but it would be very difficult to prove that there are no oranges in my house (there are so many places one could theoretically be hidden). You could reach a position of reasonable confidence that there are no oranges by just looking in the most likely places they'd be kept but never reach the same level of confidence in the existence of the apple.

 

Try a different method. There are too many instances of prehistoric fossils leading to conclusions of science that have been off the mark, but taught and were not exposed for many years. Scientists continue to revise theories of prehistoric life as they learn more and will for many years to come. Otherwise, they would have all been laid off.

They know some of the crap they spew is not proven.

 

You are one of a kind, did you not read the entire article!

That’s why people keep • 112 believing in alien abductions, even when flying saucers always turn out to be weather balloons, stealth jets, comets, or too much alcohol. You can’t prove a negative! You can’t prove that there are no alien abductions! Meaning: your argument against aliens is inductive, therefore not incontrovertible, and since I want to believe in aliens, I’m going to dismiss the argument no matter how overwhelming the evidence against aliens, and no matter how vanishingly small the chance of extraterrestrial abduction. If we’re going to dismiss inductive arguments because they produce conclusions that are probable but not definite, then we are in deep doo-doo. Despite its fallibility, induction is vital in every aspect of our lives, from the mundane to the most sophisticated science. Without induction we know basically nothing about the world apart from our own immediate perceptions. So we’d better keep induction, warts and all, and use it to form negative beliefs as well as positive ones. You can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove anything at all.

 

When atheists paint correction as an insult not much anyone can do, then lets not forget there are threads about atheists insults and bigotry against religion, or have you forgotten? Pot calling kettle black?

That is the argument, its a logical tru false between theists and atheists, for an agnostic it may be a different argument but we have 2 sides of an argument here atheists and theists, not some multidimensional mish mash of stew as atheists try to inject into the binary argument.

maybe but what size is the orange? It might be microscopic

 

yep thats the whole point and the same thing in reverse! Thats why atheists believe God does not exist. Stop reading with rose colored glasses, it applies to both sides, all you are doing is proving you dont comprehend was is being said.

 

You try to equivocate deductive and inductive arguments, it is most interesting spotting the slight of hand.

 

Well no, because I've never got involved in any of that silly insult flinging and you apparently don't consider me an atheist anyway. Regardless, "They did it first!" is not a valid excuse for anything.

You can't just keep making a blind assertion. You never addressed my question about deists, polytheists and all the different monotheist beliefs. The idea that there is nothing to the whole idea of gods beyond the simple binary flies in the face of basic logic, ironic given your opening to this thread.

It's not a specific orange, just the assertion that there are no oranges in my house. That's one of the key differences compared to the existence of the specific apple.

 

well think about it joe, do deists and pdeists have a god? why yest they do, that makes them a believer, binary like I said. You are trying to say different varieties of apples are not apples, well yest hey are.

well that orange might be 10^-6 in size, you have a lot of hunting to do to prove it.

 

Well the measuring stick of fossil record sounds good but is frankly pretty meaningless since we did not scour through the whole earth, we are discovering every day new finds that were not known.

 

Not true, I can go on endlessly building a bigger case against atheist flim flam every time I think about it.

Hell, atheists believe 'religion' exists and credit it to God but dont believe in God?

Now thats some seriously twisted sheest!

 

Of course but it would be a major breakthrough for him to admit that the possibility of god is at best 50%.

 

No they believe that religion exists but the existance of religion does not prove god exists. Children believe in the Easter Bunny but that hardly proves the bunny exists.

Your claim that athiests credit religion to god is delusional and typical of your argumentative technique of making up facts, attributing them to others and then debating those facts to prove the others are wrong. It is a pathetic tactic and you use it too often.

 

Exactly. So the existance of unicorns is just as probable as the non existence . Actual reality is a bitch.

 

but atheists argue religion only pertains to theists therefore by the relation back rule they are acknowledging the existence of God, since in their arguments on this board one would be forced to conclude religion only applies to God based theism. After all atheists claim t have no religion. Which way do you want it?

 

An inductive argument cannot by its very nature ever provide absolute proof, that is why people still believe in gods,alien abductions, bigfoot etc! Using inductive reasoning to prove gods or aliens do not exist is pointless! It states that in the cut and paste argument you supplied!

You can’t prove a negative! You can’t prove that there are no alien abductions! Meaning: your argument against aliens is inductive, therefore not incontrovertible, and since I want to believe in aliens, I’m going to dismiss the argument no matter how overwhelming the evidence against aliens, and no matter how vanishingly small the chance of extraterrestrial abduction.

https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE AND YOU JUST PROVED IT!

Only you could supply evidence against your own argument and try to pass it of as conclusive proof for your argument!

 

but is seems you can! WRONG AGAIN!

All the phds in the world prove you can prove a negative and there you are all alone screaming from the roof tops that you cant.

That is not what the article said please read for comprehension



THINKING TOOLS: YOU CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE
Steven D. Hales Phd

Thinking Tools is a regular feature that introduces tips
and pointers on thinking clearly and rigorously.


It is widely believed that you can’t prove a negative. Some people even think that it is a law of logic—you can’t prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq and Bigfoot don’t exist. This widespread belief is flatly, 100% wrong. In this little essay, I show precisely how one can prove a negative, to the same extent that one can prove anything at all.

As Bertrand Russell pointed out, the chicken who expects to be fed when he sees the farmer approaching, since that is what had always happened in the past, is in for a big surprise when instead of receiving dinner, he becomes dinner. But if the chicken had rejected inductive reasoning altogether, then every appearance of the farmerwould be a surprise.

So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative? I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it. That’s why people kee

If we’re going to dismiss inductive arguments because they produce conclusions that are probable but not definite, then we are in deep doo-doo. Despite its fallibility, induction is vital in every aspect of our lives, from the mundane to the most sophisticated science. Without induction we know basically nothing about the world apart from our own immediate perceptions. So we’d better keep induction, warts and all, and use it to form negative beliefs as well as positive ones.

You can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove anything at all

https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Steven Hales is professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg
University, Pennsylvania

Try again!

 

Did you read the WHOLE thing before you posted it? You literally just quoted an article that totally agrees with my position and destroys your own.

 

yep, no it does not, he concluded with: You can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove anything at all

Since you did not come up with the same conclusion: Try reading for comprehension.

 

Oh dear, you cannot comprehend why inductive arguments will not work, even when it is quoted in your own article. There is no hope!

You can’t prove a negative! You can’t prove that there are no alien abductions! Meaning: your argument against aliens is inductive, therefore not incontrovertible, and since I want to believe in aliens, I’m going to dismiss the argument no matter how overwhelming the evidence against aliens, and no matter how vanishingly small the chance of extraterrestrial abduction.
https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

I have copied and pasted from the PDF and still you deny what the article says, you are unique!

 

It is incredible what he does here, an entire argument destroying his own position, I truly have never seen anything like it!

 

He is talking about 'ABSOLUTE' INCONTROVERTIBLE PROVE, please try to read for comprehension.

We hang people for murder with a much lower standard than you people demand, 'reasonable doubt'. Atheists are like way out there in lala land.

I copied and pasted his conclusion and yet you still deny what he CONCLUDED:

"You can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove anything at all."

hint: you missed something! (like his whole point!)
Yes I am unique, I read for 'comprehension'!

 

He explains why people who believe in aliens,gods,bigfoot etc will not accept inductive reasoning.

So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative? I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it.

 

He points out how insane the atheists demand for incontrovertible proof for the existence of God is and tries to drive the point home for those who read with comprehension that they will believe no God exists no matter how much proof is laid before them:

"You can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove anything at all."

I used that as a trap! To see how many suckers I could catch and I can see I was quite successful.

 

Yes dear, of course you did! Anymore of your little traps where you prove yourself wrong!