Burden of proof (philosophy)

My comprehension is my problem, and I'm asking you to help me with it. Of course, my failure to understand is a thinly veiled concern that you may be wrong about things (which would of course be your concern). I wouldn't want to claim so outright without further investigation, though.

That the fact that my thinking proves that I am alive does not seem at all to be a problem for the fact that I exist proves that I'm not dead. Your only argument to the contrary so far has been circular.

 

True enough, I'm just making the point that philosophy and science are not opposites or incompatible. (Edit: Or rather, that something being relevant in one sphere is not an argument that it is not relevant in the other.)

 

I've done all I can.

 

No, you could literally provide the argument. That should be very easy. Even if you are correct in that you have shown it, your posts are so short that it should hardly take you as much as 5 seconds to repeat it.

As far as I can tell, this is the last post in which you provided arguments that weren't just "nuh-uh":

The argument is about whether you can prove a negative, so obviously, you can't use that as an argument (like it would be wrong to argue that bananas are red by using "bananas are red" as an input). You are right in that I have provided a proof that I am alive, but why is it not also a proof that I am not dead?

You have pointed out that I have shown a proof that I am alive (but not how that relates to the other claim, or why), you have repeated "you can't prove a negative" (even though given that that's the debate, just claiming it doesn't prove anything).

Those are the only arguments I have picked up.

 

I have

 

Do you think what I have written is an accurate representation of your argument? Repeated here for ease of access:
'You have pointed out that I have shown a proof that I am alive (but not how that relates to the other claim, or why), you have repeated "you can't prove a negative" (even though given that that's the debate, just claiming it doesn't prove anything). '

 

I’ve shown you why. Your understanding is your issue, not mine.

 

A negative in the true sense (as in nothing) cannot be proven as there is nothing to prove. A negative in debate/discussion can be proven or disproven as it is tangible opinion or data. This all seems to boil down to symantics and language manipulation and is a pointless argument that cannot be won.

 

That's not even an answer to my question.

Is the below a fair representation of your argument?
You have pointed out that I have shown a proof that I am alive (but not how that relates to the other claim, or why), you have repeated "you can't prove a negative" (even though given that that's the debate, just claiming it doesn't prove anything).

 

That's not a very good understanding of what Philosophy is.

 

I'm sure everyone wou ld have liked to see your better understanding.

 

At last he accepts such a position can exist! And you finally understand Lack of Belief! Not taking a position.

In your own words you have exactly described the position that the Atheist who claims lack of belief takes! Brilliant.

 

lack of belief has been proven to be philosophically illiterate which is why the universities have labeled those who hold such a claim 'internet atheists' because they do not want to be tarnished and painted with the same illiterate brush.

 

How does that affect the position you took on Zeus? You took the position of lack of belief not "universities" either argue against your own position or show where you went wrong.

 

I’m not interested in your question. I’ve shown you how and why a negative can not be proven.

 

not tru, thats the position you imagined I took. Please stop misquoting me.

 

Now if you could only convince 'real' philosophers 'all' of whom disagree with you, you would be awarded the ding prize.

 

there is no such thing as nothing, but in so far as semantics are concerned and word games I agree.

 

No they don’t.

 

Well if you dont step up your game and come up with better arguments you will be the only one left


On July 24, 2013, CNS News reported:

“ Atheism is in decline worldwide, with the number of atheists falling from 4.5% of the world’s population in 1970 to 2.0% in 2010 and projected to drop to 1.8% by 2020, according to a new report by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (GCTS) in South Hamilton, Mass."[11] ”
In 2011, the American Spectator citing research published in the International Bulletin of Missionary Research reported that atheism is on the decline as a whole in terms of adherents.[12]

The American Spectator declared:

“ The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new Muslims every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the West, while religion is thriving in the Global South, where charismatic Christianity is exploding."[12]

 

I don’t need better arguments. I’ve successfully demolished everything you’ve posted.

 

Please look carefully at the Gold Bar I just mentally teleported into your lap.....Do you see it yet....No.

I guess there is nothing there in your lap.

 

It is easy to keep showing the exact quote whilst you try to avoid the argument,

You took no position,
You did not take the position, I do not claim god exists.
You did not take the position No gods exist.
What then do you call such a position if not A lack of?

 

get serious I dont lack anything. what makes you think anything is lacking lol

 

How can you have proven something when there are still question marks to be straightened out? I'm asking to make sure I have understood your argument. If your argument stood up to scrutiny, it would be way easier to answer the question than to just keep claiming that you have proven it without arguing your point.