"I Don't Have to Prove a Negative"

[SalixIncendium]

I see some variation of this phrase, "I don't have to prove a negative" posted here often, and I find it to be nothing short of a copout.

As I see it, it's pretty simple: If you make a claim, positive or negative, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support that claim, otherwise your claim can easily be dismissed by others.

Claim: "God exists." The onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence for the existence of God.

Claim: "No gods exist." The onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence that no gods exist.

And as for the second, "I see no evidence to support the existence of any gods" is not evidence. Before 1930, not a single person saw evidence to support the existence of Pluto. Does that mean it came into existence in 1930? Eris in 2005? So before 1930, would the claim, "There are no [dwarf] planets orbiting the sun beyond Neptune" have been valid?

If you make a claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence of that claim if you want that claim to be taken seriously by others.

Disagree? State your case below.

 

[ratiocinator]

Disagree? State your case below.

I don't disagree but I've also seen very few people make the claim "No gods exist.", and, while it's true that "I see no evidence to support the existence of any gods" is not evidence for that claim, it is enough to withhold belief that any gods exist and to regard any such claims as unsupported.

To use your analogy, if somebody had, prior to 1930, made a guess, based on no evidence, that Pluto existed, it would have been perfectly rational to reject it as an unsupported assertion until such evidence was available.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I don't disagree but I've also seen very few people make the claim "No gods exist.", and, while it's true that "I see no evidence to support the existence of any gods" is not evidence for that claim, it is enough to withhold belief that any gods exist and to regard any such claims as unsupported.

I've seen the claim quite often from members who are active here, but I was just using this as an example.

And yes, I would agree that if one has no evidence of a god, they are well within their rights to withhold belief of the existence of any gods. However, they are not within their rights to tell another who believes in a god that they are wrong about the existence of a god or to suggest another should withhold belief based on their own personal experiences.

 

[danieldemol]

However, they are not within their rights to tell another who believes in a god that they are wrong about the existence of a god or to suggest another should withhold belief based on their own personal experiences.

I sure am glad that human rights are decided by far more than you alone.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I sure am glad that human rights are decided by far more than you alone.

You're conflating morally right and human rights. But I think you knew that.

 

[ratiocinator]

I've seen the claim quite often from members who are active here, but I was just using this as an example.

Guess you read more threads than me, being staff 'an all.

And yes, I would agree that if one has no evidence of a god, they are well within their rights to withhold belief of the existence of any gods. However, they are not within their rights to tell another who believes in a god that they are wrong about the existence of a god or to suggest another should withhold belief based on their own personal experiences.

Of course people are free to believe whatever they want (at least they should be). However, if they post on a debate forum and try to argue for their beliefs, then any lack of evidence becomes relevant.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see some variation of this phrase, "I don't have to prove a negative" posted here often, and I find it to be nothing short of a copout.

As I see it, it's pretty simple: If you make a claim, positive or negative, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support that claim, otherwise your claim can easily be dismissed by others.

Claim: "God exists." The onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence for the existence of God.

Claim: "No gods exist." The onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence that no gods exist.

And as for the second, "I see no evidence to support the existence of any gods" is not evidence. Before 1930, not a single person saw evidence to support the existence of Pluto. Does that mean it came into existence in 1930? Eris in 2005? So before 1930, would the claim, "There are no [dwarf] planets orbiting the sun beyond Neptune" have been valid?

If you make a claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence of that claim if you want that claim to be taken seriously by others.

Disagree? State your case below.

Well, we can always play "I don't have to prove a negative" versus "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

The simple version is for 2+2=5, that invloves proving a negative.
So yes, some negatives can be proven as valid and sound. The rule is about in effect more about unknowns versus false.

 

[exchemist]

I see some variation of this phrase, "I don't have to prove a negative" posted here often, and I find it to be nothing short of a copout.

As I see it, it's pretty simple: If you make a claim, positive or negative, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support that claim, otherwise your claim can easily be dismissed by others.

Claim: "God exists." The onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence for the existence of God.

Claim: "No gods exist." The onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence that no gods exist.

And as for the second, "I see no evidence to support the existence of any gods" is not evidence. Before 1930, not a single person saw evidence to support the existence of Pluto. Does that mean it came into existence in 1930? Eris in 2005? So before 1930, would the claim, "There are no [dwarf] planets orbiting the sun beyond Neptune" have been valid?

If you make a claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence of that claim if you want that claim to be taken seriously by others.

Disagree? State your case below.

The classic riposte to the line of argument in the second part your post is "pink unicorns".

It amounts to the old canard that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - which is fairly obviously ballocks if you stop and think about pink unicorns - or, say, the benefits of Brexit - for a second.

It is true that absence of evidence is not proof of absence, but that is rather different. (The confusion of evidence and proof is a perennial error on this forum - in fact it cropped up yet again this morning.)

As for the God thing, first of all, it is a fairly standard result that the existence or otherwise of God can't generally be proved either way, due in part to the varying definitions of God and his/her/its characteristics. But it is also a bit wrong to claim there is no evidence of God, unless you qualify what you mean by "evidence" to include only reproducible (i.e. para-objective) evidence, e.g. meeting the threshold for evidence in science. Such evidence for God as there is seems to be via personal experience and feelings or inner convictions, which of course don't meet that threshold.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Guess you read more threads than me, being staff 'an all.


Of course people are free to believe whatever they want (at least they should be). However, if they post on a debate forum and try to argue for their beliefs, then any lack of evidence becomes relevant.

Yeah, what is your eveince for that any lack of evidence becomes relevant, as per evidence for relevance.
In effect all versions of evidence are norms for how we ought to use words and do certain kinds of behaviour.
And yes, I do believe in some norms and not others, but I don't have evidence for that. That is the is-ough problem.

 

[danieldemol]

You're conflating morally right and human rights. But I think you knew that.

You didn't use the qualifier (moral) you just referred to the "right" to do it, so I thought you were talking about human rights, but since you are talking about moral rights, I am glad you dont get to decide what they are for others than yourself.

I see nothing morally wrong with telling another person their perceptions based on their experiences may be faulty, in fact scientists often do precisely that in my view.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You didn't use the qualifier (moral) you just referred to the "right" to do it, so I thought you were talking about human rights, but since you are talking about moral rights, I am glad you dont get to decide what they are for others than yourself.

I see nothing morally wrong with telling another person their perceptions based on their experiences may be faulty, in fact scientists often do precisely that in my view.

There is a significant difference between, "Your belief about the existence of a god may be faulty" and "No gods exist."

 

[danieldemol]

There is a significant difference between, "Your belief about the existence of a god may be faulty" and "No gods exist."

Sure there is a difference, one has room for doubt and the other does not. I don't see how that makes one of them morally wrong though.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure there is a difference, one has room for doubt and the other does not. I don't see how that makes one of them morally wrong though.

No, the latter is formally wrong for at least one norm of proof, evidence, rationality and all that jazz. In effect it is faulty cognition and should be pointed out as that. Not as morally wrong, but as faulty cognition if you value proof, evidence, rationality and all that jazz.

 

[danieldemol]

No, the latter is formally wrong for at least one norm of proof, evidence, rationality and all that jazz. In effect it is faulty cognition and should be pointed out as that. Not as morally wrong, but as faulty cognition if you value proof, evidence, rationality and all that jazz.

Well then you appear to be in disagreement with @SalixIncendium who appears to be saying it *is* morally wrong.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Well then you appear to be in disagreement with @SalixIncendium who appears to be saying it *is* morally wrong.

The first line of my signature relays my thoughts on this...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well then you appear to be in disagreement with @SalixIncendium who appears to be saying it *is* morally wrong.

Well, yes. But that is because some poeple ascribe moral value to norms of evidence, proof, logic, rationality and so on.
"I am better that you because I have evidence for my beliefs". That is something else.

 

[danieldemol]

The first line of my signature relays my thoughts on this...

Yes, it appears to me to be as much basless assertion as what I quoted in post #4

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yes, it appears to me to be as much basless assertion as what I quoted in post #4

Why, thank you!

 

[Koldo]

And yes, I would agree that if one has no evidence of a god, they are well within their rights to withhold belief of the existence of any gods. However, they are not within their rights to tell another who believes in a god that they are wrong about the existence of a god or to suggest another should withhold belief based on their own personal experiences.

And this is where we are going to disagree, perhaps.

I can easily say someone is wrong about declaring the existence of a god because of the path they have used to establish the existence of this god and this is not specific to gods. It works like this for almost everything.

 

[Estro Felino]

I totally agree with the OP.