"I Don't Have to Prove a Negative"

[Brickjectivity]

What about the bold one because it seems to lead to there is at least one, which can't be questioned, namely that you in effect can't.

"I did not have breakfast."

"I am not crazy."

"God does not play dice with the universe."

 

[SalixIncendium]

What about negative claims about other things, such as conspiracies? If someone claims "there was no conspiracy to assassinate JFK" and that "Oswald acted alone," are they required to prove it, and what if they can't?

The would be required to provide evidence of it if the wished their claim to be viewed as valid.

 

[SalixIncendium]

"I am not crazy."

Well, I've provided evidence for this one on the past...

"Crazy people don't know they're crazy. I know I'm crazy, therefore I am not crazy."

 

[Brickjectivity]

"Crazy people don't know they're crazy. I know I'm crazy, therefore I am not crazy."

That sounds very reasonable, unless you are crazy in which case it is unreasonable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, I've provided evidence for this one on the past...

"Crazy people don't know they're crazy. I know I'm crazy, therefore I am not crazy."

The serious side of that, is that some of us in fact crazy people still know that we are crazy. The problem is the false belief that all crazy people don't know that they are crazy. But some of us do know that.
So I know that I am crazy, but only crazy in a limited sense, yet I am still crazy in the limited sense.

 

[Heyo]

Winner frubals do not exist.

They should.

 

[Heyo]

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.

I don't disagree with the logic but ...

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.

Can it be that in some or even many cases, there is some history to that phrase?

Usually it goes like this:
Theist: "There is a god."
Atheist: "Can you prove that?"
T: "Can you prove there isn't one?"
A: "I don't have to prove a negative."

My guess is that if theists would stop trying to reverse the burden of proof, the phrase would all but vanish.

 

[Audie]

They should.

They appear when most needed.

Like the cavalry in a old western movie.

 

[Stevicus]

The would be required to provide evidence of it if the wished their claim to be viewed as valid.

In some ways, it might still be valid. For example, if someone is accused of committing a crime, it would be up to the prosecutor to provide the evidence and proof of guilt. The accused person is not required to prove their innocence, as long as they can raise a reasonable doubt.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If you are walking alone in the woods and see a woman in a red dress, and you left the woods to tell someone about the woman in the red dress, and they tell you that she doesn't exist, and you take that person back to the woods to show them, but she is no longer there, would that person be correct in declaring the woman in the red dress does not exist?

Only if they don't see tracks, broken branches, litter etc.

Let's just say lack of evidence, supporting and direct speaks well enough for itself as evidence on its own.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Only if they don't see tracks, broken branches, litter etc.

Let's just say lack of evidence, supporting and direct speaks well enough for itself as evidence on its own.

But how do they know it was a woman in a red dress and not Bigfoot?

 

[Twilight Hue]

But how do they know it was a woman in a red dress and not Bigfoot?

You don't. The assertion was there was somebody there, so you look for evidence to support the claim.

If absolutely nothing is there however subtle to support it in any capacity, then it becomes pretty clear what the actual facts are in order to even begin on thinking about a woman in a red dress as it requires an empirical place to even start.

 

[Alien826]

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

I'll quote it here as it doesn't automatically appear.

"No good comes from destroying the spiritual path of another."

I consider that to be in the category of "sweeping generalizations", which may apply to the main subject of the thread as well. In fact it is not universally true, as one can imagine a truly evil religion where persuading a believer away from that particular "spiritual path" would be very beneficial to future victims. That's not to say that I don't recognize some truth in it, as a particular path may be a lifeline to someone, and destroying his faith could be very harmful to him.

On a lighter note, the American humorist James Thurber wrote a piece about collecting things. He started with some examples of failed collections he had tried then described what he then did, which was to collect "sweeping generalizations" he had heard, The one that has stuck in my mind is "There are no pianos in Egypt".

 

[PureX]

I disagree, personally, but as I said, I don't care whether someone perceives any given phenomenon or experience as evidence for a god. As long as they don't try to impose their belief on others, I see it as an entirely personal matter.

It is not possible to impose any belief on anyone. What I assume you are referring to is imposing behaviors associated with a belief. Which is not the same thing at all. As people imposing (forcing) behavior restriction on others is a problem for everyone regardless of anyone's beliefs.

 

[PureX]

This makes no sense at all. If there is no absence of evidence, why can't anybody articulate it, and if they can't, how would anybody (yourself included) know it existed?

There can't be a lack of something without that something being clearly defined, and it's presence ascertainable, by us, and then found to be missing. Claiming there is "no evidence for X" when you have no idea what evidence for "X" looks like, where or how to look for it, or how to recognize it even if you found it, is just silly. That's not a lack of evidence, that's a lack of information. And such ignorance is only evidence of our ignorance. Nothing more.

Also, the fact that a lot of other people are equally ignorant, inarticulate, and unclear about what they are guessing God to be doesn't excuse or justify you or I for doing it, or for condemning them for it.

 

[Alien826]

Actually, you would have looked like a fool rejecting someone else's guess based on nothing. It smacks of someone so desperate to see himself as the intellectual superior that he'll jump even at someone else's guess as an excuse.

It depends. What did the person say about Pluto? If it was "It is almost certain there are more planets to discover" then only a fool would dismiss it at all. If it was "There is another planet beyond the orbit of Neptune", I'd consider it unproven but quite likely. If it was "There is another planet of <exact size> orbiting at <exact orbital distance> that they will one day name "Pluto" then later remove it from the list of planets" then I'd express extreme doubt and later when it was shown to be true I'd suspect trickery or even genuine prophesy.

Whether they realize it or not, everyone is guessing about the nature and existence of God. And everyone has their own determined "evidence" to support their guess. Including you. But no one has sufficient evidence to convince anyone else. So why negate someone else's guess unless you just want to see yourself as the winner of a meaningless argument? What's the point of the pointless contention if it's not to feel falsely superior at someone else's expense?

From my examples above, it depends on how much detail is given. "There is a god of some sort" is difficult to argue with. "There is a god with these <exact characteristics>" opens up the discussion much more and imo a request for evidence is perfectly reasonable.

 

[ratiocinator]

Actually, you would have looked like a fool rejecting someone else's guess based on nothing. It smacks of someone so desperate to see himself as the intellectual superior that he'll jump even at someone else's guess as an excuse.

Genuine LOL! On the contrary, if one goes about just accepting people's baseless guesses, then one should expect to be thought of as an overincredulous fool, and taken for a ride too, if somebody had a mind to.

Whether they realize it or not, everyone is guessing about the nature and existence of God. And everyone has their own determined "evidence" to support their guess. Including you.

I'm not guessing at anything. I'm just pointing out that nobody has made a convincing case, and so treating god(s) as exactly the same as any other baseless fable that is not inherently impossible. It's not impossible that vampires exist, or aliens that come all the way to Earth just to draw pretty patterns in corn fields, mutilate cattle, and abduct people to stick probes up their bottoms, but I don't take either seriously.

This is just sanity 101.

There can't be a lack of something without that something being clearly defined, and it's presence ascertainable, by us, and then found to be missing. Claiming there is "no evidence for X" when you have no idea what evidence for "X" looks like, where or how to look for it, or how to recognize it even if you found it, is just silly.

As with every other claim, it's for those who propose something to provide their reasons for believing it. If they do not, what they suggest as evidence is missing, their reasons consist of nothing but subjective feelings or interpretations, or their reasoning is clearly flawed, then we can say that there is no reason to accept their claims.

One of those has been the case for all the proposed god(s) I've seen to date, at least for all those that even made coherent sense as propositions in the first place.

I see no reason why that can't be summarised as a lack of evidence for god(s).

 

[Audie]

It is not possible to impose any belief on anyone. What I assume you are referring to is imposing behaviors associated with a belief. Which is not the same thing at all. As people imposing (forcing) behavior restriction on others is a problem for everyone regardless of anyone's beliefs.

So every jw or moslem freely chose

 

[SalixIncendium]

In some ways, it might still be valid. For example, if someone is accused of committing a crime, it would be up to the prosecutor to provide the evidence and proof of guilt. The accused person is not required to prove their innocence, as long as they can raise a reasonable doubt.

Yet the defendant does have to provide evidence of innocence, i.e. alibis, witnesses, etc. So they are still required to support evidence for a negative claim.

 

[Alien826]

Yet the defendant does have to provide evidence of innocence, i.e. alibis, witnesses, etc. So they are still required to support evidence for a negative claim.

Actually that is not strictly true (at least in the USA). The prosecutors have to establish among themselves that they have a viable case, based on the evidence they already have, none of which has to be provided by the potential accused person. Then, for more serious crimes they have to convince a Grand Jury. The accused doesn't even have to present a defense in court if he doesn't want to. In fact his lawyer could get the whole thing thrown out on various grounds without presenting any evidence of innocence. Of course if things go as they usually do an accused person does present exculpatory evidence. The point is that the prosecution has to come up with evidence enough to establish a case, they can't just say "you're guilty, prove you are not".