"I Don't Have to Prove a Negative"

[YmirGF]

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 agree completely. One thing I have learned, hopefully well, through my (mis)adventure over the last four years has been that I can grow when people pick me up on my assertions/actions. I may not like the exchange but I almost always learn something of value.

Step Ten: "continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it." Words, for some of us, to live by.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Generally the idea is whomever is first making a claim has the burden to support the claim being made.
Until that burden of proof is made by the initial claimant there is no need for me to make a negative claim.

So in the case of God, if you claim a God exists then per your claim you have the burden to provide proof of your claim.
I have no need of making the negative claim until you have first reached your burden of proof.

In the case of apples on the table, you claim there were at one time 5 apples on the table. I see only one. There is no need for me to claim there were never 5 apples on the table until you've reached your burden of proof of there having been 5 apples on the table at some prior time.

IOW, I have no obligation to disprove your claim until you've first reach the proof of the claim you made.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Not if there is no proof of their quilt.
The defendant can happily sit there with their mouth shut, provide no evidence if no evidence has been provided of their quilt.

 

[Koldo]

Not if there is no proof of their quilt.
The defendant can happily sit there with their mouth shut, provide no evidence if no evidence has been provided of their quilt.

Please, do NOT... I repeat, do NOT.... fix the spelling in this post.

 

[PureX]

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.

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.

It doesn’t matter how many characteristics anyone attributes to God, they are all still just guessing, as is your agreement or disagreement with them. So what’s the point? We can learn something about each other by debating it, but we learn nothing about God.

 

[Quintessence]

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?

Yes, hard disagree.

In the context of formal debates, academia, or scholarly circles? Sure, this approach is more or less reasonable.

Outside of those specific contexts?

Practicing active listening, keeping an open mind, and thinking critically - in other words, taking something seriously by default and aiming to learn more about it while challenging your own foundational assumptions about reality - is vastly more important.

To add, even if one presents "evidence" it is routine to still not be taken seriously by others, so honestly? Why even bother? If someone is dead-set on not practicing active listening, being open-minded, or thinking critically it doesn't much matter what is or isn't presented to them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

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.

Many theists just cannot understand the idea of a lack of belief. Many lack a belief in Bigfoot. The evidence for him (if you are not a Seattle Supersonics fan) appears to be woefully lacking. Show me some evidence for Bigfoot (that does not involve a basketball) and I will believe that he exists. The same could be said about God. Though even then believers still have a huge burden of proof. Not only do they claim that a God exists. But it is always their particular version of God. And since many of them are self contradictory I do not think that I could ever believe in any of them.

 

[We Never Know]

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.

A claim is a claim. Positive or negative it should be proven/supported.

Example of a negative claim....

Evolution doesn't happen. Does it need proven/supported or not being its a negative claim?

 

[Heyo]

Many theists just cannot understand the idea of a lack of belief.

Yep. They believe in god(s) axiomatically and say (or just think) "I don't have to prove an axiom - can you prove it's false?". And if they try to explain (prove) their belief to others the arguments will invariantly be circular.

 

[bobhikes]

If you make a claim that there were never 5 apples on the table, you are making an assertion about the missing 4, therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence that there were never 5 apples on the table.

The person viewing the table never has to claim there were not 5 apples on the table only that there is one apple now. He could even agree there probably were 5 apples or ten apples or even no apples on the table before. We can only debate the one apple now. It is the responsibility of the claimer to produce the 4 more apples if they want to debate them. The person viewing the table has three options, One just walk away the person is obviously not right in the head, Two try to get them to concentrate on the one apple that they are interested in or Three engage in a conversation about the missing apples that will accomplish nothing until the apples are produced. The person producing the apples can One continue forever wanting people to talk about the 4 missing apples while the one apple goes bad, two chase the people away, or Three concentrate on the one apple and make a deal.

 

[Yerda]

Generally the idea is whomever is first making a claim has the burden to support the claim being made.
Until that burden of proof is made by the initial claimant there is no need for me to make a negative claim.

I get where this comes from, but I've never seen an example of determining where the burden of proof lies that has improved a thread or exchange.

 

[Audie]

It doesn’t matter how many characteristics anyone attributes to God, they are all still just guessing, as is your agreement or disagreement with them. So what’s the point? We can learn something about each other, but nothing about God.

Guessing about a guess.

 

[Nakosis]

I get where this comes from, but I've never seen an example of determining where the burden of proof lies that has improved a thread or exchange.

Sure, can't make progress whether neither side is proving anything.
It becomes a war of sophistry.

 

[Audie]

Sure, can't make progress whether neither side is proving anything.
It becomes a war of sophistry.

I say Nessie and Bigfoot are attracting
UFO.
You say they arent.

 

[Nakosis]

I say Nessie and Bigfoot are attracting
UFO.
You say they arent.

Obviously they aren't since Trump is keeping both locked in his basement.

 

[Audie]

Obviously they aren't since Trump is keeping both locked in his basement.

The rat.

 

[PureX]

A claim is a claim. Positive or negative it should be proven/supported.

Example of a negative claim....

Evolution doesn't happen. Does it need proven/supported or not being its a negative claim?

A belief, an opinion, and a blind guess, however, are not claims, and require no explanation or justification. And when it comes to the subject of the nature and existence of God, ALL WE CAN OFFER EACH OTHER ARE BELIEFS, OPINIONS, AND BLIND GUESSES. Anyone making an actual truth claim regarding this subject is not being honest with themselves, or with us, simply because no human possesses the ability to verify the nature or existence of what is universally referred to as "God" (the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is).

 

[ratiocinator]

Anyone making an actual truth claim regarding this subject is not being honest with themselves, or with us, simply because no human possesses the ability to verify the nature or existence of what is universally referred to as "God" (the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is).

You do realise that that is a truth claim about the subject, yes? The second part doubly so. I'm not aware of anything that is universally referred to as 'God'. It seems to mean many very different things to many people, so claiming that it means "the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is" is just your personal 'truth claim' about it.

 

[Alien826]

It doesn’t matter how many characteristics anyone attributes to God, they are all still just guessing, as is your agreement or disagreement with them. So what’s the point? We can learn something about each other by debating it, but we learn nothing about God.

You're coming from a position that there is no valid evidence for "god". My point was that the less definition you attach to the word, the more difficult it is address it, and vice versa. When we have a reasonably detailed definition, ask for evidence to support it and then refute it we have learned that this particular definition of god doesn't stand up to examination, which is not nothing. And to be fair a believer could learn the exact opposite, based on their evaluation of the definition and evidence.

I do agree that, after centuries of believers, non-believers and philosophers kicking it around, it's now highly unlikely ever to be settled.

 

[PureX]

You do realise that that is a truth claim about the subject, yes?

Claiming human ignorance is not a truth claim. It's just a self-evident observation. In 100,000 years of humans trying, not one of us has ever managed to verify the nature or existence of God. In fact, if God were to appear in front of you right this minute, in whatever blinding blaze of glory that would entail, you still would have no way of verifying that this aparition was God.

The second part doubly so. I'm not aware of anything that is universally referred to as 'God'.

Well, you do actively fight the idea at all times and in every way. And I can't help you with that. But for the rest of us, the basic idea/mystery referred to as "God" is pretty universal, and it always has been.

It seems to mean many very different things to many people, so claiming that it means "the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is" is just your personal 'truth claim' about it.

It only seems that way when you refuse to differentiate between the idea and the many different representations of it. As you do.