"I Don't Have to Prove a Negative"

[Alien826]

What is it that you are not understanding?

Or is it that you don't want to give up being in the judge's seat? Because many here believe they are in charge of what is and is not evidence, and of course they determine this according to their preconceived biases. Which is why we keep hearing the "no evidence" claim against any position that doesn't agree with theirs. What they mean is "no valid evidence according to MY criteria for valid evidence". Which is of course being determined by weighing it against their preconceived conclusions of truth. There is "no valid evidence" for the existence of any gods because they have already determined that no gods exist. And therefor any evidence that might be used to suggest that one does exist must be invalid. The whole point is that by keeping oneself sitting in the judge's seat regarding what is and is not valid evidence, one can then exclude any evidence that does not comport with the "me-judge's" preconception of the truth.

It keeps all opposing views in the position of having to convince the "me-judge" before they can be considered valid. This is also why we constantly hear the old saw around here about how anyone daring to propose a truth claim then being obligated to 'prove it'. (To the "me-judge", of course.)

I'm not sure how I can put it any more clearly. I don't see any point repeating all the things I've already said.

And I'm not judging you. I do reserve the right to decide if I agree with what you say though. Surely you wouldn't withhold that right from me?

I think you have a point about some other people, but they are not me. Actually I was trying to understand how you define "evidence". You replied and I saw logical flaws in it, that's all.

 

[PureX]

I'm not sure how I can put it any more clearly. I don't see any point repeating all the things I've already said.

And I'm not judging you. I do reserve the right to decide if I agree with what you say though. Surely you wouldn't withhold that right from me?

I think you have a point about some other people, but they are not me. Actually I was trying to understand how you define "evidence". You replied and I saw logical flaws in it, that's all.

I am not defining evidence. It defines itself by being information related to the question being asked. That's why there is always evidence. And it being evidence does not depend on whether or not you or I find it pertinent or convincing or logical. Of course we will decide this for ourselves. But not based on it not being evidence. Because that's not ours to decide.

 

[Alien826]

It is the replication of the fittest genes ends in subjectivity in some cases, where there is no we, because evolution in part happens on the level of the individual and not the level of we the species.

I don't want to get into this without asking you to explain further. That is not my understanding of how evolution works. First question has to be how can evolution work if there is no reproduction (individual level)? If a mutation occurs in one individual, when he dies it's gone, unless he breeds to pass it on. That's evolution at the species level.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't want to get into this without asking you to explain further. That is not my understanding of how evolution works. First question has to be how can evolution work if there is no reproduction (individual level)? If a mutation occurs in one individual, when he dies it's gone, unless he breeds to pass it on. That's evolution at the species level.

Well, in a sense it is both, but with the caveat that all members of a species have to get off-spring, for the species to continue. Or that over time a species can split in 2. So the main drive is over time the replcation or what you call the reproduction of the fittest genes.

 

[lukethethird]

Indeed. However, I was making a point that a negative claim, whether it is a counterclaim or otherwise, still requires evidence.

You miss yet another point, God is never described in falsifiable terms so there is no way to falsify the claim, even if one wanted to. Fire breathing dragons don't exist is a falsifiable claim, to falsify it all one has to do is find and present us with a fire breathing dragon. God claims are never presented in falsifiable terms, God's existence can never be tested due to a continuous shifting of goalposts every time someone comes up with a way of testing for God. He's invisible, He's of a higher dimension, He's outside this universe and on and on it goes.

Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition, so I would add to that that asking for evidence of God's non existence is just as meaningless.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

Then you just don't get it. A negative CANNOT be proven. For example, I cannot prove that there are no unicorns. You can't reasonably expect people to do the impossible.

 

[lukethethird]

Another way to view it:

Gods don't exist is a falsifiable claim, to falsify the claim all one has to do is find a God and present us with it. If excuses are made that he is invisible and so forth, well, no problem, the claim stands until someone comes up with one.

 

[Alien826]

Well, in a sense it is both,

What sense?

but with the caveat that all members of a species have to get off-spring, for the species to continue.

No they don't. A species only dies out when there are no living members. The number of members of a given species can vary over time up or down.

Or that over time a species can split in 2.

Correct. It's called speciation. It occurs when a group of a species can no longer interbreed with the remainder of the species.

So the main drive is over time the replcation or what you call the reproduction of the fittest genes.

Yes. Species evolve through changes in the genes of individuals when they reproduce. The "child" has the new genes, the parents don't. So how can a single member of a species evolve? I suggest a site or book (google it) that explains these things in simple terms. It's a fascinating study and well worth learning.

Added: I can recommend The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It's somewhat dated now, but explains all this very simply.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You miss yet another point, God is never described in falsifiable terms so there is no way to falsify the claim, even if one wanted to. Fire breathing dragons don't exist is a falsifiable claim, to falsify it all one has to do is find and present us with a fire breathing dragon. God claims are never presented in falsifiable terms, God's existence can never be tested due to a continuous shifting of goalposts every time someone comes up with a way of testing for God. He's invisible, He's of a higher dimension, He's outside this universe and on and on it goes.

Another way to view it:

Gods don't exist is a falsifiable claim, to falsify the claim all one has to do is find a God and present us with it. If excuses are made that he is invisible and so forth, well, no problem, the claim stands until someone comes up with one.

It seems to me that you're, as many often are, stuck on the idea of the God of Abraham. There are many of different religions that don't have this transcendent view. So this might be considered by followers of such religions to be an argument from ignorance.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Then you just don't get it. A negative CANNOT be proven. For example, I cannot prove that there are no unicorns. You can't reasonably expect people to do the impossible.

Yes, you're right. If I'm looking at a blank piece of paper, there is no way to prove there is nothing written on it.

Thanks for setting me straight.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Prove, prove, prove! There are all sorts of things we will never prove. It doesn't stop us getting on with things.

But one has to ask -- if anyone makes a claim, I don't care what sort of claim, positive or negative, on any topic, then we could simply start listing all the things we can think of that support the claim, and all of the things that would refute it, and then pick the winner!

So, for example, the claim "the dead can be raised back to life." (I don't care if you want to attribute that to God, magic, or just a really good prune juice -- it's the claim itself that needs examination.)

So, what do you actually know that might support that? Anything at all -- from your own knowledge.

• Now, from all that I know -- I'm a reasonably smart, moderately educated person -- nothing. I could guess "magic" or "God" or what-have-you, but my guesses aren't based on anything I actually know about.

How about what you actually know that might refute it? Well, in my case, here are a few:

• I've never seen it happen, not to people, animals or any other living thing I'm aware of
• There are no records within the last 2 centuries of it actually happening
• I can't think of a method of doing it
• People we have genuinely revered died -- and stayed dead, apparently no resurection attemps succeeded
• Prayers beyond measure have been offered up to heaven to bring back our loved ones -- all (so far as we can tell) unanswered

Try it yourself: ask yourself this question -- is there a Ming Dynasty teapot orbiting within the rings of Saturn? Can you say "yes" or "no?" Then ask yourself questions like:

• what is a Ming teapot
• how could it get there (we have sent probes, so that's one way)
• what is the likelihood of it getting there
• what is the likelihood of a piece of fine china surviving in a maelstrom of hurtling moonlets, large and small chunks of flying matter, for many years

And then ask yourself -- "given what I know, why on earth would I even think of believing such a piece of nonsense?"

 

[Stevicus]

It seems to me that you're, as many often are, stuck on the idea of the God of Abraham. There are many of different religions that don't have this transcendent view. So this might be considered by followers of such religions to be an argument from ignorance.

Then I would suggest that the concept of "God" has to be thoroughly defined as a concept before anyone can go so far to say that such a thing does or does not exist. As you say, there are different concepts of "God," but unless someone is clear about their definitions from the outset, then such a discussion will go in circles.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In light of my last post, here is a really good question -- totally relevant to the topic of the thread ("I don't have to prove a negative.")

What would you have told to the members of Marshall Applewights' bizarre religious group called "Heaven's Gate," who committed the largest mass suicide in US history, because of their bizarre religious beliefs, and that they could be rescued from a doomed earth by a spaceship following in the the tail of the Hale-Bopp comet? Here's a description from Wikipedia.

How do you "prove" the negative -- that their belief is really, really stupid? And if you can't, are you content to just let them all die in such a ridiculous manner?

You see, argument can be important.

 

[lukethethird]

It seems to me that you're, as many often are, stuck on the idea of the God of Abraham. There are many of different religions that don't have this transcendent view. So this might be considered by followers of such religions to be an argument from ignorance.

By all means, any god will do, I don't discriminate.

 

[SalixIncendium]

By all means, any god will do, I don't discriminate.

Okay. Tell us about Brahman.

 

[lukethethird]

I would have to wiki Brahman to reacquaint myself but if memory serves, a very obscure concept, why, is that the god you had in mind re your opening post, are you going somewhere with this?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would have to wiki Brahman to reacquaint myself but if memory serves, a very obscure concept, why, is that the god you had in mind re your opening post, are you going somewhere with this?

What is your evidence that is a very obscure concept?

 

[Heyo]

They should.

And now they do.

 

[lukethethird]

What is your evidence that is a very obscure concept?

It is obscure to me because it was never rammed down my throat as Christianity was.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is obscure to me because it was never rammed down my throat as Christianity was.

Yeah, that is not evidence as such. That is your subjective experience.