"I Don't Have to Prove a Negative"

[RestlessSoul]

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

And there’s the point. Your personal experience of one Christian sect, has prejudiced you against all religion.

Your experience is not universal, and does not qualify you to pass judgement on faith traditions you have no experience or understanding of.

 

[Kfox]

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

Most define their God of choice in a way that he cannot be disproven; which is quite easy to do

And as for the second, "I see no evidence to support the existence of any gods" is not evidence.

It may not be enough evidence to convince others, but it is evidence enough to remain skeptical or dismiss the existence of God.

 

[Audie]

Most define their God of choice in a way that he cannot be disproven; which is quite easy to do

It may not be enough evidence to convince others, but it is evidence enough to remain skeptical or dismiss the existence of God.

"I see no evidence of the continued existence of dinosaurs'

That's not good enough either, for thems as think
they lurk yet in the Congo.

 

[lukethethird]

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

All my experiences are subjective, goes without saying.

 

[lukethethird]

And there’s the point. Your personal experience of one Christian sect, has prejudiced you against all religion.

Your experience is not universal, and does not qualify you to pass judgement on faith traditions you have no experience or understanding of.

I've studied religions, obviously Christianity is what I am most familiar with.

 

[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.

Could it be that the OP used God as the example? Now I'm ignorant for taking the bait?

 

[Nimos]

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.

You are correct. But I think you might misunderstand what is meant by "I don't have to prove a negative".

It doesn't mean that you can make a claim and as long as it is a negative one, it doesn't require you to prove it.

It is understood in this way:

Person A: I believe that aliens exist and have visited Earth.

Person B: I don't believe you.

Person A: Prove that they haven't!!

Person A is the one making the claim and provides no evidence for it. Person B simply states that he/she doesn't believe Person A's claim. In this case Person A think that Person B is making a claim and demands evidence for it. But Person B has never made the claim that aliens don't exist, simply that they don't believe or see any evidence for Person's A claim. In this case, we are talking about proving a negative as Person A expect Person B to prove something which they have never claimed.

Had Person B replied "Aliens don't exist" that is a claim that would require evidence.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Could it be that the OP used God as the example? Now I'm ignorant for taking the bait?

Only if you think the term ‘God’ is exclusive to the God of Abraham.

 

[paarsurrey]

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 with one here.

Regards

 

[lukethethird]

Only if you think the term ‘God’ is exclusive to the God of Abraham.

I don't describe God or gods, that is a burden the theists saddle themselves with. The nonsense is that gods are described in terms that can't be shown to be true or false and then ask the non believer to prove a negative, a negative that in this case can not be proven.

 

[syo]

I don't have to prove a negative

I don't prove in general.

 

[Audie]

I don't prove in general.

And nobody didn't ask no one to prove
no stinking general. Or negative.

 

[paarsurrey]

SalixIncendium said:
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 with one here.

Regards

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

Isn't it asking too much for those who make the above claim , they were never prepared to confront this situation, right??

Regards

 

[Audie]

SalixIncendium said:
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.

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

Isn't it asking too much for those who make the above claim , they were never prepared to confront this situation, right??

Regards

Winner frubal

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And as for the second, "I see no evidence to support the existence of any gods" is not evidence.

That would depend. If the "god hypothesis" should have evidence, while there is no evidence, then that absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence.

Take the YEC claims for example of the biblical global flood 4000 years ago with massive near-extinction of all species.
This SHOULD leave evidence in both the genetic as well as the geological record.
The absence of this evidence then becomes evidence of absence of said flood.

Before 1930, not a single person saw evidence to support the existence of Pluto. Does that mean it came into existence in 1930?

No. It means that before 1930, there was no reason to accept the claim that it existed (eventhough it did).

This is also something I frequently see as being misunderstood.
The rational position is not necessarily the correct factual outcome.

This is why things are usually accepted / rejected tentatively, leaving the door open for future evidence to change ones mind.

I like to give the example of geocentrism vs heliocentrism.
There was a time in the past when virtually nothing was known about stars, celestial bodies, the solar system, etc...
The only "data" at our disposal at that point, was pretty much the following:

- the earth feels stationary
- the earth feels immovable
- the sun "comes up" (we still us that phrase....) at one side, moves across the sky, and sets at the other side.

If those are the only observations at your disposal, then the rational position would be that the sun orbits the earth instead of the other way round.
It is the wrong answer, but it is the rational position - given the data you have.

Eris in 2005? So before 1930, would the claim, "There are no [dwarf] planets orbiting the sun beyond Neptune" have been valid?

Not sure if I would call it "valid". But as a position, it would be consistent with the evidence.
Having said that, and tying into the main OP point, I think that word "no" makes it a rather useless claim.
I have difficulty with negative claims in terms of merrit, especially if those negative claims are based only on lack of evidence.

Now, it becomes a different story if somebody claims that there ARE such dwarf planets AND if that hypothesis makes verifiable predictions AND no evidence is found for those predictions while according to the hypothesis that evidence SHOULD exist.

Then, we can say that the hypothesis has been falsified. At which point we would default to the stance that such planets don't exist (at least not in the form / way described by the hypothesis).
Just like we default to the position that no biblical flood occured 4000 years ago. Not merely because there is "no evidence", but rather because there is no evidence while there should be evidence!


So to sum up, those "negative claims" are produced by testable positive claims which are shown false after testing.
When it comes to gods however, the positive claims aren't testable. So no evidence can exist by definition.
Those are, imo, useless claims.
And the negative counterparts even more so.

To the point that I would say "why bother making those claims?"

And, just like how in court we default to "not guilty" when guilt can't be shown... I then just default to "non existence" of undetectable gods.

You could say that I rule god to be "not guilty" of existing.

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. I just disagree that that evidence can't consist of "lack of evidence" of the positive counter part of said claim.

I can say "no biblical flood occured 4000 years ago".
And my evidence for that claim, is the absence of the evidence that SHOULD exist, if that flood did occur.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Since you brought it up....

I don't necessarily agree with that either. It would completely depend on what that "spiritual path" is and where it leads to.

For example, I'ld say that it would bring much good to destroy the spiritual path of the Taliban.
But that is off topic in this thread.

I just wanted to point it out since I couldn't help myself.

 

[PureX]

You are correct. But I think you might misunderstand what is meant by "I don't have to prove a negative".

It doesn't mean that you can make a claim and as long as it is a negative one, it doesn't require you to prove it.

It is understood in this way:

Person A: I believe that aliens exist and have visited Earth.

Person B: I don't believe you.

Person A: Prove that they haven't!!

Person A is the one making the claim and provides no evidence for it. Person B simply states that he/she doesn't believe Person A's claim. In this case Person A think that Person B is making a claim and demands evidence for it. But Person B has never made the claim that aliens don't exist, simply that they don't believe or see any evidence for Person's A claim. In this case, we are talking about proving a negative as Person A expect Person B to prove something which they have never claimed.

Had Person B replied "Aliens don't exist" that is a claim that would require evidence.

The problem here is that what person B believes is completely irrelevant to whether or not aliens have visited Earth. So person B does not need to provide any evidence nor proof to velidate his belief. We are all free to believe whatever we choose to.

The need for exculpatory evidence only applies to assertions of truth, not to assertions of belief. If person B had stated that aliens have or have not visited Earth as a true fact, then they would be obliged to justify such a position with evident reasoning.

Saying "l believe God exists", or saying "I do not believe gods exist" are not assertions of truth. They are assertions of personal belief. And so neither requires any validating evidence or proof. This is the crucial point that is constantly being ignored in these kinds of debates. And I am sure it will continue to be ignored as some of us just want to argue pointlessly about what others of us believe or don't believe. For whatever reasons.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Saying "l believe God exists", or saying "I do not believe gods exist" are not assertions of truth. They are assertions of personal belief. And so neither requires any validating evidence or proof.

I always disagree with that whenever someone says it.
This, to me, is just trying to use semantic trickery in an attempt to avoid a burden of proof.

Imo, the difference between "I believe X is true" and "X is true" is mere semantics.
In the second statement, the words "i believe" are just ommitted, but they still apply.

You can't express a belief without stating the claim that is being believed.
Likewise, you can't make a claim without implying you believe it.

When I say "X is true", am I not then implying belief in said claim?
Why would I make said claim while not actually believing it? That would be self-contradicting and / or dishonest. I'ld be making a claim without actually believing it. This would be on par with lying

So to me, there is no actual practical difference between making a claim and expressing a belief.

Expressing a belief means there is a claim you stand behind.
Expressing a claim implies you believe it.

You can't have one without the other.

Saying "ow, it's my belief, I have no burden of proof" is then thus just a silly cop-out to avoid a burden of proof.

This is the crucial point that is constantly being ignored in these kinds of debates. And I am sure it will continue to be ignored as some of us just want to argue pointlessly about what others of us believe or don't believe. For whatever reasons.

I don't ignore it. I'm flat out stating that it is false for reasons outlined above.



Edit:
To illustrate further with a non-god example...


"Species evolved". This apparently has a burden of proof.
"I believe species evolved". Suddenly, according to you, to addition of 'i believe' absolves me from a burden of proof?

Come on now, be serious.

 

[Audie]

I always disagree with that whenever someone says it.
This, to me, is just trying to use semantic trickery in an attempt to avoid a burden of proof.

Imo, the difference between "I believe X is true" and "X is true" is mere semantics.
In the second statement, the words "i believe" are just ommitted, but they still apply.

You can't express a belief without stating the claim that is being believed.
Likewise, you can't make a claim without implying you believe it.

When I say "X is true", am I not then implying belief in said claim?
Why would I make said claim while not actually believing it? That would be self-contradicting and / or dishonest. I'ld be making a claim without actually believing it. This would be on par with lying

So to me, there is no actual practical difference between making a claim and expressing a belief.

Expressing a belief means there is a claim you stand behind.
Expressing a claim implies you believe it.

You can't have one without the other.

Saying "ow, it's my belief, I have no burden of proof" is then thus just a silly cop-out to avoid a burden of proof.




I don't ignore it. I'm flat out stating that it is false for reasons outlined above.

The chanting of " ...you/they
always ignore..." is but a low semantic
trick to grab for the high ground of
deeper thought- and directly presenting
that you / they / anyone who doesn't agree
is intellectually dishonest

 

[wellwisher]

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.

Science claim; there is life on other planets. Where is the proof? Why is that still part of science and not treated as a faith based claim; atheist religion? Should all public funding be removed due to separation of church and state and the state not suppose to push any religion? These rituals should be done with private donations like churches.

Interestingly religion, has the earth as unique in terms of formation of life. This still holds true in terms of the hard data we have. Religion is out science-ing science in this matter.