"I Don't Have to Prove a Negative"

[SalixIncendium]

Science claim; there is life on other planets.

Show me where "science" makes this claim.

 

[Audie]

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.

No. That's baloney. Falsehood
from you. There is no such claim,
it would be utterly contrary to the
most basic principles of science to do so.

Why? There is no -zero- evidence.
You may have seen it stated that there is
thought to be a very high probability.

If you wish to criticize, stick to facts.
You are doing what you falsely criticoze-
making things up.

Atheism is not a religion. And science / atheism have
no relationship.

Your last line there is false, and, very silly.

 

[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.

It's a lot like "I see no evidence that
wild wild horses trampled your petunias
and are now savaging the hydrangias"

 

[stvdv]

Disagree? State your case below.

If I make a claim that is true Then I see no need to prove my claim. If others dismiss my claim, obviously it's their loss

If I have a desire to prove my claim Then I try to prove my claim

To try to prove "God exists" is silly, as God is beyond the mind and desire to prove is below the mind. "God exists" you just 'know' or you don't. You have to figure that one out yourself. Hoping others will do your homework...you will wait till you die and you will never know

 

[PureX]

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.

Except that it's not semantic trickery. The fact is that a personal belief is not an assertion of a collective or universal truth. And it is also a fact that what a person believes has no bearing whatever on what is actuality of a collective or universal true. So to say "I believe ..." is in no logical way an assertion of what is actually collectively or universally true.

But you will, of course, continue to ignore this.

Imo, the difference between "I believe X is true" and "X is true" is mere semantics.

Your opinion on this is both unfounded and being left invalidated (by you), as expected. So there really is no reason that anyone else should take it seriously, is there?

Like a "belief", opinions are just a personal position we choose to hold based on ... whatever. Share 'whatever' or don't. It's up to you.

In the second statement, the words "i believe" are just ommitted, but they still apply.

Or not. Neither belief nor agreement are a requirement for posing an assertion of universal truth. A machine could easily pose such a truth claim. So can an actor or a professional debator.

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.

Implying belief in your mind does not equal believing in someone else's. One can imply a belief without believing it. People do it all the time. One can make a truth claim without believing it to be true. People do that all the time, too.

When I say "X is true", am I not then implying belief in said claim?

Not to me. I don't care whether you believe it or not because your believing it will not make it any more or less true, to me. Your belief, real or feigned, is simply not relevant to the truth of the claim.

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

Ignoring the difference doesn't make the difference go away. It just makes you ignorant.

Expressing a belief means there is a claim you stand behind.

No, it doesn't.

Expressing a claim implies you believe it.

Whether or not I believe it is irrelevant to the claim.

You can't have one without the other.

I can and I do, often.

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.

Actually, it's a very common position for a lot of people regarding a lot of beliefs. Extra-terrestrial life would be an easy example.

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

Your reasoning is very flawed. Mostly because it's untrue.

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.

The real problem here is that you think you are in charge of determining the validity of what other people believe. And you aren't. You also think that you are in charge of determining when someone has met this mythical "burden of proof", and again, you aren't. Except as it relates to your own beliefs, and those don't matter to anyone but you.

But your ego LOVES doing it! That's what our ego's exist to do: to maintain and protect our concept of who we are and what we think is 'real'. To keep us in the "right" whether we're right or not. The ego lives to sit in the "cat-bird seat" so it can always find itself to be in the right in the scary land of conflicting ideas. The Big Kanga ruling over his kangaroo court.

So now everyone else's belief, opinions, speculations, statements of faith, truth claims, or whatever else, are all fodder for the Great Kanga to rule over, and to condemn if they dare to contradict his own beliefs, opinions, speculations, or whatever else.

And he's feeling very good about himself, for it, too.

We've all been there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Except that it's not semantic trickery.

It is. It's just adding a couple words that were otherwise implied anyway and then pretending as if it changes what is being said.

The fact is that a personal belief is not an assertion of a collective or universal truth. And it is also a fact that what a person believes has no bearing whatever on what is actuality of a collective or universal true. So to say "I believe ..." is in no logical way an assertion of what is actually collectively or universally true.

But you will, of course, continue to ignore this.

I think I explained very clearly how this is not true.

"I believe species evolved" vs "species evolved".

What is the practical difference between these two statements?
I say there is no difference. In the latter statements, the words "I believe" are implied.
Or do you think it is possible to say "species evolved" while not believing said claim and not being a liar?

Your opinion on this is both unfounded

No. I explained it clearly, so not unfounded.

Like a "belief", opinions are just a personal position we choose to hold based on ... whatever. Share 'whatever' or don't. It's up to you.

It's not based on "whatever".
Again, I explained it clearly.

"the earth orbits the sun".
When you make that claim, don't you believe that claim? Are the words "I believe that...." not implied in that statement?

Or not.

If you make that statement while not believing it, then you are lying when making the statement.

To believe = to accept as fact, to accept as true.

When you say "I believe that..." what follows is a truth-claim.

A machine could easily pose such a truth claim.

We are talking about humans.

So can an actor or a professional debator.

Acting is pretending.
A professional debator that asserts things as true to score debate points while not believing the assertions, is using dishonest debate tactics. ie: lying.

Implying belief in your mind does not equal believing in someone else's. One can imply a belief without believing it. People do it all the time. One can make a truth claim without believing it to be true. People do that all the time, too.

Yes. It's called lying.

Not to me. I don't care whether you believe it or not because your believing it will not make it any more or less true, to me. Your belief, real or feigned, is simply not relevant to the truth of the claim.

That is always true. And it matters not to the point made.
A person who makes a truth claim implies belief in the claim. If that is not the case, then the person is lying when making the claim.

Ignoring the difference doesn't make the difference go away. It just makes you ignorant.

You have completely failed to explain the actual difference.
So far, the only "difference" you have pointed out is when people are LYING.

The real problem here is that you think you are in charge of determining the validity of what other people believe.

I don't care what people believe and it's not relevant to the point being made.
That point being that if we assume someone is honest and not lying, when they claim "x is the case", it means that they believe that x is the case.
Regardless of them explicitly saying "I believe x is the case" or ommitting the words "i believe".

You also think that you are in charge of determining when someone has met this mythical "burden of proof",

No. And there's nothing "mythical" about a burden of proof.
Your entire case here, including using the word "mythical", seems nothing more or less then trying to build a foundation to escape your burden of proof for your claims / beliefs.

But your ego LOVES doing it!

It has nothing to do with "ego".
I hold myself to the same standards as I do anyone else.
I don't try to dodge my burden of proof whenever I make a claim / express a belief.

 

[paarsurrey]

SalixIncendium said:

• #1

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. "
paarsurrey said:

• #193

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

• #194

Winner frubal

paarsurrey:

• #207

Thanks for your "frubal"

Regards

 

[wellwisher]

I would say that claiming to see a woman in a red dress would fall into the "ordinary claim" category, since this is a common thing that everyone has seen at one point or another. But if you claim to see something that no one else has ever seen, that would be an "extraordinary claim" and require extraordinary evidence.

If you look at innovation, it exists within the mind of the innovator long before it is proven to the doubters. Why would the doubter, who cannot see the innovation, be given the role of the early expert, when they have no clue and need much more prosthesis to see?

Innovation, but its nature is rare when it is conceived, and therefore easy to doubt. But as time goes by and it proves itself, everyone is fine. But it was always proven from the very beginning. However, we take the word of lessor minds, who pander to our doubts and fears. History is full of visionaries, who come through in the end, but they take crap from the experts, who are shortsighted, and should not be setting the rules.

As far as proof of God, Jesus said his realm of not of this world. So if you had critical thinking skills you would not be trying to look for God, with the five senses on the earth, and then not seeing anything, say he does not exist. We do not look for life on other planets, on the earth, and then say we can not find any, and therefore it does not exist. This is Sherlock Holmes 1.0.

The work around to this evidence paradox, can be found within. Meditation, prayer and faith all focus consciousness inward. There is long history of dreams and visions in almost all religions. These phenomena are generated by the brain and reach us from the inside. We can see a dream even with our eyes closed as we sleep. It uses the same pathways but from within.

Sometimes these internal processes can be projected, like a movie overlay onto material reality, so the object can appear to be outside ourself, where we expect or want to see it. There are many such data points and to create your own, you need learn to look inside for the evidence. This is same place innovative ideas are born. This is why religion and creativity is always side by side.

The brain works differently from computers. Computers use logic but the brain is set up via free energy potential. This is far more natural and when the brain adjusts the potential, we can get output affects. We can set up dams; obsession with a topic, and when the brain tries to lower potential, the output can be the solution desired, all based on minimizing free energy; higher entropy and lower enthalpy.

 

[Audie]

It is. It's just adding a couple words that were otherwise implied anyway and then pretending as if it changes what is being said.




I think I explained very clearly how this is not true.

"I believe species evolved" vs "species evolved".

What is the practical difference between these two statements?
I say there is no difference. In the latter statements, the words "I believe" are implied.
Or do you think it is possible to say "species evolved" while not believing said claim and not being a liar?



No. I explained it clearly, so not unfounded.



It's not based on "whatever".
Again, I explained it clearly.

"the earth orbits the sun".
When you make that claim, don't you believe that claim? Are the words "I believe that...." not implied in that statement?



If you make that statement while not believing it, then you are lying when making the statement.

To believe = to accept as fact, to accept as true.

When you say "I believe that..." what follows is a truth-claim.



We are talking about humans.



Acting is pretending.
A professional debator that asserts things as true to score debate points while not believing the assertions, is using dishonest debate tactics. ie: lying.




Yes. It's called lying.




That is always true. And it matters not to the point made.
A person who makes a truth claim implies belief in the claim. If that is not the case, then the person is lying when making the claim.



You have completely failed to explain the actual difference.
So far, the only "difference" you have pointed out is when people are LYING.



I don't care what people believe and it's not relevant to the point being made.
That point being that if we assume someone is honest and not lying, when they claim "x is the case", it means that they believe that x is the case.
Regardless of them explicitly saying "I believe x is the case" or ommitting the words "i believe".



No. And there's nothing "mythical" about a burden of proof.
Your entire case here, including using the word "mythical", seems nothing more or less then trying to build a foundation to escape your burden of proof for your claims / beliefs.



It has nothing to do with "ego".
I hold myself to the same standards as I do anyone else.
I don't try to dodge my burden of proof whenever I make a claim / express a belief.

Winner frubal

 

[Audie]

If you look at innovation, it exists within the mind of the innovator long before it is proven to the doubters. Why would the doubter, who cannot see the innovation, be given the role of the early expert, when they have no clue and need much more prosthesis to see?

Innovation, but its nature is rare when it is conceived, and therefore easy to doubt. But as time goes by and it proves itself, everyone is fine. But it was always proven from the very beginning. However, we take the word of lessor minds, who pander to our doubts and fears. History is full of visionaries, who come through in the end, but they take crap from the experts, who are shortsighted, and should not be setting the rules.

As far as proof of God, Jesus said his realm of not of this world. So if you had critical thinking skills you would not be trying to look for God, with the five senses on the earth, and then not seeing anything, say he does not exist. We do not look for life on other planets, on the earth, and then say we can not find any, and therefore it does not exist. This is Sherlock Holmes 1.0.

The work around to this evidence paradox, can be found within. Meditation, prayer and faith all focus consciousness inward. There is long history of dreams and visions in almost all religions. These phenomena are generated by the brain and reach us from the inside. We can see a dream even with our eyes closed as we sleep. It uses the same pathways but from within.

Sometimes these internal processes can be projected, like a movie overlay onto material reality, so the object can appear to be outside ourself, where we expect or want to see it. There are many such data points and to create your own, you need learn to look inside for the evidence. This is same place innovative ideas are born. This is why religion and creativity is always side by side.

The brain works differently from computers. Computers use logic but the brain is set up via free energy potential. This is far more natural and when the brain adjusts the potential, we can get output affects. We can set up dams; obsession with a topic, and when the brain tries to lower potential, the output can be the solution desired, all based on minimizing free energy; higher entropy and lower enthalpy.

It's no paradox that people believe
in all manner of superstitions,
magical events and gods.

It's a lackof critical thinking skills.

 

[Audie]

Except that it's not semantic trickery. The fact is that a personal belief is not an assertion of a collective or universal truth. And it is also a fact that what a person believes has no bearing whatever on what is actuality of a collective or universal true. So to say "I believe ..." is in no logical way an assertion of what is actually collectively or universally true.

But you will, of course, continue to ignore this.

Your opinion on this is both unfounded and being left invalidated (by you), as expected. So there really is no reason that anyone else should take it seriously, is there?

Like a "belief", opinions are just a personal position we choose to hold based on ... whatever. Share 'whatever' or don't. It's up to you.

Or not. Neither belief nor agreement are a requirement for posing an assertion of universal truth. A machine could easily pose such a truth claim. So can an actor or a professional debator.

Implying belief in your mind does not equal believing in someone else's. One can imply a belief without believing it. People do it all the time. One can make a truth claim without believing it to be true. People do that all the time, too.

Not to me. I don't care whether you believe it or not because your believing it will not make it any more or less true, to me. Your belief, real or feigned, is simply not relevant to the truth of the claim.

Ignoring the difference doesn't make the difference go away. It just makes you ignorant.

No, it doesn't.

Whether or not I believe it is irrelevant to the claim.

I can and I do, often.

Actually, it's a very common position for a lot of people regarding a lot of beliefs. Extra-terrestrial life would be an easy example.

Your reasoning is very flawed. Mostly because it's untrue.

The real problem here is that you think you are in charge of determining the validity of what other people believe. And you aren't. You also think that you are in charge of determining when someone has met this mythical "burden of proof", and again, you aren't. Except as it relates to your own beliefs, and those don't matter to anyone but you.

But your ego LOVES doing it! That's what our ego's exist to do: to maintain and protect our concept of who we are and what we think is 'real'. To keep us in the "right" whether we're right or not. The ego lives to sit in the "cat-bird seat" so it can always find itself to be in the right in the scary land of conflicting ideas. The Big Kanga ruling over his kangaroo court.

So now everyone else's belief, opinions, speculations, statements of faith, truth claims, or whatever else, are all fodder for the Great Kanga to rule over, and to condemn if they dare to contradict his own beliefs, opinions, speculations, or whatever else.

And he's feeling very good about himself, for it, too.

We've all been there.

"....your ego loves..."

I "love" the way you shoot your argument in the foot
by making up things about other people and
incorporating them into your claims.

It's been s.o.p. in replies to my posts.

Like how I "love" to exploit workers.

As to your last " truth" claim:
No, we've not all been there.
And we don't all try to tar others with our
own brush, either.

 

[paarsurrey]

"I Don't Have to Prove a Negative"

Aren't there Medical test results that prove negative?

Regards

 

[SalixIncendium]

"I Don't Have to Prove a Negative"

Aren't there Medical test results that prove negative?

Regards

How about we respond to the OP and not the title?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

Actually, it is an assertion, i.e., an unevidenced claim.

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.

Correct.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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, but I think it's important to remember that the vast majority of people who call themselves "atheists" are actually agnostic, but the vast majority of people who call themselves "theists" are gnostic and assert that they know with certainty that a god exists. The theistic claim is almost always much stronger and as a result requires much more justification.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't disagree, but I think it's important to remember that the vast majority of people who call themselves "atheists" are actually agnostic, but the vast majority of people who call themselves "theists" are gnostic and assert that they know with certainty that a god exists. The theistic claim is almost always much stronger and as a result requires much more justification.

I would say that most of the agnostics out there are actually atheists.

How many gods do you believe in?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I would say that most of the agnostics out there are actually atheists.

How many gods do you believe in?

I think both statements are true: most atheists are agnostic and most agnostics are atheists. I don't believe in any gods, although I don't assert with certainty that no gods exist. My point is that most theists *do* assert with certainty that gods exist so the burden of proof is on them.

 

[Shaul]

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.

You were doing well until that last sentence. The onus is on the person making the claim to provide a convincing argument, NOT necessarily evidence. Furthermore you do not provide your definition for "evidence".

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.

1) Evidence is ONLY applicable for some forms of argument. It is not necessary for all forms of argument. 2) Evidence types are dependent on the subject class. Material evidence is applicable when arguing material subjects. Similarly non-material evidence is used when arguing about non-material subjects.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think both statements are true: most atheists are agnostic and most agnostics are atheists. I don't believe in any gods, although I don't assert with certainty that no gods exist. My point is that most theists *do* assert with certainty that gods exist so the burden of proof is on them.

I agree, and it is only hard atheists that say "There is no God". Me, I am a bit more laid back. I will tell a believer, "Provide me with reliable evidence and I will change my mind".

Of course then the try to shift the burden of proof by asking what evidence that I would accept. That is really an admission that they have none, but they really want is for others to do their homework for them and if people refuse they often accuse nonbelievers of having too high of a standard.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I think both statements are true: most atheists are agnostic and most agnostics are atheists. I don't believe in any gods, although I don't assert with certainty that no gods exist. My point is that most theists *do* assert with certainty that gods exist so the burden of proof is on them.

If I was speaking about how god(s) have impacted my life, and you call these gods fiction or imaginary beings, who is the burden of proof on?

The line is not always quite so black and white.