In Opposition of a the "Negative Claim" Argument in Respects to Theism and Atheism

[Animore]

There is one argument above all others in which I do not enjoy, and do not support in New Atheism and general atheistic arguments, and that is "You can't prove a negative" and the "Burden of Proof" argument, and I cannot find a single instance in which this works except when someone who is not making a negative claim. Here's why.

Alright, so let's say there's a man who walks up to you and says that he can do fifty cartwheels in five seconds. I tell him I don't believe him. He's going to have to prove such a thing. It is obviously not the skeptics burden of proof. This is all well and good. Now, let's say that there's a man who is in protest of such a thing, and starts saying, "There is no way for this man to do such a thing." Well, that's a claim, right? Well the man starts using the burden of proof argument. Except, this is not a claim to skepticism, this is a claim in itself, and he has just admitted that he can't prove a negative. Why in the hell would he make the claim then, if he can't prove it? To make this clearer, I'll give an instance of the burden of proof in other areas:

In claims in science, whether it's a negative or not, the man who is making a claim will have to provide the evidence, either for or against it. If it is a positive claim, they will have to give the evidence for it. If it is a negative claim, they will have to give the evidence against it. Now, I understand that in most areas, it is impossible for one to prove something doesn't exist. Still, that brings me back to my point: why make the claim? I feel it's completely unfair to say that one side has to prove something, and the other doesn't. If a side makes a claim, whether something exists or not, it seems entirely more fair to own up to that claim instead of galloping around thinking that you can say whatever you want because its a negatively claim, and again. I understand if it's a claim to skepticism, because then, obviously, it's not their burden of proof, but when someone is going to make a claim of a non-existence of something, it's better to give the arguments against that, instead of giving a cop-out.

And that is why I feel it's better to stick to the claims like "There is no evidence for God," or, "God is not essential to the runnings of space-time" because these are claims that in a way can be backed up with evidence. But to claim that a God doesn't exist, and then cop-out and say that the burden of proof is on you? That is entirely unfair, whether it's a negative claim or not.

 

[Sunstone]

Hint: In epistemology, to say something is "a negative claim" is just a colloquial way of describing an affirmative claim that something is not the case (doesn't exist), or cannot possibly be the case (cannot exist). e.g. "There are no gods", is an affirmative or positive claim that gods are either not the case, or cannot be the case. Negative claims (in that sense of the phrase "negative claim") incur a burden of proof.

That's something of a gloss, by the way, so don't quote me to your mother-in-law. I hope it helps.

EDIT: By the way, the old saying, "You can't prove a negative" is not logic -- it's "folk logic". Very popular idea with folks, but no professional logician subscribes to it. In fact, "you can’t prove a negative" is itself a negative, so if you could prove it true, then it wouldn’t be true. Ooops! Funny how that works.

 

[Animore]

Hint: In epistemology, to say something is "a negative claim" is just a colloquial way of describing an affirmative claim that something is not the case (doesn't exist), or cannot possibly be the case (cannot exist). e.g. "There are no gods", is an affirmative or positive claim that gods are either not the case, or cannot be the case. Negative claims (in that sense of the phrase "negative claim") incur a burden of proof.

That's something of a gloss, by the way, so don't quote me to your mother-in-law. I hope it helps.

Oh, well that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for this.

 

[omega2xx]

There is one argument above all others in which I do not enjoy, and do not support in New Atheism and general atheistic arguments, and that is "You can't prove a negative" and the "Burden of Proof" argument, and I cannot find a single instance in which this works except when someone who is not making a negative claim. Here's why.

Alright, so let's say there's a man who walks up to you and says that he can do fifty cartwheels in five seconds. I tell him I don't believe him. He's going to have to prove such a thing. It is obviously not the skeptics burden of proof. This is all well and good. Now, let's say that there's a man who is in protest of such a thing, and starts saying, "There is no way for this man to do such a thing." Well, that's a claim, right? Well the man starts using the burden of proof argument. Except, this is not a claim to skepticism, this is a claim in itself, and he has just admitted that he can't prove a negative. Why in the hell would he make the claim then, if he can't prove it? To make this clearer, I'll give an instance of the burden of proof in other areas:

In claims in science, whether it's a negative or not, the man who is making a claim will have to provide the evidence, either for or against it. If it is a positive claim, they will have to give the evidence for it. If it is a negative claim, they will have to give the evidence against it. Now, I understand that in most areas, it is impossible for one to prove something doesn't exist. Still, that brings me back to my point: why make the claim? I feel it's completely unfair to say that one side has to prove something, and the other doesn't. If a side makes a claim, whether something exists or not, it seems entirely more fair to own up to that claim instead of galloping around thinking that you can say whatever you want because its a negatively claim, and again. I understand if it's a claim to skepticism, because then, obviously, it's not their burden of proof, but when someone is going to make a claim of a non-existence of something, it's better to give the arguments against that, instead of giving a cop-out.

And that is why I feel it's better to stick to the claims like "There is no evidence for God," or, "God is not essential to the runnings of space-time" because these are claims that in a way can be backed up with evidence. But to claim that a God doesn't exist, and then cop-out and say that the burden of proof is on you? That is entirely unfair, whether it's a negative claim or not.

You keep avoiding the 2 critical questions:

1. What is the source of matter, energy and life?
2. You never present the evidence, scientific evidence that is, that the running of space-time is a valid concept.

If you say God didn't do it, then the burden of proof is on you to explain how it happened. Also the burden of proof is on you to also present the scientific evidence that makes it
possible.

All you keep doing is blowing smoke to hide the FACT that you can't explain the origin of matter, energy and life. You can't even explain it in non-scientific terms, let alone in scientific terms.

Let me remind you of your own words:
it's not their burden of proof, but when someone is going to make a claim of a non-existence of something, it's better to give the arguments against that, instead of giving a cop-out.

 

[Desert Snake]

And that is why I feel it's better to stick to the claims like "There is no evidence for God," or, "God is not essential to the runnings of space-time" because these are claims that in a way can be backed up with evidence. But to claim that a God doesn't exist, and then cop-out and say that the burden of proof is on you? That is entirely unfair, whether it's a negative claim or not.

There is no 'burden of proof', for theism. There can be contextual arguments either for or against a persons position /atheism, theism.

Atheism, and theism, are adherences, not necessarily claims of 'proof' of anything

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is a common logic mistake, by atheists; ie thinking that somehow theism requires an argument.

Theism in general doesn't require justification; only rational theism requires a justification.

Nobody can be forced to be rational.

 

[Desert Snake]

Theism in general doesn't require justification; only rational theism requires a justification.

Nobody can be forced to be rational.

Rational theism and burden of proof are entirely different things. Rational theism does not require burden of proof, either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Rational theism and burden of proof are entirely different things. Rational theism does not require burden of proof, either.

Any claim needs to be justified in order to be rationally accepted as true.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Rational theism does not require burden of proof, either.

Only if one is actually interested in showing how and why it's rational.

 

[Desert Snake]

Any claim needs to be justified in order to be rationally accepted as true.

This again is not ''burden of proof''. burden of proof is contextual to an argument with parameters, and has nothing to do with the adherence 'theism'', aside from that.
your word ''claim'', would have to be contextual, and therefore atheism would have the same burden of proof.

 

[Desert Snake]

Only if one is actually interested in showing how and why it's rational.

Yes, same could be said for anything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This again is not ''burden of proof''. burden of proof is contextual to an argument with parameters, and has nothing to do with the adherence 'theism'', aside from that.
your word ''claim'', would have to be contextual, and therefore atheism would have the same burden of proof.

The burden of proof is the level of justification needed to properly justify a claim. If you say that a claim has no burden of proof, then you're saying that it doesn't need to be justified.

The claim of explicit atheism (i.e. "I'm not convinced") only speaks to the atheist's own state of mind and has a very low bar for burden of proof. The bar for that claim is much lower than the one for "this god exists".

Edit: and implicit atheism has no burden of proof because it makes no claims.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes, same could be said for anything.

Yes it could. I'm looking forward to the day when someone claiming rational theism is able to meet their burden of proof.

 

[Desert Snake]

The burden of proof is the level of justification needed to properly justify a claim. If you say that a claim has no burden of proof, then you're saying that it doesn't need to be justified.

The claim of explicit atheism (i.e. "I'm not convinced") only speaks to the atheist's own state of mind and has a very low bar for burden of proof. The bar for that claim is much lower than the one for "this god exists".

Edit: and implicit atheism has no burden of proof because it makes no claims.

Contextually in a argument, yes. Not sure what your point is.

The problem with your equation is that you can't have a contextual argument when the parameters are one sided /claim/. This is why a claim of theism , cannot work with a non-claim //non-claim is non-oppositional.
Hence, 'claims', always are on both sides ie
''there is no deity''
''there is a deity''

This why atheism has as much burden of proof, /when a claim is made, as theism.

Really what the original premise (of the thread) was arguing, actually.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Contextually in a argument, yes. Not sure what your point is.

The problem with your equation is that you can't have a contextual argument when the parameters are one sided /claim/. This is why a claim of theism , cannot work with a non-claim //non-claim is non-oppositional.
Hence, 'claims', always are on both sides ie
''there is no deity''
''there is a deity''

This why atheism has as much burden of proof, /when a claim is made, as theism.

Really what the original premise (of the thread) was arguing, actually.

Here's the thing: it's never one-sided. Not if the person is being rational, anyway. Even in one's own head, the claim "there is a deity" (or, more realistically, usually "there is this specific deity") is opposed by the principle that one ought not to accept claims without justification.

Same if you're arguing against an atheist: the atheist is justified in not accepting your claim unless your god meets a reasonable burden of proof. It doesn't matter if the atheist "wins" the argument or even speaks at all; the battle is between you and the bar for justification, not between you and the atheist. Even if the atheist crashes and burns in a debate, this isn't in and of itself any sort of justification for theism.

Now...if someone did justify the claim "no gods exist", this would imply that any mutually exclusive claims "e.g. my preferred deity exists" are false. However, the opposite doesn't work: a failure on the part of someone to defend their claim that no gods exist doesn't imply that the claim "a god exists" is justified. Your opponent's lack of debating skill says nothing about whether what you're arguing is correct.

 

[JerryL]

"There is no way for this man to do such a thing." Well, that's a claim, right? Well the man starts using the burden of proof argument. Except, this is not a claim to skepticism, this is a claim in itself, and he has just admitted that he can't prove a negative.

"there is no way for" sounds terribly close to "is impossible", which I agree is a positive claim.

"God is impossible" would indeed be a positive claim requiring proof.

That is different from a disbelief in god (which is much like a disbelief in small fuzzy blue creatures on a planet orbiting Betelgeuse)

I've assumed that the dispositive claim (athe-ist as opposed to a-theist) was hyperbolic and to emphasize the position.

Now, I understand that in most areas, it is impossible for one to prove something doesn't exist. Still, that brings me back to my point: why make the claim?

Because it saves time? Much shorter than "your assertion regarding a diety is unfounded and therefore should be dismissed".

I feel it's completely unfair to say that one side has to prove something, and the other doesn't. If a side makes a claim, whether something exists or not, it seems entirely more fair to own up to that claim instead of galloping around thinking that you can say whatever you want because its a negatively claim, and again. I understand if it's a claim to skepticism, because then, obviously, it's not their burden of proof, but when someone is going to make a claim of a non-existence of something, it's better to give the arguments against that, instead of giving a cop-out.

Do you believe in underpants gnomes? Do they exist?

Indeed: do you believe the religions that are not yours are true?

 

[Animore]

"there is no way for" sounds terribly close to "is impossible", which I agree is a positive claim.

"God is impossible" would indeed be a positive claim requiring proof.

That is different from a disbelief in god (which is much like a disbelief in small fuzzy blue creatures on a planet orbiting Betelgeuse)

I've assumed that the dispositive claim (athe-ist as opposed to a-theist) was hyperbolic and to emphasize the position.


Because it saves time? Much shorter than "your assertion regarding a diety is unfounded and therefore should be dismissed".


Do you believe in underpants gnomes? Do they exist?

Indeed: do you believe the religions that are not yours are true?

1. You're assuming that everyone who disbelieves in God disbelieves in the sense of disbelieving in small fuzzy blue creatures.

2. Something that "saves time" is not always helpful, and can be harmful in some situations, like equating the Big Bang to a balloon inflating. That can bring a misrepresentation to the theory of cosmic inflation.

3. Do you believe in abiogenesis? In particle waves? They haven't been disproven, but they're generally accepted.

 

[JerryL]

1. You're assuming that everyone who disbelieves in God disbelieves in the sense of disbelieving in small fuzzy blue creatures.

Read the line right after the one you are responding do. I already addressed that. It's a bit of an assumption, but it's more of a generalization.

2. Something that "saves time" is not always helpful, and can be harmful in some situations, like equating the Big Bang to a balloon inflating. That can bring a misrepresentation to the theory of cosmic inflation.

What's wrong with the balloon inflation model? It give an excellent illustration of both the expansion of space and the concept of a finite but borderless topology.

I mean sure: metaphores/similes work well for a while but eventually break down... like a car.

3. Do you believe in abiogenesis? In particle waves? They haven't been disproven, but they're generally accepted.

Your "but" there is strange. Most things generally accepted should not have been disproven.

I find abiogenesis' model supported by the available evidence and the most likely case.

I've never managed to get a sufficient handle on particle/wave superpositions to truly form my own opinion; thus I accept the position held by the consensus of experts rather than create one from ignorance.

 

[Animore]

Read the line right after the one you are responding do. I already addressed that. It's a bit of an assumption, but it's more of a generalization.


What's wrong with the balloon inflation model? It give an excellent illustration of both the expansion of space and the concept of a finite but borderless topology.

I mean sure: metaphores/similes work well for a while but eventually break down... like a car.


Your "but" there is strange. Most things generally accepted should not have been disproven.

I find abiogenesis' model supported by the available evidence and the most likely case.

I've never managed to get a sufficient handle on particle/wave superpositions to truly form my own opinion; thus I accept the position held by the consensus of experts rather than create one from ignorance.

"What's wrong with the balloon inflation model?"

Not that the basics of it isn't valid. The problem is they used a spherical thing instead of a flat thing. I'm not the original thinker-upper of this, but it is more accurate to think of a grid expanding. Yes, I concur, however, that metaphors only work so much.

"Your 'but' there is strange..."

Yes, sorry about that. Wasn't thinking straight.

"I find abiogenesis model supported by available evidence and the most likely case."

Whether it's the most likely case is irrelevant. It hasn't been proven.

"I've never managed..."

I do not deny the existence of such. It was an analogy.

 

[JerryL]

Not that the basics of it isn't valid. The problem is they used a spherical thing instead of a flat thing. I'm not the original thinker-upper of this, but it is more accurate to think of a grid expanding. Yes, I concur, however, that metaphors only work so much.

The shape of the universe appears to be curved, finite, and boundless. A euclidean plane would not be an accurate representation.

I'm not saying that the universe is shaped like the surface of a balloon exactly, but it's a more useful model.

Whether it's the most likely case is irrelevant. It hasn't been proven.

It's the model that best fits the available facts. The predictions it makes have borne out in observation, and it's not been falsified. In short: It's the best model available.

I don't know what you think "proven" means.

It certainly lacks the number or scale of predictions that the evolution has, for example; and there are other models (dismissed via occam's razor) that would be functionally identical (though most simply move goalposts).