"I Don't Have to Prove a Negative"

[Audie]

I don't disagree but I've also seen very few people make the claim "No gods exist.", and, while it's true that "I see no evidence to support the existence of any gods" is not evidence for that claim, it is enough to withhold belief that any gods exist and to regard any such claims as unsupported.

To use your analogy, if somebody had, prior to 1930, made a guess, based on no evidence, that Pluto existed, it would have been perfectly rational to reject it as an unsupported assertion until such evidence was available.

Stating opinion as fact is an ordinary daily.

This is too expensive
You are must angry
We will never get there on time

There are no gods. I probably say that.

Pressed, if some tiresome person demands it,
sure.

It's too expensive for you, or, we can get it
for half as much
i'm worried we won't get there and I'm annoyed
with you for the delay.
I don't believe there are any gods.

The above is not like deep philosophy.

It's just shorthand, sa e some words.
Here in Singapore, " Singlish" specializes

in extreme economy of words.

If someone prefers

" Oh, while I recognize nothing can be disproven
regarding God, and ever so many people do believe
with all their heart in their God, it is my considered conclusion thro' calculating one consideration with another that..."

Then let them talk that way.

"God ain't real" will do for me.

 

[SalixIncendium]

And this is where we are going to disagree, perhaps.

I can easily say someone is wrong about declaring the existence of a god because of the path they have used to establish the existence of this god and this is not specific to gods. It works like this for almost everything.

Unless you have shared every subjective experience this someone has had, your declaration is invalid.

 

[Estro Felino]

And this is where we are going to disagree, perhaps.

I can easily say someone is wrong about declaring the existence of a god because of the path they have used to establish the existence of this god and this is not specific to gods. It works like this for almost everything.

If you tell me I am wrong, for example, you have to specify what I am wrong about. And why.
That's the basis of any debate, I guess.

 

[Koldo]

If you tell me I am wrong, for example, you have to specify what I am wrong about. And why.
That's the basis of any debate, I guess.

Most certainly.

 

[Koldo]

Unless you have shared every subjective experiences this someone has had, your declaration is invalid.

But that's the thing: I question the value of random subjective experiences as a solid ground to ascertain the existence of anything...other than subjective experiences themselves.

 

[Audie]

And this is where we are going to disagree, perhaps.

I can easily say someone is wrong about declaring the existence of a god because of the path they have used to establish the existence of this god and this is not specific to gods. It works like this for almost everything.

As often as the theists declare that there
is a god and only a fool says otherwise,
an expression of disbelief about
the 100% unevidenced is fair play.

 

[Audie]

I sure am glad that human rights are decided by far more than you alone.

Winner frubal. With chocolate sprinkles.

 

[SalixIncendium]

But that's the thing: I question the value of random subjective experiences as a solid ground to ascertain the existence of anything...other than subjective experiences themselves.

If you are walking alone in the woods and see a woman in a red dress, and you left the woods to tell someone about the woman in the red dress, and they tell you that she doesn't exist, and you take that person back to the woods to show them, but she is no longer there, would that person be correct in declaring the woman in the red dress does not exist?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Winner frubal. With chocolate sprinkles.

Winner frubals do not exist.

 

[Stevicus]

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 think the question of "Does God exist?" is too vague and indefinable to be resolved in any conclusive way, one way or the other. One can't really make any kind of universal claim, but when surveying one's immediate vicinity, one might say "there is no god here" or "I see no god here." If one is contemplating jumping off a thousand-foot cliff in the belief and expectation that there is a god to cause a miracle that would prevent injury or death, then I would feel safe in saying "there is no god" here that will do that.

One can preface it by saying "for all practical purposes, there is no god," at least not here on earth. In order to deal with the daily, practical functions of life, one has to operate under the presumption that "there is no god" - at least not here in this time and place. Even believers tacitly acknowledge this, based on their perceptions of free will and notions that God does not directly or actively interfere in earthly events. If you're on a sinking ship, then "there is no god" to rescue you. That ship is going to sink.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And this is where we are going to disagree, perhaps.

I can easily say someone is wrong about declaring the existence of a god because of the path they have used to establish the existence of this god and this is not specific to gods. It works like this for almost everything.

It depends on what you mean by the bold one and how you give evidence relevant to what you mean by it.

 

[Stevicus]

If you are walking alone in the woods and see a woman in a red dress, and you left the woods to tell someone about the woman in the red dress, and they tell you that she doesn't exist, and you take that person back to the woods to show them, but she is no longer there, would that person be correct in declaring the woman in the red dress does not exist?

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.

 

[ratiocinator]

If you are walking alone in the woods and see a woman in a red dress, and you left the woods to tell someone about the woman in the red dress, and they tell you that she doesn't exist, and you take that person back to the woods to show them, but she is no longer there, would that person be correct in declaring the woman in the red dress does not exist?

Two points with this. Firstly, the claim that there was a woman in a red dress in some woods is not a particularly remarkable or important claim. Secondly, it's not really comparable with a purely subjective claim based on (for example) some feelings or some interpretation of what one has seen, let alone patently flawed reasoning such as is offered in some instances for god.

With regard to the first, the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is not just a slogan, it's based on Bayesian probably.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I don't disagree but I've also seen very few people make the claim "No gods exist.", and, while it's true that "I see no evidence to support the existence of any gods" is not evidence for that claim, it is enough to withhold belief that any gods exist and to regard any such claims as unsupported.

To use your analogy, if somebody had, prior to 1930, made a guess, based on no evidence, that Pluto existed, it would have been perfectly rational to reject it as an unsupported assertion until such evidence was available.

To expand on your point:

Guessing Pluto existed prior to 1930 would have been a good guess and based on observable reality since we knew planets other than our own existed.

Guessing God exists is dependent more on tradition that seems based on human psychology and the attempt to fit this tradition into our observable reality. For instance, God, for the most part, seems like a supernormal stimulus for innate response mechanisms related to "parents" or "tribe leader." By observing that humans create artifacts, one could link this idea of a divine parent or leader to the artifact of the world and life.

But this is where proof and evidence as suggested by @exchemist comes in: the evidence here is not proof. It can be shown to occur more probably from other mechanisms. Proof narrows the probability of something where evidence merely suggests it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

Two points with this. Firstly, the claim that there was a woman in a red dress in some woods is not a particularly remarkable or important claim. Secondly, it's not really comparable with a purely subjective claim based on (for example) some feelings or some interpretation of what one has seen, let alone patently flawed reasoning such as is offered in some instances for god.

With regard to the first, the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is not just a slogan, it's based on Bayesian probably.

Fair enough. Let's change the woman in a red dress to a man hunting in a red dress. Still to ordinary? How about a coyote in a red dress. I think either of these would qualify as greater than ordinary. What then?

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Easy. Pluto can be seen and is actually there.

The evidence is God dosent even come close to the analogy by which Pluto is being compared with.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Disagree? State your case below.

I would just for fun if I could. I can't think of an example of a negative assertion which would be unquestionable.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

The onus is on you to either (a) engage in the discussion, or (b) whine about burden of proof, and, yes, you are perfectly free to dismiss whatever you choose.

 

[PureX]

I don't disagree but I've also seen very few people make the claim "No gods exist.", and, while it's true that "I see no evidence to support the existence of any gods" is not evidence for that claim, it is enough to withhold belief that any gods exist and to regard any such claims as unsupported.

To use your analogy, if somebody had, prior to 1930, made a guess, based on no evidence, that Pluto existed, it would have been perfectly rational to reject it as an unsupported assertion until such evidence was available.

Actually, you would have looked like a fool rejecting someone else's guess based on nothing. It smacks of someone so desperate to see himself as the intellectual superior that he'll jump even at someone else's guess as an excuse.

Whether they realize it or not, everyone is guessing about the nature and existence of God. And everyone has their own determined "evidence" to support their guess. Including you. But no one has sufficient evidence to convince anyone else. So why negate someone else's guess unless you just want to see yourself as the winner of a meaningless argument? What's the point of the pointless contention if it's not to feel falsely superior at someone else's expense?

 

[Stevicus]

Fair enough. Let's change the woman in a red dress to a man hunting in a red dress. Still to ordinary? How about a coyote in a red dress. I think either of these would qualify as greater than ordinary. What then?

Either of these could be explainable. For one thing, one can easily find images of men wearing red dresses, so it's conceivable that some of them might go hunting. Or maybe someone spots a hunter in a red jacket which looks like a dress, and the observer could be mistaken. A coyote in a red dress might be harder to explain, although it's possible a coyote might have gotten tangled up in a discarded dress and ended up with it wrapped around to make it look like a coyote in a dress.