Burden of proof (philosophy)

I answered/Quoted you in in another thread:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ally-dishonest.515822/page-19#post-1068111795
One of THREE you have on the Same Goofy topic.
NO ANSWER
Instead you Spam us to death with the same "you can't prove there's no god" Fallacy.
Again:

Care to try now?
Religion has just become your favorite (of many) conspiracy theories.
And there's so many, unlike the truth.

+

 

but negatives can not be proven. again, basic logic 101. and you suck at it.

You don't understand the example. It isn't proving a negative, as that can't be done. It's proving a positive.

 

Can you discuss these proofs that negatives can be proven?

Edit: Do you realize that what you have proven is that some posts are truly meant to incite emotional and irrational reactions in an effort to strongarm the competition?

Those who do this aren't interested in proving anything to anyone, but simply believe as they do without question. It is a faith as strong as those of the deeply theistic.

However, your thread brings up some valuable points of discussion.ee.

 

But we can prove that you believe there is no God since you stated you dont believe God exists.

SInce you believe no God exists you are on the same identical footing as the theists who state they believe God exists.

As we can see from the rules of burden of proof he who makes the assertion is obligated to prove it regardless if its negative or postitive. You made the assertion so feel free ti prove it.

No its not spam, unfortunately it is I am getting spammed by those who come out here pushing their personal denial adinfinitum rather than having a logical debate.

 

again you might wish to read the OP or if you do not understand it please feel free to ask questions

From the OP:
Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

 

I can prove a zillion+ negatives.

1-2=-1; all real numbers.

 

I had that figured out, believe it or don't. haha

 

Except I posted EVIDENCE/Reasoning for my belief.
You post None.

One is obligated only to post good faith evidence/reasoning for a philosophical position. Not "proof".
There is None of either for god/s.
"Proofs" are for math only, not even science.

I made a two assertions, and gave my reasonoing.
You haven't touched it.
ZERO.

THREE threads based on the SAME (Duh) you-can't-prove-theres-no-god premise.
NO ******* kidding
You can't prove I'M not god.
The last after disingenuously NOT answering me.

This one too. NO answer to my position/Reasoning why.
You are not conversant on the topic, just repetitive.

+

 

the whole point is that there is a never ending dispute of burden of proof, and all that boils down to is atheists using any excuse they can throw at the wall to pretend they have no obligation to prove out their claims.

 

Aside from the OP topic, when and why 0 became a Real Number perplexes me.

 

I suppose after everty side tracks the thread in to oblivion it will be the same, but each have a distinctively different point you toss them all in the same bucket, that is one of the problems trying to discuss anything with atheists the fail distinction most of the time.

Evidence? Where?

If I cant prove you are not God and I cant prove you are God, that makes me an agnostic

 

like agnostic

 

Do you take me at Atheist, Theist or Agnostic?

 

I gave evidence/Reasoning.
You have NOTHING in reply to it.
You didn't even understand the [Lack of] appropriateness of "proof" in this debate.

You remain non-conversant, and do NOTHING but endless repeat/spam with more OP variants of the worthless/mindless/obvious "you can't prove there's no god" mantra. Which both agnostics and atheists obviously know already... as does anyone over 15 years old.

+

 

I read it, and showed why you are wrong. The one making the positive assertion ALWAYS has the burden of proof. A negative can not be proven. Neither can non existence.

 

I never gave it any thought, on an interesting note however, I just read an interview with Nikola Tesla, arguably one of the smartest people ever to have lived, he said that when he looked up into the sky it wasnt just blue, it was a multitude of colors, and he could hear thunder over 150 miles away, my point being that we cant say what people are capable of experiencing or comprehending. It is an awesome interview, I'd have really enjoyed talking with him.

 

You did? where is it? rahl always says he does and no one can ever find his either.

 

From your own quote,

The answer is above, one claim is being made, God Exists. I have bolded the answer.

 

Yes. Yes. We're all a brain in vat.

Could you link a transcript?

 

I hear you. Did you see this?

I think you are making some good points with the wrong folks. Or, in other words...

 

Its not for them, they are hopeless, its for everyone else who is being assaulted by the illogical slieight of hand they use to promote atheism in attampts to destroy freedom of choice, religion, that is the underlying motive.

THINKING TOOLS: YOU CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE
Steven D. Hales

Thinking Tools is a regular feature that introduces tips
and pointers on thinking clearly and rigorously.


It is widely believed that you can’t prove a negative. Some people even think that it is a law of logic—you can’t prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq and Bigfoot don’t exist. This widespread belief is flatly, 100% wrong. In this little essay, I show precisely how one can prove a negative, to the same extent that one can prove anything at all.

As Bertrand Russell pointed out, the chicken who expects to be fed when he sees the farmer approaching, since that is what had always happened in the past, is in for a big surprise when instead of receiving dinner, he becomes dinner. But if the chicken had rejected inductive reasoning altogether, then every appearance of the farmerwould be a surprise.

So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative? I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it. That’s why people kee

If we’re going to dismiss inductive arguments because they produce conclusions that are probable but not definite, then we are in deep doo-doo. Despite its fallibility, induction is vital in every aspect of our lives, from the mundane to the most sophisticated science. Without induction we know basically nothing about the world apart from our own immediate perceptions. So we’d better keep induction, warts and all, and use it to form negative beliefs as well as positive ones.

You can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove anything at all

https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Steven Hales is professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg
University, Pennsylvania

 

http://www.trueactivist.com/lost-interview-with-nikola-tesla-resurfaces-on-the-internet/

 

I think you would be more successful creating threads which explain your ideals to the ignorant and the trolls. Most sites like this don't regulate trolling as you would think on these subjects. They can't, since they would be called out for discrimination. You must realize this and do your part without directly attacking their principals, or they will be allowed to continue.

The trolling they regulate is of a different nature.

This is the world we live in. I do not blame them because they are working for others who they must follow or lose their jobs.

Thanks for the reply about proving a negative.

 

Lets put in the stuff you left out!

Prove P is true and you can prove that P is not false. Some people seem to think that you can’t prove a specific sort of negative claim, namely that a thing does not exist. So it is impossible to prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq, and Bigfoot don’t exist. Of course, this rather depends on what one has in mind by ‘prove.’ Can you construct a valid deductive argument with all true premises that yields the conclusion that there are no unicorns? Sure. Here’s one, using the valid inference procedure of modus tollens: 1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record. 2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record. 3. Therefore, unicorns never existed. Someone might object that that was a bit too fast  after all, I didn’t prove that the two premises were true. I just asserted that they were true. Well, that’s right. However, it would be a grievous mistake to insist that someone prove all the premises of any argument they might give. Here’s why. The only way to prove, say, that there is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record, is by giving an argument to that conclusion. Of course one would then have to prove the premises of that argument by giving further arguments, and then prove the premises of those further arguments, ad infinitum. Which premises we should take on credit and which need payment up front is a matter of long and involved debate among epistemologists. But one thing is certain: if proving things requires that an infinite number of premises get proved first, we’re not going to prove much of anything at all, positive or negative.


I have heard of quote mining but you take it to a whole new level!

 

regardless how you want to blur the matter he said:

You can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove anything at all

https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Steven Hales is professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg
University, Pennsylvania

nothing to do with quote mining if you comprehend what he said, convenience in proving something has nothing what so ever to do proving something within the rules of logic.

All you pointed out is that its more convenient to use inductive reasoning than absolute proofs which atheists have been demanding but not giving. That little ditty works both ways!

Prove P is false then you do not need to prove P is true! LOL

The above is precisely the way atheists argue against theists, assuming presumptions adinfinitum and as you can see its a grevious mistake.