Burden of proof (philosophy)

no, I'm pointing out why a negative can't be proven.

no, you can't actually prove any of that.

 

A complete knowledge of the true nature of reality.

 

Yes, through changing the variables so that the statement becomes unfalsifiable in principle. According to the same logic you've provided, you can't prove a positive either, meaning it is a mistake for you to try to place the burden of proof on the theist. Neither a strong atheist nor the theist would be able to satisfy the burden of proof.

 

That's why I always and, only ever, ask for evidence.

 

I'm not changing the variables. I'm pointing out we can't know all the variables, which is why we can't prove a negative, or non existence.

I take the scientific approach here. Nothing can ever be "proven" other than mathematical proofs.

 

But again, by the standard you've set, we can't prove a positive either. Nothing can be proven, so debating the burden of proof makes no sense.

I'm thinking more in terms of the colloquial way we use the word "proof." As far as I'm concerned, evolution, climate change, the lunar landing, etc. have all been satisfactorily proven. And by the standards presented, I'm not even convinced mathematics can be proven.

 

Have mathematical theorems ever been proven wrong? You can disprove science just by experiment.

:EDIT:

Scientific theories I mean.

 

no, positives can be proven. If you assert that the box contains a unicorn, and we open the box and can see a unicorn, the assertion was proven true. We just can't prove the assertion, there is no unicorn in the box, because we can't factor in all variables.

 

Actually, you can prove there is no unicorn in the box by proving the positive: There is nothing in box. But you are correct, you don't prove negatives. Even in criminal trials of guilt or innocence, you don't prove the negative you're not guilty, you prove the positive, you are innocent.

Still, you make a very good point, and one, for some reason, people either never heard of, or just ignore. I suppose there could be a third, they just forget. But that seems odd to me. It is such a basic principle of rhetoric and logic.

 

Most people like yourself do not know the difference between Theism and Deism.

Most people do not even know what Deism is.

You should google it on Wiki since you love Wiki so much.

 

but you can't prove "nothing" is in the box.

precisely

 

If you can somehow deal with and get past Aristotle's "might makes right" and Plato's "virtue is its own reward" then you can lay the foundation for what the definition of a "proof" is.

You have not done that yet.

All you have accomplished is to discover other people's ideas in Wiki.

 

That is like a blind man/woman saying he/she or you/I can see if we try hard enough.

 

That's just one of a plethora of things ... .

 

Atheists are entitled (in a free country) to believe whatever they wish.

Atheism is just another belief system.

 

No, it could be a hallucination, it could be a leprechaun disguised as a unicorn, I could be a brain in a vat and the box and the unicorn could be nothing more than figments of my imagination, etc. The same sort of adjustments exist for both positive and negative claims. In logic, there is no special designation for negatives claims. All negative claims can be rewritten as a positive and vice-versa.

And, by the same logic, you can't prove there is one because you can't factor for all variables, such as the brain in the vat scenario.

 

At the very least you then will need to define what constitutes a proof.

There is a plethora of hurdles in Philosophy before you can do this.

Cogito ergo sum is true without a doubt.

It is rather hard to proceed much further than that however.

 

"There are no horses in my yard" is a provable negative.

"There are no horses in the mountains" is much more difficult.

"We found no sign of horses in the mountains where we searched" can be a true statement or it can be a lie. Differentiating between truth and lies makes proving anything much more difficult. That's what forensic inquiry is all about.

 

At best, an atheist or an agnostic can only say "I have not found God".

It is a person statement about a personal issue.

It is also a rather self condemning confession.

 

I think the Hubble has made it increasingly difficult to believe there are NO aliens anywhere out there.

 

San Tomas Aquinas made it extremely difficult to believe there is no God out there.

 

this is actually changing the variables.

brain in vat scenario?

 

no it isn't.

 

by special pleading and using a circular argument?

 

Would you buy a house with no evidence just its a nice house, it costs $150,000 and where you want to live but I have no evidence just this written description so would you buy it or walk away? Its the same thing religions are selling an invisible product and you give them money and time and maybe other resources and think its fine.

The common sense one applies to obvious Cons is lost on many believers.