Not quite right. Asserting a negative is a confirming claim. It attracts the burden of proof. Yeah, I found it hard to understand at first too, but it is right I assure you.
However, I don’t expect you to simply accept my word, nor that of knowledgeable people on this forum. Consequently, I googled “when does a negate statement attract the burden of proof?”
I found the article linked below. It provides a pretty good explanation about the burden of proof. I recommend you read the whole thing. I hope it clears up your present confusion.
Your inability to stop insulting yourself with the utter and complete ignorance of your posts, demonstrates your complete lack of education, ignorant understanding of the world around you, amazing inflexibility when confronted with factual information that contradicts the woo woo you hold to be true, and your utter and complete unwillingness to engage in rational discourse. Your ASD is preventing you from functioning rationally and those thoughts just keep running round and round and round like a little hamster wheel. YOU ARE WRONG. You have been WRONG throughout your interaction with others in this thread. Your assertions have no merit what so ever. It is not a debate of any kind. You are demonstrably, empirically, rationally, and logically WRONG. If you no longer wish to be the target of ridicule, stop making the same stupid posts. Fall back, regroup, and come up with something different.
Hey, I know, !!! You could just do a bit of research on line, discover that you are actually WRONG. Thank everyone for pointing it out. Learn something. And then sound like less of an idiot the next time you post. NOW THERE IS AN IDEA!
My bad… I will certainly try to express myself more clearly in the future. I could also work on being less repetitive I guess. I seem to keep saying the same thing over and over and over in different ways. I just have trouble being blunt and getting to the point. Thanks for the advice.
I DO sympathise, really I do. There only so many ways one can say ‘wrong’, ‘ignorant’ ,‘closed minded’ , ‘refusal to learn’, and of course ‘stupid’. Especially hard when such words are so apt.
It’s OK to use thesauris, and in my case, a dictionary… (thesaurus)
Those four statements stand on their own. You are attempting to alter and pervert a very simple concept, that ANY assertion must be proven. That condition is not altered just because you are appealing to special pleading just because your assertion by stating that your assertion is in opposition to a positive claim.
Any assertion, no matter the source or context, must be proven.
The word “Scientific proof” means buttkiss! Why do you insist on providing evidence for your own stupidity?
" Common Misconceptions About Science I: “Scientific Proof” ## Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Science does not “PROVE” anything. “Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.” … “Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.” … " Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final , and they are binary . Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true…"
For myself, I was willing to lie (but never did) if cornered by my devout aged mother. I was under the impression that if I divulged that I was an atheist, that would cause her great stress and heartbreak. It was a calculated exemption from being honest and being willing to take a hit on my integrity for the sake of her well-being.
not believing in god is not the same as saying there isn’t one. not sure how you could prove there wasn’t a god. Think of how hard it would be to prove there wasn’t an Indian head penny hidden somewhere in your house. you’d have to take it apart and pulverize the pieces to be sure. not believing in god is enough.
So far, no one has managed to prover anything about any god(s). Such claims about things metaphysical tend to be unfalsifiable.
Nor sure if this still the case with the mind/body dichotomy. I think advances in neuro science in particular have pretty much shown that the mind does not exist independently from the body. Or not.
you’re right, there is no proof of a supreme being and hence, similar to unicorns, I don’t believe in one. However this isn’t the same as saying there is proof there isn’t one.
You don’t have to prove there isn’t a god. The person making a claim which isn’t immediately demonstrable (the sun is shining, the sky is whatever color) must provide the proof themselves. A god is not immediately demonstrable. We can even provide evidence that some gods don’t exist by examining claims about those gods, and showing that they don’t hold water. A god of love, for instance, would be unlikely to allow human travesties. It’s not disproving a god, but it weighs against a god like that existing.
“The atheist does not say and cannot prove that there is no deity. He or she says that no persuasive evidence or argument has ever been adduced for the notion. Surely ,this should place the burden on the faithful, who do after all make very large claims for themselves and their religions.”
You do have to prove there isn’t a god if you assert there isn’t a god. (The person making the claim carries the burden of proof.) Some gods simply do not exist, they are logically impossible and one is justified in asserting their non-existence. A god that exists for no time and in no space can not be said to exist as space and time are temporal. This god does not “EXIST” in any way that the word ‘exist’ is understood. This god quite simply does not “exist.”
@boomer47
Thank you for the link. I would like to share the following link about The Italian Committee for the Control of Claims on Pseudoscience (CICAP) is an association for social, scientific and educational promotion, which promotes a scientific and critical investigation into pseudoscience, the paranormal, the mysteries and the unusual with the objective of spreading the scientific mentality and the critical spirit.
CICAP was born in 1989 on the initiative of Piero Angela (scientific popularizer) and a group of scientists, intellectuals and enthusiasts.
It is entitled “The Fallacious Reversal of the Burden of Proof”.
We know that there are two types of disagreement: unilateral and bilateral. In unilateral ones, a single person, or party, doubts or disputes the assertion of their interlocutor without supporting any position. In bilateral ones, two people, or parties, doubt or contest each other’s points of view. However, not always expressing one’s doubt about the truth of an assertion leads the interlocutor to prove the asserted proposition. It is, as we have said, the case of the fallacy of the reversal of the burden of proof, that is, the case in which the interlocutor, when we express our doubt towards his assertion, asks us to prove the opposite.
For our discourse it is important to recognize that in both of these cases we find at least one person who asserts. In fact, it is precisely to assert that the burden of proof is linked, which is one of the most important obligations for each practice of the discussion: its correct attribution guarantees the possibility of presenting evidence.
However, not always expressing one’s doubt about the truth of an assertion leads the interlocutor to prove the asserted proposition. It is, as we have said, the case of the fallacy of the reversal of the burden of proof, that is, the case in which the interlocutor, when we express our doubt towards his assertion, asks us to prove the opposite.
What makes the inversion of the burden of proof unjustified, and therefore fallacious, is that in a unilateral disagreement, the inversion would place an unjustified burden on the party who asserts nothing, also making it difficult to find or process evidence: “You prove that the Yeti does not exist!”
In these cases, and if we are the “skeptics”, to avoid this inversion it is important not to accept to support a thesis that is not actually ours. If, in fact, one is doubtful of the existence of spirits, engaging in the proof of their non-existence would bind us to the support of an anti-spiritistic thesis, when in reality we are simply skeptical.
To respond to this fallacy and shift the burden on those who claim to reverse it, we must therefore show that our position has been misrepresented or confused. In this way we could correctly reset the critical discussion. Answering that it is not claimed that spirits do not exist, but that one is curious to understand and evaluate what evidence or reasoning there is in favor of their existence, will allow us to press the interlocutor to demonstrate his position.
A different problem arises instead in a bilateral disagreement; here, in fact, it is not a question of understanding who has the burden of proof since both interlocutors, or parties, assert their proposition. In this case it is important to understand which order to follow for the presentation of the mutual defenses.
Usually in a bilateral disagreement the burden of proof is attributed to the party that criticizes and wishes to change the status quo: the consolidated position does not have the burden of showing its validity if not effectively weakened by criticism [4]. In fact, when the laws of physics are challenged, one can rightly ask what makes them controversial, given the important results achieved thanks to their assumption. However, in the discussion between believers and “skeptics” it often seems that the burden of proof rests on those who support the status quo. How can this happen?
The position on which the burden of proof rests is usually the most vulnerable or the one that appears more fragile. It therefore becomes understandable that, in a debate, each one tries to reject this burden on the opponent, presenting as acquired the propositions that he must defend. This is the expedient employed, in a more or less conscious way, by some believers: they present the existence of the contested phenomena as acquired, shifting the burden of proof on the opponent who, at this point, will seem to support the weaker position by appearing also incompetent. It is not unusual, in fact, to hear about the countless and successful experiments regarding telepathy, the unequivocal photographs of UFOs or the effectiveness of Feng Shui since it has been known since the dawn of time. Unfortunately, too often, upon careful analysis, such evidence and guarantees are not so undeniable.
However, there are cases where there is really no status quo or where there is no agreement on what the status quo is. In these cases it is necessary to appeal to the criterion of honesty. According to this criterion, in fact, the position that can be tested most easily should be tried first. (Ockam’s Razor)
Bibliography:
Cattani A., Discorsi ingannevoli. Argomenti per difendersi, attaccare, divertirsi, Edizioni GB, Padova, 1995.
Doury Marianne, Le débat immobile. L’argumentation dans le débat médiatique sur le parasciences, Éditions Kimé, Parigi, 1997.
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma –Dialectical Perspective, L. E. A. P., Hillsdale, 1992.
Walton N. D., Informal Logic. A Pragmatic Approach, Cambridge U. P., New York, 2008.
Now I ask you a question: if one of your interlocutors argued that there is no such thing as gravity, and you would rightly reply that it does exist, who bears the burden of proof? To him or to you?
If some acquaintance of yours claimed that two thousand years ago a woman conceived a child without sexual intercourse and you disagreed, do you think the burden of proof would lie with you? Come on, they are only dialectical tricks of believers.
History still hands down an amusing anecdote involving the emperor Napoleon and the two chief surveyors, Lagrange and Laplace.
Laplace in his Mécanique céleste makes no reference to God. Napoleon, intrigued by this omission, asked Laplace why, unlike Newton for example, he had never mentioned the name of the Creator. Laplace replied: “Because I didn’t need that hypothesis.”
A short time later Napoleon met Lagrange and told him what had happened and he replied: "It’s true. Yet it is a beautiful hypothesis that explains many things ».
Wolfgang Pauli (Nobel Prize in physics in 1945) once said: “A scientific idea “not even wrong” is so incomplete that it cannot be used to formulate predictions that it can then compare with experience and thus verify its truthfulness”.
I add that the hypothesis of god is not even a scientific hypothesis, and not even a very beautiful fable.
Pablito; now you are arguing against yourself. Did you even read what you posted?
You really think you can win a debate by comparing the laws of physics to “religious claims.” The laws of physics which have taken men to the moon, provided us with medicines, shelter, health technology, transportation, health and well being benefits that are demonstrable and measurable to the 'WOO WOO claims of an existent God thing. Have you lost your fucking mind.
OF COURSE YOU NEED EVIDENCE TO OVERTHROW THE LAWS OF PHYSICS YOU IDIOT! And even when you do, you only ADD TO THE KNOWLEDGE BASE. That is why we now have TWO count them TWO theories of GRAVITY. and both of the work equally well.
When your GOD thing can begin producing results like our GRAVITY thing, let us fucking know.
***
