Total Posts:96|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Help me understand something.

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 4:46:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Since you cannot prove a negative, do we then work on probability in an argument? I cannot prove that there is no big foot, so does the argument then default to there is no big foot until one has been proven? Or would we more accurately say there probably is no big foot?

My other question would be, when do you say I don't know if there is a big foot? I guess for the sake of argumentation the answer cannot be "I don't know", but in reality are there more occasions to say "I don't know", than otherwise?

Space aliens don't exist - there is no evidence that i can use to justify a belief in space aliens, so the argument defaults to they do not exist until there is evidence that they exist. However, there is some study in probability that might support the existence of space aliens without hard evidence that they do in fact exist. Is it more reasonable to take probability into the mix and say either they probably exist, or i don't know if they exist.

I cannot prove that there is no planet made of boiling honey, and since the probability of such a thing is inconceivable, common sense would say there is no such thing as a planet made of boiling honey.

I pretty much know the answers to this in the strict debate/logic structure but would like to read thoughts on this.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 4:56:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 4:52:02 PM, Contradiction wrote:
"Since you cannot prove a negative"

Why think that?

Can you tell me in a short paragraph why anyone should believe in god?
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 4:57:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 4:56:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 4:52:02 PM, Contradiction wrote:
"Since you cannot prove a negative"

Why think that?

Can you tell me in a short paragraph why anyone should believe in god?

i'd like to hear that!
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 4:57:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 4:56:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 4:52:02 PM, Contradiction wrote:
"Since you cannot prove a negative"

Why think that?

Can you tell me in a short paragraph why anyone should believe in god?

So is this argument reserved only for God?
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 4:59:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 4:57:40 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/3/2011 4:56:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 4:52:02 PM, Contradiction wrote:
"Since you cannot prove a negative"

Why think that?

Can you tell me in a short paragraph why anyone should believe in god?

So is this argument reserved only for God?

When contradiction proves that god exists, I will prove that bigfoot and aliens exist. Which one do you want me to prove?
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:01:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 4:59:54 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 4:57:40 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/3/2011 4:56:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 4:52:02 PM, Contradiction wrote:
"Since you cannot prove a negative"

Why think that?

Can you tell me in a short paragraph why anyone should believe in god?

So is this argument reserved only for God?

When contradiction proves that god exists, I will prove that bigfoot and aliens exist. Which one do you want me to prove?

I don't think you're understanding my OP.
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:03:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
innomen, you said yourself you know the answers... i wanna see a paragraph about why anyone should believe in god!
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:05:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 5:03:29 PM, el-badgero wrote:
innomen, you said yourself you know the answers... i wanna see a paragraph about why anyone should believe in god!

Then i suggest you go to the Religion forum.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:07:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
When in debates, I tend to think the BoP rests largely on the person who's presenting a position that is in contradiction to what is universally accepted.

For example, in a debate about the legality of Physician-Assisted-Suicide in the US, the affirmative has the more hefty share of the BoP, because it's not legal at all, save for 1 state.

With a god debate, I think the BoP is nearly equal, SLIGHTLY more on the position that god exists. Why? Because it really hasn't been universally accepted either way.

Is my thinking flawed?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:32:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 5:05:19 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:03:29 PM, el-badgero wrote:
innomen, you said yourself you know the answers... i wanna see a paragraph about why anyone should believe in god!

Then i suggest you go to the Religion forum.

ahhh boo... it'd be impossible for us to disprove something defined as not being visible to us, or even for something defined as being visible and of the universe, we'd have to be able to view the entire universe simultaneously, and we're not even sure if the universe is infinite or finite. i'd just not let your imagination run away with you if i was you and keep your feet on solid ground.
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:38:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 5:07:50 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
When in debates, I tend to think the BoP rests largely on the person who's presenting a position that is in contradiction to what is universally accepted.

That would be a fair thing to do, if what you are talking about were actually "universally accepted" but don't be fooled by presumptions that what you believe personally is "universally accepted." That kind of mistake can cost you the debate.

For example, in a debate about the legality of Physician-Assisted-Suicide in the US, the affirmative has the more hefty share of the BoP, because it's not legal at all, save for 1 state.

With a god debate, I think the BoP is nearly equal, SLIGHTLY more on the position that god exists. Why? Because it really hasn't been universally accepted either way.

Is my thinking flawed?

I am sorry to have to tell you this, but yes, your thinking is flawed. It's correctable though. Where debate is concerned you should never make A Priori assumptions unless they are agreed to by both sides prior to the debate, or you leave yourself open to debate strategies you will not be prepared for.
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:39:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I run into the same thing with conversations on anarchism. As Noam Chomsky said, the onus is on those who assume authority over the rest of us to justify it. It's on you to justify why the government's existence is legitimate. Now if I said that an anarchic society would run more efficiently than our current system, the onus would be on me and I think the same goes for God debates.
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:39:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
and honey planets aren't that inconceiveable. they could be made by super advanced space bees!
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:44:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 5:39:56 PM, el-badgero wrote:
and honey planets aren't that inconceiveable. they could be made by super advanced space bees!

who evolved on a planet at the other side of the universe from normal earth bees brought there by reptilians trained in combat by a clone of hitler.
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:45:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
and god loves them more than us. he told me.
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:47:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 5:45:21 PM, el-badgero wrote:
and god loves them more than us. he told me.

before he was recaptured by the chinese.
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
devinni01841
Posts: 1,405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:48:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 5:45:21 PM, el-badgero wrote:
and god loves them more than us. he told me.

Were you using any controlled substances when he told you this?
There is nothing more bad-@ss than being yourself.

I solemnly swear I am up to no good.

Member of the Texas Army National Guard since 20111212

An Armed society is a polite society.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:51:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 4:59:54 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 4:57:40 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/3/2011 4:56:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 4:52:02 PM, Contradiction wrote:
"Since you cannot prove a negative"

Why think that?

Can you tell me in a short paragraph why anyone should believe in god?

So is this argument reserved only for God?

When contradiction proves that god exists, I will prove that bigfoot and aliens exist. Which one do you want me to prove?

...what?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:56:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 5:48:07 PM, devinni01841 wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:45:21 PM, el-badgero wrote:
and god loves them more than us. he told me.

Were you using any controlled substances when he told you this?

hakukataka! i bought if from the zelbanese of whoamadag... trippy sh1t! a great laugh to take on black hole roller coasters.
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:58:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 5:56:46 PM, el-badgero wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:48:07 PM, devinni01841 wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:45:21 PM, el-badgero wrote:
and god loves them more than us. he told me.

Were you using any controlled substances when he told you this?

hakukataka! i bought if from the zelbanese of whoamadag... trippy sh1t! a great laugh to take on black hole roller coasters.

it doesn't make you trip god though, because he regulates it, so i know he was legit.
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:59:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
and did ye know god's actually black?
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 6:00:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 5:59:53 PM, el-badgero wrote:
and did ye know god's actually black?

and has a foot fetish?
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 6:02:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 4:46:24 PM, innomen wrote:
Since you cannot prove a negative, do we then work on probability in an argument? I cannot prove that there is no big foot, so does the argument then default to there is no big foot until one has been proven? Or would we more accurately say there probably is no big foot?

My other question would be, when do you say I don't know if there is a big foot? I guess for the sake of argumentation the answer cannot be "I don't know", but in reality are there more occasions to say "I don't know", than otherwise?

Space aliens don't exist - there is no evidence that i can use to justify a belief in space aliens, so the argument defaults to they do not exist until there is evidence that they exist. However, there is some study in probability that might support the existence of space aliens without hard evidence that they do in fact exist. Is it more reasonable to take probability into the mix and say either they probably exist, or i don't know if they exist.

I cannot prove that there is no planet made of boiling honey, and since the probability of such a thing is inconceivable, common sense would say there is no such thing as a planet made of boiling honey.

I pretty much know the answers to this in the strict debate/logic structure but would like to read thoughts on this.

You can "prove a negative" when the statement is question is derived through basic logical operations or semantics. For instance, I can confidently say that it is impossible for a married bachelor to exist. The disproof comes from a contradiction between the trait "married" and the subject "bachelor."

When it comes to perception-based statements about empirical and observable phenomena, you have to revert to probability calculations. So, we can't prove "there are no green-haired bachelors" even though we can prove "there are no married bachelors."

You can negate the existence of God when the definition or logical implications are fallacious. If you define God as an entity who wishes to make everyone as happy as possible and is omnipotent, finding a single instance of unhappiness would disprove this version of God (note: no one I know has actually taken this position, it is a strawman in order to demonstrate a point). However, you have not negated the existence of a God who is not defined in that manner.

Theists can claim its impossible to "prove God doesn't exist" because they can redefine God whenever they wish in order to incorporate a newly discovered contradiction.

Also, in statistics, there is the concept of a "statistically insignificant probability." That means that the chances of an occurence are so low that the effect is negligible.

So, for instance, there is a probability that in the next ten seconds your computer will turn into a fire-breathing dragon, but the probability is so low as to be negligible. If a statement cannot make it past the point of "negligible significance" then I see no reason to give it the time of day.

Note: this only applies to statements which can be tested/observed not something like "brain in a vat."
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 6:03:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
ok i'll stop, but can anyone disprove any of that? no? you'd just not believe it because you've not ever experienced anything like any of it, right? like in why i don't believe in god...
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 6:03:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The "Burden of proof" is overcome and made irrelevant when there is a probabilistic or an absolute argument by default. Once you have one you way such probabilistic and absolute arguments against each other

And yes, a negative is assumed until the contrary is shown at least probabilistically.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 6:15:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 6:03:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

And yes, a negative is assumed until the contrary is shown at least probabilistically.

Not really.

"Beliefs don't exist" - eliminative materialism

"Persons don't exist" - personal identity nihilism

"Moral facts don't exist" - moral nihilism

Why should I assume these are the default positions?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 6:22:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 6:15:07 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/3/2011 6:03:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

And yes, a negative is assumed until the contrary is shown at least probabilistically.

Not really.

"Beliefs don't exist" - eliminative materialism

"Persons don't exist" - personal identity nihilism

"Moral facts don't exist" - moral nihilism

Why should I assume these are the default positions?

Thank you.