Total Posts:127|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Avoid Atheist Jargon: Universal Negative

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 1:37:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Atheist attempt to pass off their views and positions as the epitome of rational and logical thought. This does not seem to be the case. I suggest that when ever an Atheist states something is logical, research the truth yourself. It's like when someone says "surely", it seems to alert the listener to an underlining assumption being passed off as already proven.

The first tactic of an atheist is to shift the burden of proof. What attempt to do this is to state "No one can prove a universal negative." They then state it is on the challenger to present burden of proof.

No whether or not a claimer can support their claim has no effect on them having to justify their position. For instance: I claim there are aliens living inside a black hole. When challenged I state that there is no way we can see inside a black hole, So it is on the challenger to prove aliens do not live there.

So even if we could not prove a universal negative the claimer would not shake their burden of proof. But we can prove universal negatives.

Why does this statement appear truthful? One reason why the principle seems true is because the word "prove". It is taken to mean 100% certainty. Considering we can not see or know of every part of the universe we can not say with 100% there isn't X.

This is certainly true for things that can not be proven to a 100% percent certainty. Like saying there are no intelligent agents in the Universe except man. What intelligent agents are contingent upon is not exclusive to just Earth. There could very well be other intelligent agents. This percentage, given the size of the universe, is quite likely.

Even with a small sample space of this universe, we already make universal claims. The Laws of conservation of Energy and Matter, The Law of gravity, ect... And when we think about it saying that Energy can NEVER be destroyed is in fact a Universal Negative.

One of the most basic logical arguments is Modus Tollens. The argument goes If P then Q. Not Q therefore Not P.

The arguments name actually means "the way that denies by denying". It is a logical argument to support a negative claim.

If it rains the grass is wet.
The grass is not wet
therefore it did NOT rain.

In closing anyone who claims that we can't prove a universal negative, must be unaware of the basic forms and tenets of having a logical argument. Making it extremely hard to have a logical discussion with such people.

If you see this happening call them out on it.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 1:52:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 1:37:57 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Atheist attempt to pass off their views and positions as the epitome of rational and logical thought. This does not seem to be the case. I suggest that when ever an Atheist states something is logical, research the truth yourself. It's like when someone says "surely", it seems to alert the listener to an underlining assumption being passed off as already proven.

The first tactic of an atheist is to shift the burden of proof. What attempt to do this is to state "No one can prove a universal negative." They then state it is on the challenger to present burden of proof.

If an atheist is shifting the burden of proof, what claim are they making? If they are making a positive claim, they should support it if they can.

No whether or not a claimer can support their claim has no effect on them having to justify their position.

Yes, they have to justify their position or else they can say whatever they want and not have to justify anything. That isn't logic.

For instance: I claim there are aliens living inside a black hole.

Then, you have made a positive claim and must support it, the burden of proof is entirely on you.

When challenged I state that there is no way we can see inside a black hole, So it is on the challenger to prove aliens do not live there.

Baloney. Why would you even make that claim if you know you can't see inside a black hole? That's just plain ridiculous. It makes no sense at all.

So even if we could not prove a universal negative the claimer would not shake their burden of proof. But we can prove universal negatives.

You haven't done that, you've simply created a farcical scenario that no one would state without having some sort of evidence or observation.

General Relativity could should show the gravity in a black hole to be so intense, anything entering it would be ripped apart before it got there.

Why does this statement appear truthful? One reason why the principle seems true is because the word "prove". It is taken to mean 100% certainty. Considering we can not see or know of every part of the universe we can not say with 100% there isn't X.

This is certainly true for things that can not be proven to a 100% percent certainty. Like saying there are no intelligent agents in the Universe except man. What intelligent agents are contingent upon is not exclusive to just Earth. There could very well be other intelligent agents. This percentage, given the size of the universe, is quite likely.

Even with a small sample space of this universe, we already make universal claims. The Laws of conservation of Energy and Matter, The Law of gravity, ect... And when we think about it saying that Energy can NEVER be destroyed is in fact a Universal Negative.

That would show you don't understand the conservation of energy. Better look it up and educate yourself.

One of the most basic logical arguments is Modus Tollens. The argument goes If P then Q. Not Q therefore Not P.

The arguments name actually means "the way that denies by denying". It is a logical argument to support a negative claim.

If it rains the grass is wet.
The grass is not wet
therefore it did NOT rain.

In closing anyone who claims that we can't prove a universal negative, must be unaware of the basic forms and tenets of having a logical argument. Making it extremely hard to have a logical discussion with such people.

If you see this happening call them out on it.

I am calling you out on it, then, as you clearly are unaware of the basic forms and tenets of presenting a logical argument.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 2:15:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 1:52:27 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/11/2015 1:37:57 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Atheist attempt to pass off their views and positions as the epitome of rational and logical thought. This does not seem to be the case. I suggest that when ever an Atheist states something is logical, research the truth yourself. It's like when someone says "surely", it seems to alert the listener to an underlining assumption being passed off as already proven.

The first tactic of an atheist is to shift the burden of proof. What attempt to do this is to state "No one can prove a universal negative." They then state it is on the challenger to present burden of proof.

If an atheist is shifting the burden of proof, what claim are they making? If they are making a positive claim, they should support it if they can.

There is No God, is a claim that when challenged should be supported by justifications.


No whether or not a claimer can support their claim has no effect on them having to justify their position.

Yes, they have to justify their position or else they can say whatever they want and not have to justify anything. That isn't logic.

That is logic. You seem to think the illogical is logic and that the logical is not logic. Supporting what a person says and NOT being able to just say whatever is called Burden of Proof, and is a part of any logical discussion.

Wow. I'm absolutely shocked you said that wasn't logic. black is white and white is black kind of thing.


For instance: I claim there are aliens living inside a black hole.

Then, you have made a positive claim and must support it, the burden of proof is entirely on you.

I'll do another thread about this positive negative claim BS as well.


When challenged I state that there is no way we can see inside a black hole, So it is on the challenger to prove aliens do not live there.

Baloney. Why would you even make that claim if you know you can't see inside a black hole? That's just plain ridiculous. It makes no sense at all.

So even if we could not prove a universal negative the claimer would not shake their burden of proof. But we can prove universal negatives.

You haven't done that, you've simply created a farcical scenario that no one would state without having some sort of evidence or observation.

General Relativity could should show the gravity in a black hole to be so intense, anything entering it would be ripped apart before it got there.

Why does this statement appear truthful? One reason why the principle seems true is because the word "prove". It is taken to mean 100% certainty. Considering we can not see or know of every part of the universe we can not say with 100% there isn't X.

This is certainly true for things that can not be proven to a 100% percent certainty. Like saying there are no intelligent agents in the Universe except man. What intelligent agents are contingent upon is not exclusive to just Earth. There could very well be other intelligent agents. This percentage, given the size of the universe, is quite likely.

Even with a small sample space of this universe, we already make universal claims. The Laws of conservation of Energy and Matter, The Law of gravity, ect... And when we think about it saying that Energy can NEVER be destroyed is in fact a Universal Negative.

That would show you don't understand the conservation of energy. Better look it up and educate yourself.

One of the most basic logical arguments is Modus Tollens. The argument goes If P then Q. Not Q therefore Not P.

The arguments name actually means "the way that denies by denying". It is a logical argument to support a negative claim.

If it rains the grass is wet.
The grass is not wet
therefore it did NOT rain.

In closing anyone who claims that we can't prove a universal negative, must be unaware of the basic forms and tenets of having a logical argument. Making it extremely hard to have a logical discussion with such people.

If you see this happening call them out on it.

I am calling you out on it, then, as you clearly are unaware of the basic forms and tenets of presenting a logical argument.

Educate yourself.
"The logical myth that "You cannot prove a universal negative" is itself a universal negative. So it implies its own unprovability." - Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

http://plato.stanford.edu...
https://philosophicaugustine.wordpress.com...
https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com...

Again bare assertions and demonstrating lack of knowledge of what is and is not logic.

Are you capable of reading up on logic and then admitting your error?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 2:34:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 2:15:26 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/11/2015 1:52:27 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/11/2015 1:37:57 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Atheist attempt to pass off their views and positions as the epitome of rational and logical thought. This does not seem to be the case. I suggest that when ever an Atheist states something is logical, research the truth yourself. It's like when someone says "surely", it seems to alert the listener to an underlining assumption being passed off as already proven.

The first tactic of an atheist is to shift the burden of proof. What attempt to do this is to state "No one can prove a universal negative." They then state it is on the challenger to present burden of proof.

If an atheist is shifting the burden of proof, what claim are they making? If they are making a positive claim, they should support it if they can.

There is No God, is a claim that when challenged should be supported by justifications.

I agree. So what? I've never made that claim and I can't recall anyone here making it.


No whether or not a claimer can support their claim has no effect on them having to justify their position.

Yes, they have to justify their position or else they can say whatever they want and not have to justify anything. That isn't logic.

That is logic. You seem to think the illogical is logic and that the logical is not logic. Supporting what a person says and NOT being able to just say whatever is called Burden of Proof, and is a part of any logical discussion.

Wow. I'm absolutely shocked you said that wasn't logic. black is white and white is black kind of thing.

It isn't logical to make a positive claim without supporting it. Why would you be shocked about that?


For instance: I claim there are aliens living inside a black hole.

Then, you have made a positive claim and must support it, the burden of proof is entirely on you.

I'll do another thread about this positive negative claim BS as well.


When challenged I state that there is no way we can see inside a black hole, So it is on the challenger to prove aliens do not live there.

Baloney. Why would you even make that claim if you know you can't see inside a black hole? That's just plain ridiculous. It makes no sense at all.

So even if we could not prove a universal negative the claimer would not shake their burden of proof. But we can prove universal negatives.

You haven't done that, you've simply created a farcical scenario that no one would state without having some sort of evidence or observation.

General Relativity could should show the gravity in a black hole to be so intense, anything entering it would be ripped apart before it got there.

Why does this statement appear truthful? One reason why the principle seems true is because the word "prove". It is taken to mean 100% certainty. Considering we can not see or know of every part of the universe we can not say with 100% there isn't X.

This is certainly true for things that can not be proven to a 100% percent certainty. Like saying there are no intelligent agents in the Universe except man. What intelligent agents are contingent upon is not exclusive to just Earth. There could very well be other intelligent agents. This percentage, given the size of the universe, is quite likely.

Even with a small sample space of this universe, we already make universal claims. The Laws of conservation of Energy and Matter, The Law of gravity, ect... And when we think about it saying that Energy can NEVER be destroyed is in fact a Universal Negative.

That would show you don't understand the conservation of energy. Better look it up and educate yourself.

One of the most basic logical arguments is Modus Tollens. The argument goes If P then Q. Not Q therefore Not P.

The arguments name actually means "the way that denies by denying". It is a logical argument to support a negative claim.

If it rains the grass is wet.
The grass is not wet
therefore it did NOT rain.

In closing anyone who claims that we can't prove a universal negative, must be unaware of the basic forms and tenets of having a logical argument. Making it extremely hard to have a logical discussion with such people.

If you see this happening call them out on it.

I am calling you out on it, then, as you clearly are unaware of the basic forms and tenets of presenting a logical argument.

Educate yourself.
"The logical myth that "You cannot prove a universal negative" is itself a universal negative. So it implies its own unprovability." - Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

http://plato.stanford.edu...
https://philosophicaugustine.wordpress.com...
https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com...

Again bare assertions and demonstrating lack of knowledge of what is and is not logic.

Are you capable of reading up on logic and then admitting your error?

I'm sure you must have a point there somewhere, but I don't see it. What do those articles have to do with your use of fallacies?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 4:11:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 1:37:57 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Atheist attempt to pass off their views and positions as the epitome of rational and logical thought. This does not seem to be the case. I suggest that when ever an Atheist states something is logical, research the truth yourself. It's like when someone says "surely", it seems to alert the listener to an underlining assumption being passed off as already proven.

*Surely*, everyone should examine the logic of all claims. ;-)

The first tactic of an atheist is to shift the burden of proof. What attempt to do this is to state "No one can prove a universal negative." They then state it is on the challenger to present burden of proof.

I really wish you would have qualified this a little more. It is the first tactic *of some atheists*. Also, it would only be shifting the burden if they are making a claim, Ie. God does not exists. However, denying the unsupported claims of theists is not making a contrary claim.

No whether or not a claimer can support their claim has no effect on them having to justify their position. For instance: I claim there are aliens living inside a black hole. When challenged I state that there is no way we can see inside a black hole, So it is on the challenger to prove aliens do not live there.

I'm not sure if this is an intentionally fallacious scenario of if you actually believe the burden is on the disbeliever.

So even if we could not prove a universal negative the claimer would not shake their burden of proof. But we can prove universal negatives.

Why does this statement appear truthful? One reason why the principle seems true is because the word "prove". It is taken to mean 100% certainty. Considering we can not see or know of every part of the universe we can not say with 100% there isn't X.

This is certainly true for things that can not be proven to a 100% percent certainty. Like saying there are no intelligent agents in the Universe except man. What intelligent agents are contingent upon is not exclusive to just Earth. There could very well be other intelligent agents. This percentage, given the size of the universe, is quite likely.

Even with a small sample space of this universe, we already make universal claims. The Laws of conservation of Energy and Matter, The Law of gravity, ect... And when we think about it saying that Energy can NEVER be destroyed is in fact a Universal Negative.

One of the most basic logical arguments is Modus Tollens. The argument goes If P then Q. Not Q therefore Not P.

The arguments name actually means "the way that denies by denying". It is a logical argument to support a negative claim.

If it rains the grass is wet.
The grass is not wet
therefore it did NOT rain.

In closing anyone who claims that we can't prove a universal negative, must be unaware of the basic forms and tenets of having a logical argument. Making it extremely hard to have a logical discussion with such people.

If you see this happening call them out on it.

Basically, the claimant has the burden of proof. If the claimant cannot support their claim, then there is no reason to accept their claim as plausible. Agree?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
400spartans
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 4:16:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let's look at BOP. If you claim something exists, you have to prove it. If you can't, we accept that it doesn't exist.

If this wasn't a rule of BOP, then I could claim that there was an invisible flying pig in the dining room, and be "correct".
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 4:20:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 1:37:57 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I claim there are aliens living inside a black hole.

Absent diligent inquiry, this claim is called a 'guess'. There is no burden of proof on anyone to reject lazy guesswork. Neither has the lazy guesser the right to advance such a guess as a fact.

Lazy guesses are cheap and plentiful, after all. You can make lazy guesses claiming anything.

Moreover, if such lazy guesswork is also justified by contorted, conflicted arguments, cherry-picked evidence and, shifting explanations using pseudoscientific argument, it's reasonable to conclude that flaws in the guesser's thought-processes prevent that particular guesser from discovering or recognising truth.

At that point, it's not possible to have a respectful conversation, because the lazy guesser doesn't respect you, or anything but his own opinions.

At that point, you're in damage control, to limit the harm done to others with conceited, lazy thinking.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 4:27:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There is a burden of proof on making a claim and rejecting a claim.

Someone can say "there is a dead body atop of Mount Everest"

To which the other person can say "no there isn't" but both carry a burden of proof.
400spartans
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 4:37:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If the BOP was shared, then the first person could just find a dead body on Mount Everest, but the second person has to look all over Mount Everest to see if there isn't a dead body.

Like I said before, if BOP would be shared in those cases, I could claim that there was an invisible flying pig in the dining room, and be "correct", because anyone who disagrees has to search all over the dining room to find an invisible flying pig, which would be virtually impossible.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 4:53:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 4:11:42 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/11/2015 1:37:57 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Atheist attempt to pass off their views and positions as the epitome of rational and logical thought. This does not seem to be the case. I suggest that when ever an Atheist states something is logical, research the truth yourself. It's like when someone says "surely", it seems to alert the listener to an underlining assumption being passed off as already proven.

*Surely*, everyone should examine the logic of all claims. ;-)

The first tactic of an atheist is to shift the burden of proof. What attempt to do this is to state "No one can prove a universal negative." They then state it is on the challenger to present burden of proof.

I really wish you would have qualified this a little more. It is the first tactic *of some atheists*. Also, it would only be shifting the burden if they are making a claim, Ie. God does not exists. However, denying the unsupported claims of theists is not making a contrary claim.

No whether or not a claimer can support their claim has no effect on them having to justify their position. For instance: I claim there are aliens living inside a black hole. When challenged I state that there is no way we can see inside a black hole, So it is on the challenger to prove aliens do not live there.

I'm not sure if this is an intentionally fallacious scenario of if you actually believe the burden is on the disbeliever.

That's my point the burden does not shift to the disbeliever just because the claim is supposedly unprovable.


So even if we could not prove a universal negative the claimer would not shake their burden of proof. But we can prove universal negatives.

Why does this statement appear truthful? One reason why the principle seems true is because the word "prove". It is taken to mean 100% certainty. Considering we can not see or know of every part of the universe we can not say with 100% there isn't X.

This is certainly true for things that can not be proven to a 100% percent certainty. Like saying there are no intelligent agents in the Universe except man. What intelligent agents are contingent upon is not exclusive to just Earth. There could very well be other intelligent agents. This percentage, given the size of the universe, is quite likely.

Even with a small sample space of this universe, we already make universal claims. The Laws of conservation of Energy and Matter, The Law of gravity, ect... And when we think about it saying that Energy can NEVER be destroyed is in fact a Universal Negative.

One of the most basic logical arguments is Modus Tollens. The argument goes If P then Q. Not Q therefore Not P.

The arguments name actually means "the way that denies by denying". It is a logical argument to support a negative claim.

If it rains the grass is wet.
The grass is not wet
therefore it did NOT rain.

In closing anyone who claims that we can't prove a universal negative, must be unaware of the basic forms and tenets of having a logical argument. Making it extremely hard to have a logical discussion with such people.

If you see this happening call them out on it.

Basically, the claimant has the burden of proof. If the claimant cannot support their claim, then there is no reason to accept their claim as plausible. Agree?

pluasibility is related to the contigency and possibility of a claim. It really isn't linked to the claimant making bad arguments.

I would say if a claimant can not support their claim then it is of little worth to be considered. Making no judgement about the truth value of the claim.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 5:03:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 4:16:31 PM, 400spartans wrote:
Let's look at BOP. If you claim something exists, you have to prove it. If you can't, we accept that it doesn't exist.

That is word for word the fallacy argument from ignorance.


If this wasn't a rule of BOP, then I could claim that there was an invisible flying pig in the dining room, and be "correct".

It is not a rule of BoP. What you are saying IS NOT LOGIC. I DEMAND THAT YOU BACK UP SUCH ERRONEOUS FALLACIOUS PRINCIPLES WITH SOURCES. I WHOLLY REJECT THIS AS LOGIC OR REASONABLE. THIS VIEW IS THE ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE FALLACY. I DEMAND YOU BACK THIS UP WITH CITATION FROM CREDIBLE PHILOSOPHY BOOKS ON LOGIC.

If a persona makes claim A. Is unable to support claim A or you are unconvinced by claim A. YOU ARE NOT LOGICALLY VERIFIABLE TO DENY CLAIM "A" OR TO SAY "NOT A" is TRUE.

http://philosophy.lander.edu...

I will address BoP later as another concept misrepresented by most athiest. We are looking at the fallacious, historical cited as incorrect, statement that we can't prove a universal negative. We can prove 100% certainty some universal negatives.

And even when the confidence is more akin to "most likely" we make such universal negative statements. It is abhorrent to pass this off as logic and even more disingenuous to use this erroneous principle as justification for shifting the burden of proof.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 5:06:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 4:20:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/11/2015 1:37:57 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I claim there are aliens living inside a black hole.

Absent diligent inquiry, this claim is called a 'guess'. There is no burden of proof on anyone to reject lazy guesswork. Neither has the lazy guesser the right to advance such a guess as a fact.

Lazy guesses are cheap and plentiful, after all. You can make lazy guesses claiming anything.

Moreover, if such lazy guesswork is also justified by contorted, conflicted arguments, cherry-picked evidence and, shifting explanations using pseudoscientific argument, it's reasonable to conclude that flaws in the guesser's thought-processes prevent that particular guesser from discovering or recognising truth.

At that point, it's not possible to have a respectful conversation, because the lazy guesser doesn't respect you, or anything but his own opinions.

At that point, you're in damage control, to limit the harm done to others with conceited, lazy thinking.

Blah Blah. Are you saying it is logical to state the we can not prove a universal negative?

Are you stating that it is true we can not prove a universal negative, that this automatically moves the burden of proof to be held by those asserting the positive?

That is what this thread is about. i have linked to my sources and think i satisfy that answering yes to either of those questions is irrational illogical.

Common place for atheist.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 5:15:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 4:27:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
There is a burden of proof on making a claim and rejecting a claim.

Ben there isn't a burden to rejecting a claim. If you say there is a dead body atop of Mount Everest, I can proceed without accepting this as "truth".

Denying a claim. Saying there is No body atop mount Everest. Would have a BoP.

It doesn't take any justification for the personal unacceptable of a claim. Which is why when challenged so many atheist who make claims like "there is no god" "god is an imaginary friend" ect... They run and hide in doubt and personal opinion "I do not believe.." Which don't inform us about anything in reality.


Someone can say "there is a dead body atop of Mount Everest"

To which the other person can say "no there isn't" but both carry a burden of proof.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 5:39:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 5:15:16 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:27:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
There is a burden of proof on making a claim and rejecting a claim.

Ben there isn't a burden to rejecting a claim. If you say there is a dead body atop of Mount Everest, I can proceed without accepting this as "truth".

Denying a claim. Saying there is No body atop mount Everest. Would have a BoP.

I consider rejecting and denying a claim to be the same thing. Non-acceptance is neither rejection or denial. An agnostic is non-acceptant of the proposition "God exists" but they are non-acceptant of the proposition "God does not exist" as well.

It doesn't take any justification for the personal unacceptable of a claim. Which is why when challenged so many atheist who make claims like "there is no god" "god is an imaginary friend" ect... They run and hide in doubt and personal opinion "I do not believe.." Which don't inform us about anything in reality.


Someone can say "there is a dead body atop of Mount Everest"

To which the other person can say "no there isn't" but both carry a burden of proof.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 5:41:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 1:37:57 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Atheist attempt to pass off their views and positions as the epitome of rational and logical thought. This does not seem to be the case. I suggest that when ever an Atheist states something is logical, research the truth yourself. It's like when someone says "surely", it seems to alert the listener to an underlining assumption being passed off as already proven.

The first tactic of an atheist is to shift the burden of proof. What attempt to do this is to state "No one can prove a universal negative." They then state it is on the challenger to present burden of proof.

No whether or not a claimer can support their claim has no effect on them having to justify their position. For instance: I claim there are aliens living inside a black hole. When challenged I state that there is no way we can see inside a black hole, So it is on the challenger to prove aliens do not live there.

Why would you make such a claim if you have no evidence of it being true? That is nonsense.

Example:

Joe claims a fairy lives in the centre of Jupiter. When challenged, he says there is no way of detecting the fairy inside of Jupiter. Now, it is up to the skeptics to prove that a fairy does not exist in the centre of Jupiter.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens


So even if we could not prove a universal negative the claimer would not shake their burden of proof. But we can prove universal negatives.

Why does this statement appear truthful? One reason why the principle seems true is because the word "prove". It is taken to mean 100% certainty. Considering we can not see or know of every part of the universe we can not say with 100% there isn't X.

This is certainly true for things that can not be proven to a 100% percent certainty. Like saying there are no intelligent agents in the Universe except man. What intelligent agents are contingent upon is not exclusive to just Earth. There could very well be other intelligent agents. This percentage, given the size of the universe, is quite likely.

Even with a small sample space of this universe, we already make universal claims. The Laws of conservation of Energy and Matter, The Law of gravity, ect... And when we think about it saying that Energy can NEVER be destroyed is in fact a Universal Negative.

One of the most basic logical arguments is Modus Tollens. The argument goes If P then Q. Not Q therefore Not P.

The arguments name actually means "the way that denies by denying". It is a logical argument to support a negative claim.

If it rains the grass is wet.
The grass is not wet
therefore it did NOT rain.

In closing anyone who claims that we can't prove a universal negative, must be unaware of the basic forms and tenets of having a logical argument. Making it extremely hard to have a logical discussion with such people.

If you see this happening call them out on it.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 6:07:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 4:27:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
There is a burden of proof on making a claim and rejecting a claim.

Someone can say "there is a dead body atop of Mount Everest"

To which the other person can say "no there isn't" but both carry a burden of proof.

That would be true, although that is not the way the discussions go around here.

Here's how they do go...

Someone can say "there is a dead body atop of Mount Everest"

To which the other person will say, "How do you know that, show me the evidence of the dead body".

According to Mykiel, the latter person is supposed to prove there is no dead body.

Ridiculous.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 6:10:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 6:07:37 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:27:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
There is a burden of proof on making a claim and rejecting a claim.

Someone can say "there is a dead body atop of Mount Everest"

To which the other person can say "no there isn't" but both carry a burden of proof.

That would be true, although that is not the way the discussions go around here.

Here's how they do go...

Someone can say "there is a dead body atop of Mount Everest"

To which the other person will say, "How do you know that, show me the evidence of the dead body".

According to Mykiel, the latter person is supposed to prove there is no dead body.

Ridiculous.

The person simply remains agnostic to the claim if they have no reason to accept it as true.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 6:13:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 6:10:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/11/2015 6:07:37 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:27:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
There is a burden of proof on making a claim and rejecting a claim.

Someone can say "there is a dead body atop of Mount Everest"

To which the other person can say "no there isn't" but both carry a burden of proof.

That would be true, although that is not the way the discussions go around here.

Here's how they do go...

Someone can say "there is a dead body atop of Mount Everest"

To which the other person will say, "How do you know that, show me the evidence of the dead body".

According to Mykiel, the latter person is supposed to prove there is no dead body.

Ridiculous.

The person simply remains agnostic to the claim if they have no reason to accept it as true.

Then, what is the point of saying there is a dead body on Mt. Everest?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 6:57:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 4:53:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:11:42 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/11/2015 1:37:57 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Atheist attempt to pass off their views and positions as the epitome of rational and logical thought. This does not seem to be the case. I suggest that when ever an Atheist states something is logical, research the truth yourself. It's like when someone says "surely", it seems to alert the listener to an underlining assumption being passed off as already proven.

*Surely*, everyone should examine the logic of all claims. ;-)

The first tactic of an atheist is to shift the burden of proof. What attempt to do this is to state "No one can prove a universal negative." They then state it is on the challenger to present burden of proof.

I really wish you would have qualified this a little more. It is the first tactic *of some atheists*. Also, it would only be shifting the burden if they are making a claim, Ie. God does not exists. However, denying the unsupported claims of theists is not making a contrary claim.

No whether or not a claimer can support their claim has no effect on them having to justify their position. For instance: I claim there are aliens living inside a black hole. When challenged I state that there is no way we can see inside a black hole, So it is on the challenger to prove aliens do not live there.

I'm not sure if this is an intentionally fallacious scenario of if you actually believe the burden is on the disbeliever.

That's my point the burden does not shift to the disbeliever just because the claim is supposedly unprovable.


So even if we could not prove a universal negative the claimer would not shake their burden of proof. But we can prove universal negatives.

Why does this statement appear truthful? One reason why the principle seems true is because the word "prove". It is taken to mean 100% certainty. Considering we can not see or know of every part of the universe we can not say with 100% there isn't X.

This is certainly true for things that can not be proven to a 100% percent certainty. Like saying there are no intelligent agents in the Universe except man. What intelligent agents are contingent upon is not exclusive to just Earth. There could very well be other intelligent agents. This percentage, given the size of the universe, is quite likely.

Even with a small sample space of this universe, we already make universal claims. The Laws of conservation of Energy and Matter, The Law of gravity, ect... And when we think about it saying that Energy can NEVER be destroyed is in fact a Universal Negative.

One of the most basic logical arguments is Modus Tollens. The argument goes If P then Q. Not Q therefore Not P.

The arguments name actually means "the way that denies by denying". It is a logical argument to support a negative claim.

If it rains the grass is wet.
The grass is not wet
therefore it did NOT rain.

In closing anyone who claims that we can't prove a universal negative, must be unaware of the basic forms and tenets of having a logical argument. Making it extremely hard to have a logical discussion with such people.

If you see this happening call them out on it.

Basically, the claimant has the burden of proof. If the claimant cannot support their claim, then there is no reason to accept their claim as plausible. Agree?

pluasibility is related to the contigency and possibility of a claim. It really isn't linked to the claimant making bad arguments.

I would say if a claimant can not support their claim then it is of little worth to be considered. Making no judgement about the truth value of the claim.

Agreed.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 7:06:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 5:41:11 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 4/11/2015 1:37:57 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Atheist attempt to pass off their views and positions as the epitome of rational and logical thought. This does not seem to be the case. I suggest that when ever an Atheist states something is logical, research the truth yourself. It's like when someone says "surely", it seems to alert the listener to an underlining assumption being passed off as already proven.

The first tactic of an atheist is to shift the burden of proof. What attempt to do this is to state "No one can prove a universal negative." They then state it is on the challenger to present burden of proof.

No whether or not a claimer can support their claim has no effect on them having to justify their position. For instance: I claim there are aliens living inside a black hole. When challenged I state that there is no way we can see inside a black hole, So it is on the challenger to prove aliens do not live there.

Why would you make such a claim if you have no evidence of it being true? That is nonsense.

Example:

Joe claims a fairy lives in the centre of Jupiter. When challenged, he says there is no way of detecting the fairy inside of Jupiter. Now, it is up to the skeptics to prove that a fairy does not exist in the centre of Jupiter.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens

If the skeptic is truly being a skeptic, withholding judgement till more information presents itself then no. But if that skeptic turns around and begins claiming there are no fairies in the centre of Jupiter then YES they do have a BoP.

I will probably touch on this evidence thing in another thread. It seems to me most Atheist do not know what evidence is.

Evidence is defined: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

That's all it is. Notice how evidence is defined in relationship to what? a belief or proposition.

Maybe you guys are confused on what a belief or proposition is:
Proposition: a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion.
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

What is disingenuous and complete bull malarkey is IS the atheist or YOU in this particular case, thinking that because you don't accept a person's claim you go off stating they have no Evidence for it.

yeah I'll touch on this double standard and BS in another thread as well.

Let's get back on point because so many people want to muddy the thread. IS IT or IS IT NOT logical to assert that universal negatives can not be proven? or in the least concluded likely?

Show me the Formal LOGICAL proof that one can not prove a universal negative. Put up or shut up.



So even if we could not prove a universal negative the claimer would not shake their burden of proof. But we can prove universal negatives.

Why does this statement appear truthful? One reason why the principle seems true is because the word "prove". It is taken to mean 100% certainty. Considering we can not see or know of every part of the universe we can not say with 100% there isn't X.

This is certainly true for things that can not be proven to a 100% percent certainty. Like saying there are no intelligent agents in the Universe except man. What intelligent agents are contingent upon is not exclusive to just Earth. There could very well be other intelligent agents. This percentage, given the size of the universe, is quite likely.

Even with a small sample space of this universe, we already make universal claims. The Laws of conservation of Energy and Matter, The Law of gravity, ect... And when we think about it saying that Energy can NEVER be destroyed is in fact a Universal Negative.

One of the most basic logical arguments is Modus Tollens. The argument goes If P then Q. Not Q therefore Not P.

The arguments name actually means "the way that denies by denying". It is a logical argument to support a negative claim.

If it rains the grass is wet.
The grass is not wet
therefore it did NOT rain.

In closing anyone who claims that we can't prove a universal negative, must be unaware of the basic forms and tenets of having a logical argument. Making it extremely hard to have a logical discussion with such people.

If you see this happening call them out on it.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 7:09:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
https://www.youtube.com...

Starting at the 4 min mark Dr Slezak talks about the logic of proof, disproof, justified non belief, etc etc.

"Asserting and denying existence statements are not symmetrical"
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 7:11:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 6:07:37 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:27:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
There is a burden of proof on making a claim and rejecting a claim.

Someone can say "there is a dead body atop of Mount Everest"

To which the other person can say "no there isn't" but both carry a burden of proof.

That would be true, although that is not the way the discussions go around here.

Here's how they do go...

Someone can say "there is a dead body atop of Mount Everest"

To which the other person will say, "How do you know that, show me the evidence of the dead body".

According to Mykiel, the latter person is supposed to prove there is no dead body.

Ridiculous.

I know you can;t follow a coherent conversation that disagrees with you.

But what I AM actually saying is that I see the scenario play out this way.

Person A: "There is NO body on the Top of Mt. Everest
Person B; "what evidence do you have of that?"
Person A: "I can't prove a negative, you have to prove there is a body!"

That is shifting the burden of proof by Person A, and they are justifying it with the ridiculous notion that we can't prove a universal negative. That is not rational nor logical. person A is how I see sooo many Atheist acting like.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 7:14:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 6:57:51 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:53:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:11:42 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/11/2015 1:37:57 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Atheist attempt to pass off their views and positions as the epitome of rational and logical thought. This does not seem to be the case. I suggest that when ever an Atheist states something is logical, research the truth yourself. It's like when someone says "surely", it seems to alert the listener to an underlining assumption being passed off as already proven.

*Surely*, everyone should examine the logic of all claims. ;-)

The first tactic of an atheist is to shift the burden of proof. What attempt to do this is to state "No one can prove a universal negative." They then state it is on the challenger to present burden of proof.

I really wish you would have qualified this a little more. It is the first tactic *of some atheists*. Also, it would only be shifting the burden if they are making a claim, Ie. God does not exists. However, denying the unsupported claims of theists is not making a contrary claim.

No whether or not a claimer can support their claim has no effect on them having to justify their position. For instance: I claim there are aliens living inside a black hole. When challenged I state that there is no way we can see inside a black hole, So it is on the challenger to prove aliens do not live there.

I'm not sure if this is an intentionally fallacious scenario of if you actually believe the burden is on the disbeliever.

That's my point the burden does not shift to the disbeliever just because the claim is supposedly unprovable.


So even if we could not prove a universal negative the claimer would not shake their burden of proof. But we can prove universal negatives.

Why does this statement appear truthful? One reason why the principle seems true is because the word "prove". It is taken to mean 100% certainty. Considering we can not see or know of every part of the universe we can not say with 100% there isn't X.

This is certainly true for things that can not be proven to a 100% percent certainty. Like saying there are no intelligent agents in the Universe except man. What intelligent agents are contingent upon is not exclusive to just Earth. There could very well be other intelligent agents. This percentage, given the size of the universe, is quite likely.

Even with a small sample space of this universe, we already make universal claims. The Laws of conservation of Energy and Matter, The Law of gravity, ect... And when we think about it saying that Energy can NEVER be destroyed is in fact a Universal Negative.

One of the most basic logical arguments is Modus Tollens. The argument goes If P then Q. Not Q therefore Not P.

The arguments name actually means "the way that denies by denying". It is a logical argument to support a negative claim.

If it rains the grass is wet.
The grass is not wet
therefore it did NOT rain.

In closing anyone who claims that we can't prove a universal negative, must be unaware of the basic forms and tenets of having a logical argument. Making it extremely hard to have a logical discussion with such people.

If you see this happening call them out on it.

Basically, the claimant has the burden of proof. If the claimant cannot support their claim, then there is no reason to accept their claim as plausible. Agree?

pluasibility is related to the contigency and possibility of a claim. It really isn't linked to the claimant making bad arguments.

I would say if a claimant can not support their claim then it is of little worth to be considered. Making no judgement about the truth value of the claim.

Agreed.

Maybe you missed the last part. If a claimant can not support their claim (this is not the same as the support being unconvincing) then the claim is not worth considering. That's what I see many atheist doing.

they claim something about God,and then when challenged say it is a principle of logic that we can't prove a universal negative. If the Atheist thinks it is impossible to provide justifications for their statements then the statements are not worth logical consideration.

The second part is even if the Atheist can't justify their statement, it is not logical to go off stating the opposite is true based on the Atheist being unable to provide justification.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 7:18:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 7:09:45 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Starting at the 4 min mark Dr Slezak talks about the logic of proof, disproof, justified non belief, etc etc.

"Asserting and denying existence statements are not symmetrical"

Show me the formal logical proof that shows we can not prove universal negatives and therefore any negative claim can only be challenged with a positive argument.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 7:19:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 7:06:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/11/2015 5:41:11 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 4/11/2015 1:37:57 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Atheist attempt to pass off their views and positions as the epitome of rational and logical thought. This does not seem to be the case. I suggest that when ever an Atheist states something is logical, research the truth yourself. It's like when someone says "surely", it seems to alert the listener to an underlining assumption being passed off as already proven.

The first tactic of an atheist is to shift the burden of proof. What attempt to do this is to state "No one can prove a universal negative." They then state it is on the challenger to present burden of proof.

No whether or not a claimer can support their claim has no effect on them having to justify their position. For instance: I claim there are aliens living inside a black hole. When challenged I state that there is no way we can see inside a black hole, So it is on the challenger to prove aliens do not live there.

Why would you make such a claim if you have no evidence of it being true? That is nonsense.

Example:

Joe claims a fairy lives in the centre of Jupiter. When challenged, he says there is no way of detecting the fairy inside of Jupiter. Now, it is up to the skeptics to prove that a fairy does not exist in the centre of Jupiter.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens

If the skeptic is truly being a skeptic, withholding judgement till more information presents itself then no. But if that skeptic turns around and begins claiming there are no fairies in the centre of Jupiter then YES they do have a BoP.
Agreed

I will probably touch on this evidence thing in another thread. It seems to me most Atheist do not know what evidence is.


Evidence is defined: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

That's all it is. Notice how evidence is defined in relationship to what? a belief or proposition.

Maybe you guys are confused on what a belief or proposition is:
Proposition: a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion.
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

What is disingenuous and complete bull malarkey is IS the atheist or YOU in this particular case, thinking that because you don't accept a person's claim you go off stating they have no Evidence for it.

It is not bull malarkey. If the person has no evidence, they should be called out on their unsupported claim. Just because I do not accept their claim does not mean they have no evidence.

Example:

I do not accept people's claim that Big Foot is real, yet I do not deny that they have evidence to support their claim, although it may be fake hairs or foot prints.


yeah I'll touch on this double standard and BS in another thread as well.

Let's get back on point because so many people want to muddy the thread. IS IT or IS IT NOT logical to assert that universal negatives can not be proven? or in the least concluded likely?

Show me the Formal LOGICAL proof that one can not prove a universal negative. Put up or shut up.



So even if we could not prove a universal negative the claimer would not shake their burden of proof. But we can prove universal negatives.

Why does this statement appear truthful? One reason why the principle seems true is because the word "prove". It is taken to mean 100% certainty. Considering we can not see or know of every part of the universe we can not say with 100% there isn't X.

This is certainly true for things that can not be proven to a 100% percent certainty. Like saying there are no intelligent agents in the Universe except man. What intelligent agents are contingent upon is not exclusive to just Earth. There could very well be other intelligent agents. This percentage, given the size of the universe, is quite likely.

Even with a small sample space of this universe, we already make universal claims. The Laws of conservation of Energy and Matter, The Law of gravity, ect... And when we think about it saying that Energy can NEVER be destroyed is in fact a Universal Negative.

One of the most basic logical arguments is Modus Tollens. The argument goes If P then Q. Not Q therefore Not P.

The arguments name actually means "the way that denies by denying". It is a logical argument to support a negative claim.

If it rains the grass is wet.
The grass is not wet
therefore it did NOT rain.

In closing anyone who claims that we can't prove a universal negative, must be unaware of the basic forms and tenets of having a logical argument. Making it extremely hard to have a logical discussion with such people.

If you see this happening call them out on it.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 7:24:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 7:18:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/11/2015 7:09:45 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Starting at the 4 min mark Dr Slezak talks about the logic of proof, disproof, justified non belief, etc etc.

"Asserting and denying existence statements are not symmetrical"

Show me the formal logical proof that shows we can not prove universal negatives and therefore any negative claim can only be challenged with a positive argument.

I don't know of any formal logical proof for that.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 7:29:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 7:09:45 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Starting at the 4 min mark Dr Slezak talks about the logic of proof, disproof, justified non belief, etc etc.

"Asserting and denying existence statements are not symmetrical"

Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments page 15:
The Burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth the position. If and when an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that position.

Just as a person is generally held accountable for his or her own actions, one who makes a positive or NEGATIVE claim about something has what is called the burden of proof.
http://books.google.com...
page 15

http://plato.stanford.edu... - Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The logical myth that "You cannot prove a universal negative" is itself a universal negative. So it implies its own unprovability. This implication of unprovability is correct but only because the principle is false. For instance, exhaustive inspection proves the universal negative "No adverbs appear in this sentence". Reductio ad absurdum proves the universal negative "There is no largest prime number".

Trivially, false propositions cannot be proved true. Are there any true propositions that cannot be proved true?

Yes, there are infinitely many. Kurt G"del's incompleteness theorem demonstrated that any system that is strong enough to express arithmetic is also strong enough to express a formal counterpart of the self-referential proposition in the surprise test example "This statement cannot be proved in this system". If the system cannot prove its "G"del sentence", then this sentence is true. If the system can prove its G"del sentence, the system is inconsistent. So either the system is incomplete or inconsistent. (See the entry on Kurt G"del.)

And maybe you didn't notice at 4 min Dr. Slezak moves the conversation away from what is logical and into measuring evidence and conclusion in the realm of scientific methodology.

Again does not confirm universal negatives can not be proven true, and therefore burden rests on the opposing party. <=- THIS IS ABSURDITY NOT LOGIC
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 7:34:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 7:19:31 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 4/11/2015 7:06:24 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/11/2015 5:41:11 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 4/11/2015 1:37:57 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Atheist attempt to pass off their views and positions as the epitome of rational and logical thought. This does not seem to be the case. I suggest that when ever an Atheist states something is logical, research the truth yourself. It's like when someone says "surely", it seems to alert the listener to an underlining assumption being passed off as already proven.

The first tactic of an atheist is to shift the burden of proof. What attempt to do this is to state "No one can prove a universal negative." They then state it is on the challenger to present burden of proof.

No whether or not a claimer can support their claim has no effect on them having to justify their position. For instance: I claim there are aliens living inside a black hole. When challenged I state that there is no way we can see inside a black hole, So it is on the challenger to prove aliens do not live there.

Why would you make such a claim if you have no evidence of it being true? That is nonsense.

Example:

Joe claims a fairy lives in the centre of Jupiter. When challenged, he says there is no way of detecting the fairy inside of Jupiter. Now, it is up to the skeptics to prove that a fairy does not exist in the centre of Jupiter.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens

If the skeptic is truly being a skeptic, withholding judgement till more information presents itself then no. But if that skeptic turns around and begins claiming there are no fairies in the centre of Jupiter then YES they do have a BoP.
Agreed

I will probably touch on this evidence thing in another thread. It seems to me most Atheist do not know what evidence is.



Evidence is defined: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

That's all it is. Notice how evidence is defined in relationship to what? a belief or proposition.

Maybe you guys are confused on what a belief or proposition is:
Proposition: a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion.
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

What is disingenuous and complete bull malarkey is IS the atheist or YOU in this particular case, thinking that because you don't accept a person's claim you go off stating they have no Evidence for it.

It is not bull malarkey. If the person has no evidence, they should be called out on their unsupported claim. Just because I do not accept their claim does not mean they have no evidence.

Example:

I do not accept people's claim that Big Foot is real, yet I do not deny that they have evidence to support their claim, although it may be fake hairs or foot prints.

Every time Atheist tactics and jargon are challenged we always get back to this don't we. The Atheist cries out oh I'm not making any claim I just reject yours. Is that really the case?

Here's an idea if a theist makes a claim in the religious forum and an atheist wants to challenge them go for it.

And when an Atheist makes a claim which apparently is not really making a claim, and apparently saying all kinds of things do not exist is not claiming anything, and apparently the Atheism is only making a claim about their personal belief and not making a claim about reality we have such comments by the Atheist automatically deleted as adding NOTHING to the discussion.



yeah I'll touch on this double standard and BS in another thread as well.

Let's get back on point because so many people want to muddy the thread. IS IT or IS IT NOT logical to assert that universal negatives can not be proven? or in the least concluded likely?

Show me the Formal LOGICAL proof that one can not prove a universal negative. Put up or shut up.



So even if we could not prove a universal negative the claimer would not shake their burden of proof. But we can prove universal negatives.

Why does this statement appear truthful? One reason why the principle seems true is because the word "prove". It is taken to mean 100% certainty. Considering we can not see or know of every part of the universe we can not say with 100% there isn't X.

This is certainly true for things that can not be proven to a 100% percent certainty. Like saying there are no intelligent agents in the Universe except man. What intelligent agents are contingent upon is not exclusive to just Earth. There could very well be other intelligent agents. This percentage, given the size of the universe, is quite likely.

Even with a small sample space of this universe, we already make universal claims. The Laws of conservation of Energy and Matter, The Law of gravity, ect... And when we think about it saying that Energy can NEVER be destroyed is in fact a Universal Negative.

One of the most basic logical arguments is Modus Tollens. The argument goes If P then Q. Not Q therefore Not P.

The arguments name actually means "the way that denies by denying". It is a logical argument to support a negative claim.

If it rains the grass is wet.
The grass is not wet
therefore it did NOT rain.

In closing anyone who claims that we can't prove a universal negative, must be unaware of the basic forms and tenets of having a logical argument. Making it extremely hard to have a logical discussion with such people.

If you see this happening call them out on it.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 7:35:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 7:24:55 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/11/2015 7:18:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/11/2015 7:09:45 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Starting at the 4 min mark Dr Slezak talks about the logic of proof, disproof, justified non belief, etc etc.

"Asserting and denying existence statements are not symmetrical"

Show me the formal logical proof that shows we can not prove universal negatives and therefore any negative claim can only be challenged with a positive argument.

I don't know of any formal logical proof for that.

So then you agree the next time anyone says "you can't prove a universal negative" will you respond by drawing attention to how that is not a logical principle.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 7:41:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 7:11:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/11/2015 6:07:37 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/11/2015 4:27:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
There is a burden of proof on making a claim and rejecting a claim.

Someone can say "there is a dead body atop of Mount Everest"

To which the other person can say "no there isn't" but both carry a burden of proof.

That would be true, although that is not the way the discussions go around here.

Here's how they do go...

Someone can say "there is a dead body atop of Mount Everest"

To which the other person will say, "How do you know that, show me the evidence of the dead body".

According to Mykiel, the latter person is supposed to prove there is no dead body.

Ridiculous.

I know you can;t follow a coherent conversation that disagrees with you.

But what I AM actually saying is that I see the scenario play out this way.

Person A: "There is NO body on the Top of Mt. Everest
Person B; "what evidence do you have of that?"
Person A: "I can't prove a negative, you have to prove there is a body!"

That is shifting the burden of proof by Person A, and they are justifying it with the ridiculous notion that we can't prove a universal negative. That is not rational nor logical. person A is how I see so many Atheist acting like.

In this case, it is up to person A to show the absence of evidence to support the claim that no body is at the top of Mt. Everest. They can do this by taking photographs and removing snow from the top of Mt. Everest to show that no one is there.

If person A states that someone is at the top of Mt. Everest, it is up to them to provide evidence of a person on the on the mountain. If Person A has no evidence to support their claim, person B can deny their claim due to lack of evidence.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."