Proof: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Proof » Proof

Proof

Proof

makerowner
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 15, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 10

Posted 05/01/08 - 07:53 PM:	#1
You said it yourself: the burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim. That God exists is a positive claim, and therefore requires proof. To reverse the burden of proof requires absurdities like believing in the existence of unicorns until they can be proven not to exist.

yiming
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 61

Posted 05/01/08 - 08:46 PM:	#2
God does not exist. Let this be a positive claim and I have the burden of proving the truth of this claim. P1: God is undefinable. P2: That which is undefinable does not exist. C: Therefore, God does not exist.

Morris
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 26, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 6

Last Blog: An Intro to Justification

Posted 05/02/08 - 10:14 AM:	#3
By saying that something is undefinable is giving it definition. Thus, your first proposition is self referential. Thus, your syllogism is invalid. Second, claiming the non-existence of something is not a positive claim. It is always a good idea to quote some correctly,I did not say that the one that makes a positive claim bares the burden of proof what I said is " There is a old rule in philosophy that says, the one who makes the claim bares the burden." The nature of the claim can be positive or negative.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 05/02/08 - 11:18 AM:	#4
Well firstly the new atheists don't attempt to disprove god, their whole case is the completely lack of sufficient evidence to inspire belief. Which you conceded in your post, so they have established what they set out to. The fact that zero evidence exists for the proposition does qualify for not only reasonable doubt, but complete dismissal. In a court of law, a man claiming to have wittnessed a murder but cannot provide a body, a crime scene, or a single shread of physical evidence would be dismissed, it would not make the court room. It is impossible to prove a negative, so if god indeed doesn't exist, it is impossible to prove it. So expecting claims to be disproved instead of the claimants offering prove is unreasonable, and puts on in a irreproachable position. It is also deeply hypocritical, and inconsistent. Atheists are just claiming that the claims are wrong, or insufficently justified to believe, the theists are not only claiming they are right, but that everyone else is also wrong. It is mutually exclusive to other theistic, deistic, pantheistic, or polytheistic traditions. It excludes not only other gods, but other proported supernatural events as well. I think expecting all that you do in your opening post is highly unreasonable.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

unenlightened
Mysteriosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 811

Posted 05/02/08 - 11:51 AM:	#5
I do not believe that there exists such a thing as 'the burden of proof'. If you think there is such a 'negative' thing, it is up to you to prove it by either laying it on me, or carrying it yourself. On the other hand, if you want to be taken at all seriously round here, you are advised to provide evidence and/or reasons for any controversial statements. I dont know who this 'New Atheist' character is,but until he actually starts posting, I won't be debating with him, nor will I criticise his 'bad habits'. It's generally a good policy to address the criticisms of your position after you have expounded a position and received some criticism, rather than before. Present your evidence, reasons, proof, and when the opposition is unfair, then you can point it out.
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5382

Posted 05/02/08 - 12:10 PM:	#6
This fixation on "proof" is a psychological ailment. We need to recognize that we live in a variable, dynamic world where yesterday's truths are today's fallacies. If you repeatedly look for proof, I suggest a visit to a health professional who will help you live with uncertainty.
_____________________ Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 05/02/08 - 12:16 PM:	#7
Proof doesn't equal certainty. Not in any sense I use it.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

unenlightened
Mysteriosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 811

Posted 05/02/08 - 12:20 PM:	#8
unenlightened currently lives with uncertainty and their two children, unity and unlikelihood.
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Morris
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 26, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 6

Last Blog: An Intro to Justification

Posted 05/02/08 - 12:40 PM:	#9
Wosret, So what evidence is there that would justify the non-existence of God? It was claimed that you can not prove a negative which is very true.Are you suggesting that Atheism is not Falsifiable. If so are you aware of those implication? So if Atheist are saying that the claims the theist makes are just wrong on what ground do they make those propositions. Consider in your answer the fact that after 50 years of being an militant Atheist Antony Flew considered the evidence for ID(intelligent design) and came to the conclusion that theism was the most intellectually honest position. Should Flew as rabeldin stated "visit to a health professional who will help you live with uncertainty."

makerowner
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 15, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 10

Posted 05/02/08 - 01:19 PM:	#10
Morris wrote: Wosret, So what evidence is there that would justify the non-existence of God? It was claimed that you can not prove a negative which is very true.Are you suggesting that Atheism is not Falsifiable. If so are you aware of those implication? So if Atheist are saying that the claims the theist makes are just wrong on what ground do they make those propositions. Consider in your answer the fact that after 50 years of being an militant Atheist Antony Flew considered the evidence for ID(intelligent design) and came to the conclusion that theism was the most intellectually honest position. Should Flew as rabeldin stated "visit to a health professional who will help you live with uncertainty." What evidence is there that would justify the non-existence of Zeus? Shiva? Unicorns? The tooth fairy? See without a burden of proof on the positive claimant, you have to believe in all this things until you can prove they don't exist.

Morris
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 26, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 6

Last Blog: An Intro to Justification

Posted 05/02/08 - 02:03 PM:	#11
There are two thing that I see wrong with your argument. One is the way you are using burden of Proof.The way you are using this term is actually a fallacy. What I mean by that is the version that you use occurs when a lack of evidence for God is taken to be evidence for God. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form: # Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side # Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X. So according to the right use of burden of proof it lays with the negative.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 05/02/08 - 02:32 PM:	#12
Morris wrote: Wosret, So what evidence is there that would justify the non-existence of God? It was claimed that you can not prove a negative which is very true.Are you suggesting that Atheism is not Falsifiable. If so are you aware of those implication? So if Atheist are saying that the claims the theist makes are just wrong on what ground do they make those propositions. Consider in your answer the fact that after 50 years of being an militant Atheist Antony Flew considered the evidence for ID(intelligent design) and came to the conclusion that theism was the most intellectually honest position. Should Flew as rabeldin stated "visit to a health professional who will help you live with uncertainty." Firstly that Flew thing is a sad, and horrible myth. Flew was exploited in his old age, and admitted to not even having read the book attributed to him, but actually written by Bob Hostetler an evangelical preacher. It is a disgusting dishonet thing that was done. Though even if it were true it would mean nothing if he couldn't present good reasons for why he changed his mind. I don't care who is an atheist and who isn't, or who changed their mind and who didn't. That is a pathetically bad argument to make. A clear and obvious appeal to authority. Atheism isn't a thing to be falsified, it is the lack of theism, a lack of a belief it isn't a claim, it isn't anything. It is the lack of something. Atheism can be summed up easily as "Bullshit. I don't believe you. Prove it." You ignored all of my objections to forward this gem. Clearly you only know of intellecutal honest by name alone. Edited by Wosret on 05/02/08 - 02:51 PM
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 05/02/08 - 02:37 PM:	#13
Morris wrote: There are two thing that I see wrong with your argument. One is the way you are using burden of Proof.The way you are using this term is actually a fallacy. What I mean by that is the version that you use occurs when a lack of evidence for God is taken to be evidence for God. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form: # Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side # Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X. So according to the right use of burden of proof it lays with the negative. That wasn't an argument, he asked you some questions. Actual that would be a "negative proof fallacy" not a argument from ignorance. Though no one is making that argument you are suggesting. His questions were meant to demonstrate your hypocrisy. Though I see they went ignored as well as what I had to say. I've already said that these claims are merely dismissed because they lack sufficient justification for belief, and it is perfectly reasonable to point this out, and it is perfectly reasonable to say you are then wrong for believing it. That is exactly what all the "New Atheists" are doing, have you even read their books? Name a single one of their arguments that attempts to disprove god, or claims that a god cannot or definitely does not exist. Otherwise you're just boxing straw-men. Edited by Wosret on 05/02/08 - 02:54 PM
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

DoctorInWaiting
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 36

Posted 05/02/08 - 02:56 PM:	#14
Jeremy Bentham sums it up nicely in Utilitarianist sense...The Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number. The masses need to be satisfied, but there is too much belief in religion to initiate. Religion is opium for the masses as Marx said, therefore there will never be a social norm of "scientific inferential knowledge" After all trying to prove God doesnt exist is positivist. Just because we cant see it doesnt mean its true which positivists would argue makes up the ideology of religious debate. Its hard to explain if religion is true, the bible was wrote years after the events happened, so there could be some exaggeration etc. I am an atheist myself but only for the reason that I believe in Humanism, I do not like social divides amongst people and religious existence somewhat exacerbates groups of people. Nevertheless if religion is true, there is no need to defend it by the death.
_____________________ "The Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point however is to change it" Marx and Engels "Freedom of conscience entails more dangers than authority and despotism." Michel Foucault Society is rebelled against if society condemns

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 05/02/08 - 04:38 PM:	#15
I think humanism is somewhat implied speciesism. I'm a big advocate of animal rights, and would consider myself more of a philosophical skeptic, and a methodological naturalist. I am not a materialist, I take no metaphysical positions. I am more of, I think it was Shermer who say "I'm more like a militant agnostic, I don't know and neither do you." I agree that religion is the most devisive force in history. It teaches not only are groups different, but there is a metaphysical difference between groups that means the different in where they will be spending eternity. My two favorite quotes on the matter are "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike" - Richard Dawkins and "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful". - Seneca.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

WW_III_ANGRY
All knowing prick

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 68

Posted 05/06/08 - 07:52 PM:	#16
Proving, in its function in reality, is simply a matter of convincing. Some are able to be convinced others not. Who here knows that the earth orbits the sun? Was it proven to you? Did you chart the stars yourself or were you just told it over and over again by many people? Is it knowledge? Only if it is true, but how do you know if you did not witness it? Are not those who grow up in religious families and indoctrinated in religion in their lives not proven that God exists in the same way? Or is there no such thing as proof as there is no absolute truth? I say, proof is a matter of convincing. Sorry if this is a little off tangent.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.