{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/6/2015 4:16:13 PM
23
[quote]The burden of proof lies on the person claiming the positive[/quote]Top kek nice try.
Burden of proof lies on the claimant, whatever the claim is. If I said 'The sun does not exist' it is up to me to prove it; the fact you hold the positive position makes no difference.
English
-
Best counter argument I've ever seen in relation to the 'burden of proof' argument.
-
Only after the positive has been proven... There's no need to disprove that which hasn't been proven yet.
-
If you make a claim you need to have evidence to back it up, otherwise you shouldn't expect to be taken seriously. You can't just say 'well the opposite hasn't been proven yet so I'm going to believe it'. Just because it's more believable to say that a chimp doesn't live in my fridge, I can't claim that one doesn't in a debate scenario unless I am prepared to give evidence. If nobody explicitly claims the positive, then there is no way of shirking the responsibility of evidence onto someone else. If nobody claims that there is a chimp in my fridge, but I claim that there isn't, why should other people prove the claim they didn't make? It's my responsibility to prove the claim I made.
-
Edited by QuasiMixture: 9/7/2015 7:40:04 AMIn your chimp scenario, why would anyone believe that a chimp is in the fridge without evidence for it? Is it relevant to disprove something that hasn't been proven? No. It's unnecessary and impossible in an infinite space.
-
Edited by Cultmeister: 9/7/2015 7:54:51 AMThat doesn't stop it being necessary in a debate scenario. If you can't prove your claim, don't make the claim. It may very well be the case than during a debate, someone says 'but God doesn't even exist' without anyone specifically claiming that He does. In this scenario it is not up to everyone else to prove the guy wrong; he's the only one who actually made a claim about God, so he's the only one who has to prove anything. As far as the other guys are concerned they were just expressing opinions rather than intended truths. If you can't prove 'God doesn't exist' then don't claim it in a debate scenario. Simple as. If you have to say something then state your opinion because you don't need to prove your opinion.
-
Nobody should claim that God doesn't exist. That would be a stupid assumption. God cannot be disproven so don't claim that try to claim that he doesn't exist. What you should do is look for evidence of his existence. If no evidence exists then you should dismiss the claim that a God exists because it would be irrelevant to talk about it without evidence.
-
Exactly.
-
Edited by QuasiMixture: 9/7/2015 7:39:56 AM
-
This is just wrong... I don't need to disprove something that has yet to be proven. If it has no evidence than I need no evidence to refute it.
-
There's a difference between refuting a claim and making the opposite claim though. 'I do not believe God exists' =\= 'God doesn't exist' If you make a claim you need to be able to back it up. If you can't back up a claim with evidence then in a debate scenario you should not expect to convince anybody.
-
The burden of proof is on whoever makes the positive statement. Saying that God exists because the negative can't be proven is indeed a fallacy.
-
Edited by Cultmeister: 9/7/2015 8:14:30 AMIf you make a claim you need to be able to back it up. It may very well be the case than during a debate, someone says 'but God doesn't even exist' without anyone specifically claiming that He does. In this scenario it is not up to everyone else to prove the guy wrong; he's the only one who actually made a claim about God, so he's the only one who has to prove anything. As far as the other guys are concerned they could have just been expressing opinions rather than intended truths. It isn't for the other people to prove him wrong, that's exactly the same argument people who claim God exist use and you'd call that fallacious, so don't be a hypocrite. If you can't prove 'God doesn't exist' then don't claim it in a debate scenario. Simple as. If you have to say something then state your opinion because you don't need to prove your opinion.
-
When did I say anything about proving "God doesn't exist?" Red herring is also a logical fallacy. Keep that in mind.
-
I never said you said that; I was using it as an example of how the burden of proof isn't solely on the person claiming the positive statement.
-
[quote]The burden of proof is on whoever makes the positive statement. Saying that God exists because the negative can't be proven is indeed a fallacy.[/quote]
-
We know the sun exists. We can see it. We can feel it's heat. We rotate around it due to its gravity. But we don't know if God exists.
-
That's not the point. If you say 'God doesn't exist' you need to prove that. If you say 'God exists' then you need to prove that too, but the burden of proof is not biased in favour of atheism. If you make a claim, you need to be able to back it up. You can't simply shirk the responsibility on to the other guy who may or may not have even made a claim yet.
-
I know. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that there isn't any solid evidence as to wether or not God exists or doesn't exist.
-
Edited by Cultmeister: 9/6/2015 6:38:44 PMIf we can't provide clear evidence for either claim then we can't make the claims at all. My position is very clear: I do not [u]believe[/u] God exists. Whether he actually does or doesn't is out of my field of knowledge.
-
-
How does that change the argument? Religion is still making the claim of something existing, so don't they need to provide the proof?
-
It changes the argument because it isn't biased in favour of atheism anymore. My point is you cannot say 'God doesn't exist' without proof either. 'God exists' and 'God doesn't exist' are both claims which need proof for people to believe them. Treating one side like it needs proof more than the other is idiotic.
-
Gotcha, but I disagree.
