CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I don't have a burden of proof for any of them and we all have to assume they are true unless someone can prove me wrong because I used the word 'not'. It is like a magic trick to win any debate.
Burden of proof is a silly argument to have. Everyone stating anything should be stating it with proof, no matter where their starting point is.
As for proving a negative, it is only possible if a positive is known. For instance I can prove that the sky is not brown, because it is known that the sky is blue.
What this debate is referencing, proving or disproving God, has one flaw from making that argument valid. An atheists can not prove that God does not exist, because no proof exists that he does exist either. In other words, their is no positive to disprove the negative and vice versa.
I'll go on to say, the argument "you can't prove he isn't real" is a silly one in my opinion, because for one those saying it can't prove he is real, for two the evidence we have of what they used to use as proof, we are steadily disproving more and more as the days go by. To put that simply we are proving some negatives, in disproving the false positives they put forth.
In conclusion in reference to the debate's source topic, we can't and probably will never disprove God as a whole, but any time any information is presented, we will prove what that information actually means. If it points to God, then fine, if it does not then that is also fine.
Agrees. I said that atheism is not a religion, and someone assumed that I had the burden of proof. I thought the burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim. Good job in being logical. :)
Of course you can prove a negative. For example. I am sitting on a chair right now. Therefore I have proved that it is not the case that I am not sitting in a chair.
To say that you can't prove a negative is mainstream pseudo-logic. Actually, the statement you can't prove a negative, is in and of itself a negative, so if you could prove it you would automatically have proven yourself wrong.
The problem I think that's being hinted isn't that you can't prove a negative, but that inductive proofs aren't certain. For instance, all life we know of is carbon based, therefore if we were to discover a new life form, it will probably be carbon based. This is an inductive proof. It's the same with proving that God doesn't exist. An anti-theist would say that there's no evidence for the existence of God, therefore we are likely never to find evidence for the existence of God. (This is the induction part). If God existed, he would leave evidence of his existence. (This is a commonly used premise). Therefore God probably does not exist.
Hmm. I think that the proof of sitting on something that is not a chair is a positive. If you have venn diagrams you can prove a negative only by positively affirming a different category. I think this is where the statement comes from.
It's pretty easy to define negative and positive existence claims (e.g. there exists a chair is a positive existence claim, there exists no God is a negative existence claim), but given that we aren't talking about existence claims , I think the problem lies in the inherent ambigiousness of defining what a positive claim is.
Is the claim that "my middle name is not Nebeling" a positive claim? That statement appears to affirm 'positively' that my middle name has some property, and thus it must be a positive claim. I guess, given your response, that you agree. Equivalently, the statement that "it is not the case that my middle name is Nebeling" might be a candidate for a negative claim; I take it again that you agree? But if that indeed is a negative claim we are in deep trouble because then we have constructed two logically equivalent claims where one is positive and one is negative, hence making the distinction meaningless.
In order to make sense, any sentence logically equivalent to a positive statement must also be positive. This appears to not be the case and therefore I don't think the term is useful at all (at least when we aren't talking about existence claim in which case we may argue that they do make sense).
I think the statement comes from the fact that you can't prove the non-existence of something. That is, you can't prove a negative existence claim. (This again is a pretty outrageous claim, assuming which we end up saying that we can't prove any synthetic claims).
Specifically the claim that you can't prove a negative is outrageous because it implies that you can't prove anything about the material world.
Let's say that you want to prove the non-existence of a bananas in your apartment. In order to prove it you would have to check each and every part of your apartment. Let's say you haven't found a banana after looking everywhere. Have you proved that there are no bananas in your apartment? Now let's say I don't believe it's possible to prove a negative existence claim, and I ask you a question that puts doubt into your conclusion. For instance I could ask "but what if someone placed a banana somewhere in your apartment after you checked that spot?"
Notice that I can always ask questions like this. Theists say but maybe you haven't found God because you haven't looked at the world the right way right yet". Now when people say that you can't prove a negative, this is the reason why. They think you can't prove a negative, just because you can ask skeptical questions, just because you can doubt the conclusion.
But let's say that you want to prove the existence of water in your apartment. In order to do that you take a glass and fill it up with tap water, and there you go. You have proved a positive existence claim. But notice that for the very same reason that you (alledgedly) can't prove a negative, you haven't proved your positive claim either. I could ask, "but what if it isn't water?", "how do you know it's not something that just looks like water". Clearly, if negative existence can be refuted just because you can ask skeptical questions, then so can positive for the very same reason.
But this extends to all synthetic claims. For instance, let's say that you are happy and you express this feeling. I could then ask "but how do you know that you aren't just deluding yourself?". To return to my initial post. The problem is that all synthetic claims rely on inductive reasoning and inductive reasoning isn't 100% certain. Therefore there's always* room for doubt. So when I tell you that "you can't know that a banana didn't magically appear somewhere you already looked", all I am really saying is that "I am going to ignore your overwhelming amount of evidence, and still believe what I want."
I guess this is why atheists get pissed off at theists. There's a overwhelmingly good reason to say that there's no reason to believe in the existence of God(s). Theists however want to maintain their position and so they retort: "but, but, but you can't know that God isn't a magical banana that appears everywhere you aren't looking."
When you say "convince one or more people", do you count yourself?
A statement can be proven to someone else that hasn't been proven to me, so not necessarily
That would mean that all opinions are proved.
One doesn't hold an opinion unless something has been proven to them.
And if it only takes one other person and you are successful, but 3 disagree, is it proved?
Not as thoroughly as if they were all convinced
If what you are trying to prove is self evident and undeniable to logic, but you are on a deserted island with no one to prove it to, is it proved?
It doesn't make sense to try to prove something to someone when in complete isolation. If I regard something as self-evident I suppose it's reasonable to say that through internal reasoning, I have proved it to myself
So proof means as little as "makes sense to me", and as much as "There's a consensus". If it is self evident to you and no one else is reasonable, is it proved? To put it way out there, imagine everyone is telling you that you don't exist. You know that you do. Saying "I think" isn't enough because they say you don't exist. Is your existence proved?
You know that you do. Saying "I think" isn't enough because they say you don't exist. Is your existence proved?
I am not going to waste my time trying to prove that I exist to anyone. I think "no-self" teachings are not only stupid, they are intrinsically dishonest.
