I accept Burden of Proof, but only because I choose to.

[Paulomycin]

It's not a rule-in-itself. It's only necessary to determine who goes first in a debate; that's all.

Taken from the article, "You Can Prove A Negative," by Stephen Law Ph.D.

One reason that some people suppose science and reason are incapable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that certain supernatural claims are false—for example, that fairies or angels or spirit beings exist—is that they assume you can't prove a negative. Indeed this is widely supposed to be some sort of "law of logic."


For example, Georgia minister Nelson L. Price asserts on his website that "one of the laws of logic is that you can't prove a negative." If Price is correct and this is indeed a law of logic, then of course it immediately follows that we can't prove that there are no fairies, angels, or spirit beings, or, indeed, that there is no God. We will have established that the nonexistence of God is indeed beyond the ability of reason and/or science to establish!

The fact is, however, that this supposed "law of logic" is no such thing. As Steven D. Hales points in his paper "You Can Prove a Negative," "You can't prove a negative" is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic.

Notice, for a start, that "You cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative. So, if it were true, it would itself be unprovable. Notice that any claim can be transformed into a negative by a little rephrasing—most obviously, by negating the claim and then negating it again. "I exist" is logically equivalent to "I do not not exist," which is a negative. Yet here is a negative it seems I might perhaps be able to prove (in the style of Descartes—I think, therefore I do not not exist!).


Of course, those who say "You can't prove a negative" will insist that I have misunderstood their point. As Hales notes, when people say, "You can't prove a negative," what they really mean is that you cannot prove that something does not exist. If this point were correct, it would apply not just to supernatural beings lying beyond the cosmic veil but also to things that might be supposed to exist on this side of the veil, such as unicorns, Martians, rabbits with 20 heads, and so on. We would not be able to prove the nonexistence of any of these things either.


But is the point correct? Is it true that we can never prove that something does not exist? Again, it depends. If John claims there's a unicorn in the tool shed, I can quickly establish he is mistaken by going and taking a look. We could similarly establish there's no Loch Ness monster by draining the loch. But what of the claim that unicorns once existed? We can't travel back in time and directly observe all of the past as we can every corner of the tool shed or Loch Ness. Does it follow that we can't prove unicorns never existed?


It depends in part on what you mean by "prove." The word has a variety of meanings. By saying something is "proved," I might mean that it is established beyond all possible doubt. Or I might mean it has been established beyond reasonable doubt (this is the kind of proof required in a court of law). Can we establish beyond reasonable doubt that unicorns have never inhabited the earth? True, the history of our planet has been and gone, so we can no longer directly inspect it. But surely, if unicorns did roam the earth, we would expect to find some evidence of their presence, such as fossils of unicorns or at least of closely related animals from which unicorns might plausibly have evolved. There is none. We also have plenty of evidence that unicorns are a fictional creation, in which case, it's surely reasonable for us to conclude that there never were any unicorns. Indeed, I'd suggest we can prove this beyond reasonable doubt.

In response, it might be said, "But you can't prove conclusively, beyond all possible doubt, that unicorns never roamed the earth." This is undeniably true. However, this point is not peculiar to negatives. It can be made about any claim about the unobserved, and thus any scientific theory at all, including scientific theories about what does exist. We can prove beyond reasonable doubt that dinosaurs existed, but not beyond all possible doubt.


Despite the mountain of evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth, it's still possible that, say, all those dinosaur fossils are fakes placed there by alien pranksters long ago.

Let's sum up. If "you can't prove a negative" means you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that certain things don't exist, then the claim is just false. We prove the nonexistence of things on a regular basis. If, on the other hand, "you can't prove a negative" means you cannot prove beyond all possible doubt that something does not exist, well, that may, arguably, be true. But so what? That point is irrelevant so far as defending beliefs in supernatural entities against the charge that science and/or reason have established beyond reasonable doubt that they don't exist.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What bothers me is how slippery that word, "reasonable", is! Thank God for debate, and the occasional eye-opening undeniable discovery.

But to apply the point of your post, are the Atheists simply intellectually lazy, and it's a cop-out, to say it is not that they deny the existence of God but that the existence of God has not been proven them beyond reasonable doubt? Or is there something else going on there? After all, surely it is not up to them to prove his non-existence! So are they stretching the meaning of 'reasonable' to suit their proclivities? To talk to them, their reaction to the notion of the existence of God is usually far more virulent than suits their supposed mere lack of belief.

 

[Paulomycin]

What bothers me is how slippery that word, "reasonable", is!

YES! Is it referring to subjective reasonableness, or objective reason? If "subjective," then one can claim the license to "flat-earth" any evidence they just don't like.

But to apply the point of your post, are the Atheists simply intellectually lazy, and it's a cop-out, to say it is not that they deny the existence of God but that the existence of God has not been proven them beyond reasonable doubt?

I really do think they're coming from a position of, "If I can force subjective doubt upon evidence, then it's not good evidence." As-if forced incredulity were a fair substitute for evidence to the contrary.

But anyone can do that with pretty much anything that exists. It's not difficult. You just have to "nuh-uh" more than your opponent.

 

[Mark Quayle]

YES! Is it referring to subjective reasonableness, or objective reason? If "subjective," then one can claim the license to "flat-earth" any evidence they just don't like.



I really do think they're coming from a position of, "If I can force subjective doubt upon evidence, then it's not good evidence." As-if forced incredulity were a fair substitute for evidence to the contrary.

But anyone can do that with pretty much anything that exists. It's not difficult. You just have to "nuh-uh" more than your opponent.

More often than I'd like to say, I force incredulity on the news I hear, knowing full well, that so far every such claim of theirs is in some way misrepresenting the facts.

So I wonder if the God that Christendom has proffered just hasn't given them anything to believe in. That's why I keep going back to First Cause, and Omniptence, and why they keep returning to their second string, "Well, that still doesn't prove the Gods of religions exist"

 

[Mark Quayle]

"

But anyone can do that with pretty much anything that exists. It's not difficult. You just have to "nuh-uh" more than your opponent.

"Nuh-uh, INFINITY!"

 

[Lion IRC]

I think the persuasive burden rests on whoever wants to persuade. If atheists...err... I mean...non stamp collectors want to remain unpersuasive, thats fine by me.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think the persuasive burden rests on whoever wants to persuade. If atheists...err... I mean...non stamp collectors want to remain unpersuasive, thats fine by me.

Yet, if they want to engage in debate, shouldn't they have a stand besides, "persuade me."?

 

[Paulomycin]

Yet, if they want to engage in debate, shouldn't they have a stand besides, "persuade me."?

You're right. That should be the audience's position; not the position of the debater.

 

[Lion IRC]

I think the persuasive burden rests on whoever wants to persuade. If atheists...err... I mean...non stamp collectors want to remain unpersuasive, thats fine by me.

Yet, if they want to engage in debate, shouldn't they have a stand besides, "persuade me."?

Sure. It's a contest of ideas.
If you don't compete, you can hardly claim victory.

Vocal atheists dont like being called proselytizers or counter-apologists because that implies a burden of proof expectation. (Why should I think atheism is true? How did the universe get here? Isnt atheism just wishful thinking? etc. etc.)

What bothers me is when the atheist claims their worldview to be the default truth position.

Or when the atheist tells me that I have to disprove every other religion, when that's the atheist's job. Not mine.

 

[Paulomycin]

Or when the atheist tells me that I have to disprove every other religion, when that's the atheist's job. Not mine.

It's shockingly easy though: Simply apply omnipotence as a litmus test for all religious claims.

For example, take Thor:

Thor is the son of Odin. <-- Whoops! That means there was a time when Thor was non-existent. That's not omnipotent. Thor is then quickly eliminated.

What about Odin? Well, Odin's the son of Bor, so same thing. Odin's not omnipotent.

What about Bor? Well, same as Odin, and on and on. . .until their lineage goes all the way back to a celestial cow.

"Cow," when consistently and honestly applied, is always limited to the form-designation of "cow." A cow can never be anything other than "cow." So, the cow is not omnipotent either.

It's a fun little game to play. You can take out all pantheons with it.

To be fair, even a few interpretations of "the big three" in monotheism.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Sure. It's a contest of ideas.
If you don't compete, you can hardly claim victory.

Vocal atheists dont like being called proselytizers or counter-apologists because that implies a burden of proof expectation. (Why should I think atheism is true? How did the universe get here? Isnt atheism just wishful thinking? etc. etc.)

What bothers me is when the atheist claims their worldview to be the default truth position.

Or when the atheist tells me that I have to disprove every other religion, when that's the atheist's job. Not mine.

I agree wholeheartedly. I like to use the fact that they esteem the notion that Atheism is the default as being an altogether trustworthy fact, as evidence of how lousy their logic is. They really have no reason for claiming such a thing --just, "it seems to me...".

Also, their very arrogance is often based on their mere esteem of their own thinking, and they like to claim 'SCIENCE!' as though anything they might conceive of was thus somehow justified, by virtue of the "fact that religion is faulty and unscientific"!

 

[Mark Quayle]

It's shockingly easy though: Simply apply omnipotence as a litmus test for all religious claims.

For example, take Thor:

Thor is the son of Odin. <-- Whoops! That means there was a time when Thor was non-existent. That's not omnipotent. Thor is then quickly eliminated.

What about Odin? Well, Odin's the son of Bor, so same thing. Odin's not omnipotent.

What about Bor? Well, same as Odin, and on and on. . .until their lineage goes all the way back to a celestial cow.

"Cow," when consistently and honestly applied, is always limited to the form-designation of "cow." A cow can never be anything other than "cow." So, the cow is not omnipotent either.

It's a fun little game to play. You can take out all pantheons with it.

To be fair, even a few interpretations of "the big three" in monotheism.

Yes, it is predictable and almost tiresome (but still, entertaining, haha), how quickly they run full circle from your claim of 'Omnipotence' (or what I like to use --'First Cause'-- as necessary in all considerations concerning God, back to their protest, "Even if you were right, it doesn't prove that the 'Christian god' exists!" THIS, they consider debate! --No! Worse! They consider it a win!

 

[cloudyday2]

It seems to me that beliefs should come from a practical evaluation of evidence. The evidence should first inspire a hypothesis, and then that hypothesis should be tested against evidence that was not used to inspire it. The process should be repeated until the best hypothesis is discovered.

So there needs to be a clearly stated hypothesis to challenge. There is frustration in trying to cast doubt on "Christianity" when every Christian believes something different, and this might explain the "you can't prove a negative" gripe often heard from atheists. What they really mean to say is: "you can't debate with people who can't or won't tell you what they believe".

 

[Mark Quayle]

It seems to me that beliefs should come from a practical evaluation of evidence. The evidence should first inspire a hypothesis, and then that hypothesis should be tested against evidence that was not used to inspire it. The process should be repeated until the best hypothesis is discovered.

So there needs to be a clearly stated hypothesis to challenge. There is frustration in trying to cast doubt on "Christianity" when every Christian believes something different, and this might explain the "you can't prove a negative" gripe often heard from atheists. What they really mean to say is: "you can't debate with people who can't or won't tell you what they believe".

I suppose that is reasonable enough for some to use as a rule But, I'm not so sure your (apparently) scientific method is necessary for good thinking.

I would note, however, that nobody who believes something as remarkable as God Causing, sees that remarkable thing quite the same way as anyone else. SO MUCH --all of life, in fact-- hinges on this notion in every related thought, that nobody even concentrates on any one thing quite exactly the same way that anybody else does. Disparate views are inevitable. We are finite beings trying to put a handle on the infinite.

Furthermore, and there is truth to it, the educated (modern) people tend to reject religion, and (not going into the causes there) are usually more vocal and capable of saying things in a way that can be understood rather clearly, at least to some degree. (This does not mean what they believe is more valid.) On the opposition, believers who are unable to explain what they believe, if they are vocal, tend to be simply noisy or antagonistic, and avoid references to clear logic drawn on presuppositions common to both parties.

There is another obstruction which no doubt is hard for you to swallow, and I don't doubt you have heard it before, but the fact that the unbeliever, as Scripture says, is unable to understand Spiritual things, does not mean the true believer has become a glassy-eyed Zombie and no longer has need of logic or presuppositions (Lol, pardon the hyperbole --I find it hard sometimes to get a point across without it). Yet his mind is no longer the same, nor are his desires and intentions any longer quite the same, as they once were. This I say to denigrate neither side --just to point it out. The believer experiences, not through reason, but empirically, what the unbeliever cannot experience empirically, and it cannot be related, what the Bible calls 'the evidence of what is not seen'. It may not be tangible, but it is nevertheless truly experiential. THIS IS NOT IRRATIONAL, however; the fact it does not come to through mere reason does not mean it has no reason, nor that reason does not arrive at the same conclusion, for the believer.

The unbeliever may well be convinced of the logical necessity for First Cause, but not understand the logical implications of it, perhaps by 'not going there', or by simple habit of incredulity / skepticism; but the hard thing is, we really don't know how much or little our motivations cause us to ignore the implication --particularly-- of submission of the Created to the Creator. I hope that doesn't just sound like word salad to you.

One of the principles taught in good science is the peril of first believing something, then going about proving it. Yet that is what we do even when presupposing. In spite of ourselves, what we like or don't like makes all the difference between what we pursue in our 'proving'. It is simply the nature of proving. As you are no doubt aware, it is in recognizing this foible of humanity that false effects of it can best be mitigated. Sadly (and I include myself) Christians WAY too often do not realize they do that.

There's a lot more, but I'm running way long already. Thanks for your patience.

 

[cloudyday2]

I suppose that is reasonable enough for some to use as a rule But, I'm not so sure your (apparently) scientific method is necessary for good thinking.

I would note, however, that nobody who believes something as remarkable as God Causing, sees that remarkable thing quite the same way as anyone else. SO MUCH --all of life, in fact-- hinges on this notion in every related thought, that nobody even concentrates on any one thing quite exactly the same way that anybody else does. Disparate views are inevitable. We are finite beings trying to put a handle on the infinite.

Furthermore, and there is truth to it, the educated (modern) people tend to reject religion, and (not going into the causes there) are usually more vocal and capable of saying things in a way that can be understood rather clearly, at least to some degree. (This does not mean what they believe is more valid.) On the opposition, believers who are unable to explain what they believe, if they are vocal, tend to be simply noisy or antagonistic, and avoid references to clear logic drawn on presuppositions common to both parties.

There is another obstruction which no doubt is hard for you to swallow, and I don't doubt you have heard it before, but the fact that the unbeliever, as Scripture says, is unable to understand Spiritual things, does not mean the true believer has become a glassy-eyed Zombie and no longer has need of logic or presuppositions (Lol, pardon the hyperbole --I find it hard sometimes to get a point across without it). Yet his mind is no longer the same, nor are his desires and intentions any longer quite the same, as they once were. This I say to denigrate neither side --just to point it out. The believer experiences, not through reason, but empirically, what the unbeliever cannot experience empirically, and it cannot be related, what the Bible calls 'the evidence of what is not seen'. It may not be tangible, but it is nevertheless truly experiential. THIS IS NOT IRRATIONAL, however; the fact it does not come to through mere reason does not mean it has no reason, nor that reason does not arrive at the same conclusion, for the believer.

The unbeliever may well be convinced of the logical necessity for First Cause, but not understand the logical implications of it, perhaps by 'not going there', or by simple habit of incredulity / skepticism; but the hard thing is, we really don't know how much or little our motivations cause us to ignore the implication --particularly-- of submission of the Created to the Creator. I hope that doesn't just sound like word salad to you.

One of the principles taught in good science is the peril of first believing something, then going about proving it. Yet that is what we do even when presupposing. In spite of ourselves, what we like or don't like makes all the difference between what we pursue in our 'proving'. It is simply the nature of proving. As you are no doubt aware, it is in recognizing this foible of humanity that false effects of it can best be mitigated. Sadly (and I include myself) Christians WAY too often do not realize they do that.

There's a lot more, but I'm running way long already. Thanks for your patience.

Another one of my pet peeves about apologetics debates is the lack of discussion of contemporary evidence. Christian apologists typically don't go beyond arguing for the existence of a creator God, but Christianity claims that God is very active in the lives of ordinary Christians today. Some of God's activity might be subtle like gradually improved personalities, but other activity might be less subtle like claimed miracles.

I have felt that I experienced answers to prayers and other supernatural interventions in my life, and yet there seems to be no evidence in general for anything supernatural. How can that be? Is there something about the scientific method that makes it blind to potentially supernatural causes?

But I think this is what atheists mean when they ask for evidence.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Another one of my pet peeves about apologetics debates is the lack of discussion of contemporary evidence. Christian apologists typically don't go beyond arguing for the existence of a creator God, but Christianity claims that God is very active in the lives of ordinary Christians today. Some of God's activity might be subtle like gradually improved personalities, but other activity might be less subtle like claimed miracles.

I have felt that I experienced answers to prayers and other supernatural interventions in my life, and yet there seems to be no evidence in general for anything supernatural. How can that be? Is there something about the scientific method that makes it blind to potentially supernatural causes?

But I think this is what atheists mean when they ask for evidence.

Yes, they want mundane but irrefutable evidence of supernaturalism. They have it in front of their faces daily, but according to Scripture, they are unable to see it, according to their corrupt will.

The tools of science are unable to assess the supernatural. You cannot, for example, prove math. The best you can do in showing that 2 + 2 = 4 is circular statements, restating what you already asserted. We only know it works, and that it makes perfect sense.

The lost "will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." It takes a change of heart.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Another one of my pet peeves about apologetics debates is the lack of discussion of contemporary evidence. Christian apologists typically don't go beyond arguing for the existence of a creator God, but Christianity claims that God is very active in the lives of ordinary Christians today. Some of God's activity might be subtle like gradually improved personalities, but other activity might be less subtle like claimed miracles.

I have felt that I experienced answers to prayers and other supernatural interventions in my life, and yet there seems to be no evidence in general for anything supernatural. How can that be? Is there something about the scientific method that makes it blind to potentially supernatural causes?

But I think this is what atheists mean when they ask for evidence.

This is why in the thread on miracles (and on other threads I don't remember any more) that I ask for evidence of miracles in the here and now. If you can't demonstrate the supernatural or the spiritual (for some more religious than just emotion), then all apologetics explaining why it must is useless. Why it must be? Well, as far as I can tell, it don't be.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is why in the thread on miracles (and on other threads I don't remember any more) that I ask for evidence of miracles in the here and now. If you can't demonstrate the supernatural or the spiritual (for some more religious than just emotion), then all apologetics explaining why it must is useless. Why it must be? Well, as far as I can tell, it don't be.

And so we go on our merry ways. Sadly enough. Once again, convincing is not the same as evidence.

Edit: I guess I should have said, convincing is not the same thing as proving.

 

[Tinker Grey]

And so we go on our merry ways. Sadly enough. Once again, convincing is not the same as evidence.

Edit: I guess I should have said, convincing is not the same thing as proving.

Here, do a miracle. You've got 30 minutes to tell me my in-real-life middle name. Can you do it?

Of course not. Pray that I grow 6 inches taller. Can you do it? Go to your hospital and heal everybody. I'm sure it'll be in my evening news. Jesus supposedly could. Can you?

If the apologist can demonstrate the supernatural, why should anyone believe it. There is simply no reason to believe any story that includes the supernatural.

 

[cloudyday2]

This is why in the thread on miracles (and on other threads I don't remember any more) that I ask for evidence of miracles in the here and now. If you can't demonstrate the supernatural or the spiritual (for some more religious than just emotion), then all apologetics explaining why it must is useless. Why it must be? Well, as far as I can tell, it don't be.

The difficulty with using reports of miracles as evidence for supernatural is that in most cases the miracle is in the way a NATURAL occurrence satisfies some need at just the right time. For example, there was a ghost story where a person did not have money to buy cigarettes but in stopping the car a bunch of old coins came sliding out of the headliner into his lap which allowed him to buy the cigarettes. If the coins had simply slid out of the headliner at some random time and without a need for coins then it would have seemed more mundane. Although that example is a ghost story, Christian reports of miracles are often the same - natural occurrences that satisfy some need at just the right time and often after requesting help from God. It seems that these types of miracles are very hard to confirm as supernatural.

However, there are reports of miracles that would seem supernatural. For example, there are ghost stories where objects such as cutlery fly across the room and are witnessed by multiple people. Similarly there is at least one story of a Christian in Africa returning to life after being dead for several days. Why is there never any evidence for these things? Or maybe there is evidence, but we simply prefer to ignore it because it makes us uncomfortable to take these reports seriously?

A final factor is psychology. Some people imagine things or hallucinate things. Then there are unscrupulous people who exaggerate reports to make the books they write sell better. Or similarly preachers who want to whip their parish into a frenzy of tithing with some uplifting story of a miracle. Hate to be cynical, but it almost seems that nobody takes contemporary reports of miracles and supernatural seriously enough to investigate carefully. Why? Do we subconsciously know they are all bunk or do we subconsciously worry that they might overturn our comfortable ideas about reality? I think a lot of Christians are just as skeptical as atheists when the topic is contemporary reports of miracles and supernatural. They believe Moses parted the Red Sea, but they don't believe God does things like that today. That is why they always want to talk about philosophy and cosmology instead of an active God today. (Sorry for the rant LOL)