If your truly can't prove a negative then....

[super animator]

Don't make the claim. If your making a claim, the burden of proof is expected regardless your ability to prove or not. It doesn't go null even if it's truly a claim that can't be proven for certain reasons.


In other words do you think that the inability to prove a negative nullifies the burden of proof? I certainly don't.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

Don't make the claim. If your making a claim, the burden of proof is expected regardless your ability to prove or not. It doesn't go null even if it's truly a claim that can't be proven for certain reasons.


In other words do you think that the inability to prove a negative nullifies the burden of proof? I certainly don't.

Are you talking about proving the non-existence of God?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Don't make the claim. If your making a claim, the burden of proof is expected regardless your ability to prove or not. It doesn't go null even if it's truly a claim that can't be proven for certain reasons.


In other words do you think that the inability to prove a negative nullifies the burden of proof? I certainly don't.

I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but you do realize that rejecting a claim is not the same as making a claim...don't you? Do you understand the difference?

 

[super animator]

I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but you do realize that rejecting a claim is not the same as making a claim...don't you? Do you understand the difference?

Yes.

 

[keith99]

I disagree that you cannot prove a negative. Save in the sense that you really cannot prove anything in the real world as opposed pure logic.

I can prove the God as described by a particular believer does not exist, at least once that believer starts making promises about their God.

I can prove there is no teacup circling Saturn in a particular orbit (if the orbit is truly exact, meaning the full trajectory).

I can prove there is no Elephant in the cupboard.

All these just as much as any positive. You may say the elephant is there but invisible. But then I may claim an Elephant seen was an illusion.

 

[willlowbee]

This is why I see atheism as absence of belief in the god form every earthly religion espouses.
It is not possible to say that no thing that could be called god, or some other word defining source for all that is in creation, exists. And that is why theists can prove that kind of god is possible. While the argument that is not so can not prove itself.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is why I see atheism as absence of belief in the god form every earthly religion espouses.
It is not possible to say that no thing that could be called god, or some other word defining source for all that is in creation, exists. And that is why theists can prove that kind of god is possible. While the argument that is not so can not prove itself.

Would you try rephrasing that? I'm not exactly certain of what you're saying...

 

[willlowbee]

Would you try rephrasing that? I'm not exactly certain of what you're saying...

Yes, even reading it after I thought that may happen. Sorry.

Let me rephrase.
Basically, atheism as I see it is the argument that no thing humans conceive as that what the word "God" represents, exists. It is then that atheism is absence of belief in those beliefs that describe "God" just so.
However, and others have alluded to this as well just so you know I'm not alone in this, that does not mean something that is the source for all existence can not exist. And as such that would preclude atheism from being fully the 'strong' atheism many espouse, i.e. it is impossible for anything like God to exist, to be true.
Because we can only deny what we imagine qualifies as "God" by our limited human intellects definition of that word.

When what is the source for everything that exists, and would have to be beyond our comprehension as we are merely one more created 'thing' resulting from that source, can not be defined in human terms and therefore can not qualify to merit atheists. (absence of believe in 'it')

I hope that clears it up a bit. It's hard to put what runs through my head and in my understanding on subjects like this, into words.
Oh, there's a huge line of comebacks and jokes being born from that statement, no doubt.

 

[quatona]

Don't make the claim. If your making a claim, the burden of proof is expected regardless your ability to prove or not. It doesn't go null even if it's truly a claim that can't be proven for certain reasons.


In other words do you think that the inability to prove a negative nullifies the burden of proof? I certainly don't.

"Negatives can´t be proven" is an inaccurate statement, to begin with.
The reasons why god´s existence can´t be disproven:
1. "god" usually is so poorly defined that the concept is unfalsifiable.
2. Since the term "god" is not copyrighted, everyone can use that term for whatever they want. So if I wanted to disprove the existence of god, I would have to disprove countless god concepts at once. There may also be god concepts that I don´t even know of.

 

[super animator]

"Negatives can´t be proven" is an inaccurate statement, to begin with.
The reasons why god´s existence can´t be disproven:
1. "god" usually is so poorly defined that the concept is unfalsifiable.
2. Since the term "god" is not copyrighted, everyone can use that term for whatever they want. So if I wanted to disprove the existence of god, I would have to disprove countless god concepts at once. There may also be god concepts that I don´t even know of.

Why do you assume I was talking about a god? If I were to, I would have mention it already, but I didn't. I was talking about claims in general.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, even reading it after I thought that may happen. Sorry.

Let me rephrase.
Basically, atheism as I see it is the argument that no thing humans conceive as that what the word "God" represents, exists. It is then that atheism is absence of belief in those beliefs that describe "God" just so.
However, and others have alluded to this as well just so you know I'm not alone in this, that does not mean something that is the source for all existence can not exist. And as such that would preclude atheism from being fully the 'strong' atheism many espouse, i.e. it is impossible for anything like God to exist, to be true.
Because we can only deny what we imagine qualifies as "God" by our limited human intellects definition of that word.

When what is the source for everything that exists, and would have to be beyond our comprehension as we are merely one more created 'thing' resulting from that source, can not be defined in human terms and therefore can not qualify to merit atheists. (absence of believe in 'it')

I hope that clears it up a bit. It's hard to put what runs through my head and in my understanding on subjects like this, into words.
Oh, there's a huge line of comebacks and jokes being born from that statement, no doubt.

eh...its a little clearer now. Question though...why would you think that something cannot comprehend its creator? If you believe this to be true, wouldn't all religions be false and rather pointless?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why do you assume I was talking about a god? If I were to, I would have mention it already, but I didn't. I was talking about claims in general.

If you're bothered by negative claims that cannot be proven, I can sympathize. I'm often bothered by positive claims that cannot be proven.

 

[variant]

It's not hard to make a defensible claim like "there doesn't appear to be any conclusive evidence that would lead us to accepting the idea of God." about atheism.

This is a claim about the appearance of conclusive evidence, and it stands as true IMO because the only way to disprove it would be to present some evidence that was conclusive.

 

[KCfromNC]

Don't make the claim. If your making a claim, the burden of proof is expected regardless your ability to prove or not. It doesn't go null even if it's truly a claim that can't be proven for certain reasons.


In other words do you think that the inability to prove a negative nullifies the burden of proof? I certainly don't.

Are you implying that absolute proof is necessary before making a claim? Seems that would eliminate anyone from being able to say or do anything at all, since absolute proof is impossible.

 

[Ken-1122]

This is why I see atheism as absence of belief in the god form every earthly religion espouses.
It is not possible to say that no thing that could be called god, or some other word defining source for all that is in creation, exists. And that is why theists can prove that kind of god is possible. While the argument that is not so can not prove itself.

That is why as an atheist, I will say; I don’t believe anything I would call God exists. I will gladly admit what which YOU call God may exist because I don’t know what it is that you might be calling God! (You can’t always assume the Christian God) Some people worship nature, I heard of some guy saying he worships his money, I heard of a story of some people worshiping a golden calf! Now it would be ridicules for me to claim these things do not exist; I just don’t call them God, I call nature my environment, money; currency, and a Golden calf a statue. So until a person describes this God to me, I will be unable to say whether or not I believe it exist; and unless he gives a description that contradicts; such as saying his God is perfect and all good, but constantly makes mistakes and acts bad; can I say whether or not he exists as described by the person making the claim.

Ken

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

That is why as an atheist, I will say; I don’t believe anything I would call God exists. I will gladly admit what which YOU call God may exist because I don’t know what it is that you might be calling God! (You can’t always assume the Christian God) Some people worship nature, I heard of some guy saying he worships his money, I heard of a story of some people worshiping a golden calf! Now it would be ridicules for me to claim these things do not exist; I just don’t call them God, I call nature my environment, money; currency, and a Golden calf a statue. So until a person describes this God to me, I will be unable to say whether or not I believe it exist; and unless he gives a description that contradicts; such as saying his God is perfect and all good, but constantly makes mistakes and acts bad; can I say whether or not he exists as described by the person making the claim.

Ken

If you are talking with a person you know is a Christian, and you might for example be talking about the weather, and then the Christians makes the statement:

"Yes, indeed, God has caused the sun to shine brilliantly today!"

What/who do you think the word "God" would be in reference to in that sentence?

 

[variant]

If you are talking with a person you know is a Christian, and you might for example be talking about the weather, and then the Christians makes the statement:

"Yes, indeed, God has caused the sun to shine brilliantly today!"

What/who do you think the word "God" would be in reference to in that sentence?

We really don't know; it's a pretty poorly defined phenomena.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

We really don't know; it's a pretty poorly defined phenomena.

Let me be more specific.

Who/what do you think the Christian is referring to when they say "God" when used in that sentence?

 

[variant]

Let me be more specific.

Who/what do you think the Christian is referring to when they say "God" when used in that sentence?

I think you are speaking of the God you worship.

You have to understand that when referencing such a being, It is pretty poorly understood (by you) from my perspective even if I am wrong and it exists.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

I think you are speaking of the God you worship.

And you would be right. The context in which the word was used, as well as taking into account who spoke the sentence would indicate to you that they were not talking about money, or one of the many gods of Hinduism, or the gods of Greek Mythology, but rather, the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, who Anselm calls the "Greatest Conceivable Being" or as you simply stated, "The God that Christians worship". The three are synonymous.

You have to understand that when referencing such a being, It is pretty poorly understood (by you) from my perspective even if I am wrong and it exists.

You may have a poor understanding of the God Christians worship, but what little you do know, in combination with the context in which the word is used along with knowing who is speaking to you, can give you sufficient reason for concluding what you have concluded.

That is my point.