NationStates Jolt Archive

2 people are arguing.

one claims the topic of the argument is. (is as in "exists" or is and is "is something")

the other claims it isn't.


there is no actual proof either way that either person could get.


Where does the burden of proof lie? Who is right until the other can get some evidence?

Do we just make up stuff here???? How does one's nation become great? Just by answering the right issues???? Someone please answer that for me? IDGI

2 people are arguing.

one claims the topic of the argument is. (is as in "exists" or is and is "is something")

the other claims it isn't.


there is no actual proof either way that either person could get.


Where does the burden of proof lie? Who is right until the other can get some evidence?

Sounds like you're talking about the plethora of "does god exist" threads that pop up from time to time. My answer is that the person making the positive claim--the claim of existence--has the burden. The person making the negative claim has the advantage of the beginning of the argument being the null set on his or her side; i.e. the assumption is that nothing exists until there is positive proof of its existence.

I don't quite understand your question, but the burden of proof is on the person who is trying to change the "status quo" (the way things are generally believed to be).

You said you are arguing "is vs. isn't". It can never be proved that something "isn't" since it's impossible to look everywhere. So it becomes the burden to prove that something exists since that can be proven by finding just one.

Where does the burden of proof lie? Who is right until the other can get some evidence?

Scientifically, and rationally, the zero hypothesis ("the drug you're testing has no effect on this parameter" or "the creature you are claiming to exist does not exist") is correct until it can be disproved (for instance by showing the effect of the drug on the parameter and using statistical analysis to demonstrate that it is unlikely to be due to chance, or by simply presenting the creature you claim to exist).

Thus the onus on providing the proof lies on the one who claims existence of something. The other way around is counter to the rational method because it would mean that any cockamamie thing someone imagines would have to be seen as existing until proven otherwise, and you can easily see why that is foolish. It doesn't matter that the cockamamie thing they imagine is defined by them as "improvable, ever!", because that eternal lack of falsifiability/verifiability - the deliberate placement of the claimed thing beyond the reaches of the scientific method or the natural world, i.e. somehow dementedly and oh, so conveniently in the "supernatural" (which itself is a nonsensical term) - makes the imagined thing all the more cockamamie.

i dont understand the question. you seem to have left a noun off at the end of this sentence

"one claims the topic of the argument is."

until there is some "proof" (supposing its a claim of fact) then no one is the winner.

Scientifically, and rationally, the zero hypothesis ("the drug you're testing has no effect on this parameter" or "the creature you are claiming to exist does not exist") is correct until it can be disproved (for instance by showing the effect of the drug on the parameter and using statistical analysis to demonstrate that it is unlikely to be due to chance, or by simply presenting the creature you claim to exist).

Thus the onus on providing the proof lies on the one who claims existence of something. The other way around is counter to the rational method because it would mean that any cockamamie thing someone imagines would have to be seen as existing until proven otherwise, and you can easily see why that is foolish. It doesn't matter that the cockamamie thing they imagine is defined by them as "improvable, ever!", because that eternal lack of falsifiability/verifiability - the deliberate placement of the claimed thing beyond the reaches of the scientific method or the natural world, i.e. somehow dementedly and oh, so conveniently in the "supernatural" (which itself is a nonsensical term) - makes the imagined thing all the more cockamamie.

Argh! I have to agree with Fass completely, which i'm sure he's happy about. :D

2 people are arguing.

one claims the topic of the argument is. (is as in "exists" or is and is "is something")

the other claims it isn't.


there is no actual proof either way that either person could get.


Where does the burden of proof lie? Who is right until the other can get some evidence?

There is no burden of proof.

If something exists it can be referenced.

Nothing doesn't exist - it is totally inane to argue the non existance of something.

Proof is not possible to demonstrate outside of actual experience and beleif.


If something "exists" and you are trying to 'proove" to others it exists... the only way to do so is to have them expereince it's exsistance.


While in modern legal instances - often lawyers use "rhetoric" or fabricate possible occurances to create "Facts" fact is not proof nor evidence of something that actually occured. Just a matter to try to demonstrate that an occurance was "plausable to occur".

Plausable occurance does not mean actual occurance.

As for what exists and what doesn't. Things only exist - in a present context.


NEVER EVER EVER try to proove somethings non existence - of course prooving inplausability is something you can do - until quantum mechanics and the occult are introduced.

There is no burden of proof.

If something exists it can be referenced.

Nothing doesn't exist - it is totally inane to argue the non existance of something.
http://www.23ae.com/index.asp?post=237


Couldn't help it. :D

Well, it all depends on how you classify the question; scientifically speaking, the null hypothesis would be the de facto position and the burden of proof would lie with concept to be tested. However, in a philosophical sense, the burden of proof can lie on the idea which challenges existing concepts.

The problem with this is that conventional ideas about God don't completely fit in to either.

Well, it all depends on how you classify the question; scientifically speaking, the null hypothesis would be the de facto position and the burden of proof would lie with concept to be tested. However, in a philosophical sense, the burden of proof can lie on the idea which challenges existing concepts.

The problem with this is that conventional ideas about God don't completely fit in to either.

That whole embiggened part there pretty much sums it up.

If I claim that there's a leprachaun that's telling me the secrets of the universe, I should be the one who has to prove this is true.

Correct?


Now, substitute leprachaun for god.

how can y'all be so sure he's talking about god?

i keep reading the OP and it keeps making no sense to me even when i use a "he's talking about god" filter.

how can y'all be so sure he's talking about god?

i keep reading the OP and it keeps making no sense to me even when i use a "he's talking about god" filter.

Arguing about anecdotal vs. empirical.

The basis for that argument would be "best signs indicate ..."
Funny, this comes up a lot when *any* paranormal situation arises for discussion here, "god" or "ufos" or "ghosts" or anything titillating like that.

Arguing about anecdotal vs. empirical.

The basis for that argument would be "best signs indicate ..."
Funny, this comes up a lot when *any* paranormal situation arises for discussion here, "god" or "ufos" or "ghosts" or anything titillating like that.

ill have to take your word for it (that that is what he meant)

i still find that i cant quite catch what his question is.

ill have to take your word for it (that that is what he meant)

i still find that i cant quite catch what his question is.

It's okay, that's just my take.
Perhaps they are simply arguing about god without actually saying it, like "intelligent design".

But from a context for argument, the tools and attitudes need to have a sound basis, and that's the best i could come up with.

Actually, i suspect that anyone with personal experience is more right than someone who doesn't have experience.
But - the caveat would be the attitude of learning and commission of event to the "truth" files in mind is of course tempered by whichever "filter" is used to interpret the event as it happens.
Many, many thousands of people apparently have had to spend a lot of money to unlearn certain things they taught themselves for this exact reason.

So, if a person has what they deem as personal experience with something where someone else doesn't, but there is no real context of reproducible results in order to lend creedence to the argument, the two parties hopefully are amicable enough to admit the limitations of reproducible knowledge, and leave it instead to a possibly irreconcilable situation.
The onus thusly would lie upon the being who insists (under whatever circumstances) that such an occasion or situation does indeed have factual basis.

Honor ...

It wasn't a matter of "where is the burden of proof when arguing god", but more on the burden of proof in an argument between an absolute negative and an absolute positive, when no actual hard evidence can be found (or at least I think that is a better what to say it).


So while the burden would be on the person claiming god to be real, what about in an argument claiming god to or not to be omnipotent? (example argument, feel free to make your own)

It's okay, that's just my take.
Perhaps they are simply arguing about god without actually saying it, like "intelligent design".

But from a context for argument, the tools and attitudes need to have a sound basis, and that's the best i could come up with.

Actually, i suspect that anyone with personal experience is more right than someone who doesn't have experience.
But - the caveat would be the attitude of learning and commission of event to the "truth" files in mind is of course tempered by whichever "filter" is used to interpret the event as it happens.
Many, many thousands of people apparently have had to spend a lot of money to unlearn certain things they taught themselves for this exact reason.

So, if a person has what they deem as personal experience with something where someone else doesn't, but there is no real context of reproducible results in order to lend creedence to the argument, the two parties hopefully are amicable enough to admit the limitations of reproducible knowledge, and leave it instead to a possibly irreconcilable situation.
The onus thusly would lie upon the being who insists (under whatever circumstances) that such an occasion or situation does indeed have factual basis.

Honor ...

if we're talking about god and the proof of god....

using someone's personal experience would have great weight, imo, if you could be sure he is telling you the truth (as he sees it).

to quote dr house "people are liars". i dont particularly believe anyones story about experiencing god, especially online. which is a shame since many people are probably telling the truth.

personal experience is so much better than logic, theology, the bible, the pope, etc in making a case for something that cannot exist.

It wasn't a matter of "where is the burden of proof when arguing god", but more on the burden of proof in an argument between an absolute negative and an absolute positive, when no actual hard evidence can be found (or at least I think that is a better what to say it).


So while the burden would be on the person claiming god to be real, what about in an argument claiming god to or not to be omnipotent? (example argument, feel free to make your own)

we have THAT argument quite often. i dont remember if there is a clear winner or not.

it depends on what "the rules" are. for example are you talking about the biblical god or not? that opens the door to proof from the bible or from big time theologians.

if its purely theoretical, it has to be whoever can make the most compelling claim.

if we're talking about god and the proof of god....

using someone's personal experience would have great weight, imo, if you could be sure he is telling you the truth (as he sees it).

to quote dr house "people are liars". i dont particularly believe anyones story about experiencing god, especially online. which is a shame since many people are probably telling the truth.

personal experience is so much better than logic, theology, the bible, the pope, etc in making a case for something that cannot exist.
Embiggened. :D

Said all that needed to be said, imnsho.

if its purely theoretical, it has to be whoever can make the most compelling claim.
Trouble being charisma often ... and the discerning principles of other parties involved in the argument.

The only reason evangelists and tele- are so successful is the nature of charisma, NOT factual accuracy.
A person may be emotionally compelled to do something or to take the argument of something somewhere regardless of any compelling nature of veracity.

Woe be.

Scientifically, and rationally, the zero hypothesis ("the drug you're testing has no effect on this parameter" or "the creature you are claiming to exist does not exist") is correct until it can be disproved (for instance by showing the effect of the drug on the parameter and using statistical analysis to demonstrate that it is unlikely to be due to chance, or by simply presenting the creature you claim to exist).

So, here and now the burden of proof lies on you to show that the zero hypothesis is appropriate, yes?

you can't prove a negative. plain and simple.

you can't prove a negative. plain and simple.

What about reductio ad absurdem?

What about reductio ad absurdem?

logical fallacies aside, there is no such thing as evidence of absence, only evidence of presence.

I can prove that there is a scratch on my skin. I can not prove that there is not a trans dimensional wormhole in my daughter's closet, while it may be irrational to believe there is because of evidence to the contrary, it's still not the kind of proof I would need to prove that it's not there.

Trouble being charisma often ... and the discerning principles of other parties involved in the argument.

The only reason evangelists and tele- are so successful is the nature of charisma, NOT factual accuracy.
A person may be emotionally compelled to do something or to take the argument of something somewhere regardless of any compelling nature of veracity.

Woe be.

aint that the truth!

if one is truly arguing christian dogma or theology, one MUST use the bible as the basis for any belief.

when a televangelist tells you that god wants you to be rich and if you just send him some seed money, your life will turn around, you should take a look at the new testament and see what jesus said about rich people.

i was ONLY referring to an argument where one is not using the christian god the god in question. when you are on your own, you are free to make anything up that sounds good.

So, here and now the burden of proof lies on you to show that the zero hypothesis is appropriate, yes?

Which the rest of the post does by showing how inappropriate the opposite is and how appropriate the zero hypothesis as a starting stance and measurement is. I know it's risky on General to write "you can easily see why that is foolish", because someone like you will come along and ask a question that demonstrates that even with most obvious and rational of things some people will have difficulties no matter how simply you explain them, even if you did so like they were four years old.

logical fallacies aside, there is no such thing as evidence of absence, only evidence of presence.

Not in the case of axiomatic systems (although there also exist those statements in any system for which there is no evidence either way).

Not in the case of axiomatic systems (although there also exist those statements in any system for which there is no evidence either way).

give me an example.

Which the rest of the post does by showing how inappropriate the opposite is and how appropriate the zero hypothesis as a starting stance and measurement is.

Yes, but the point I'm making is that it operates on the assumption of the universe being a system which tends towards simplicity - it is basically another formulation of Occam's razor.

However, actual evidence that the universe does tend towards simplicity is lacking.

As an arbitrary rule the zero hypothesis is fine, but if we extend it to believe that it actually describes the world, then we are breaking its own rule.

Seems to me like a variant of the same self-contradiction that the logical positivists ran into.

logical fallacies aside, there is no such thing as evidence of absence, only evidence of presence.

I can prove that there is a scratch on my skin. I can not prove that there is not a trans dimensional wormhole in my daughter's closet, while it may be irrational to believe there is because of evidence to the contrary, it's still not the kind of proof I would need to prove that it's not there.

yes but.

in a story that is absurd on the face of it--that there is a transdimensional wormhole in your daughters closet--you would have to show some proof, no matter how small, that it exists.

i submit that when something defies the common understanding of the world, it needs to be postively proven or it doesnt exist

even though future understanding might show that it indeed does exist.

Yes, but the point I'm making is that it operates on the assumption of the universe being a system which tends towards simplicity - it is basically another formulation of Occam's razor.

However, actual evidence that the universe does tend towards simplicity is lacking.

As an arbitrary rule the zero hypothesis is fine, but if we extend it to believe that it actually describes the world, then we are breaking its own rule.

Seems to me like a variant of the same self-contradiction that the logical positivists ran into.

Nope. You fail.

give me an example.

Ouch. It's kind of late at night to be delving into Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Nope. You fail.

Educate me. Point out where exactly I went wrong in that post.

The concept that the most compelling case wins is, ironically, compelling, but incomplete. We have to examine what makes a case compelling in the first place. Charisma? No, that's far too simplistic and superficial. It's logic, folks.

This is one thing that hasn't changed through the ages. Logic wins, period. The problem is agreeing on what is logical. Science is a useful thing, as is the scientific method, but it is fundamentally limited to things which can be empirically proven. If the argument is one which cannot be proven, then obviously there is no empirical evidence, or that would prove it, right? So, it comes down to who makes a better case, based on logic. Toulmin's model is still being taught for a very good reason. It works.

So, what makes it difficult to decide who is more logical in their arguments? I'll tell you. Seriously, you may want to write this down. It's wisdom-of-the-ages type stuff. Ready?

Everyone wants to be right.

That means any average person will continue arguing an illogical point, even realizing it is illogical, to try to appear right. Obviously, this happens most often in religion and politics, but I've observed this phenomenon in very mundane settings as well.

Where does that leave us, as far as this thread and any others like it? Sadly, there is no hope. No one can be trusted to be completely logical, because no other person can be sure of their agenda. And I'm confident saying nearly everyone has an agenda they aren't talking about.

Let me give you an example. If someone sees this thread and thinks it's about God, they will want to say whatever it takes to make their opinion (or belief) seem correct. They may even (incorrectly, of course) interpret this to be an attack on their religion. Of course, they must defend it. That means there will be no end to the exaggeration, non sequiturs, unbelievable claims, and my personal favorite: big words and phrases meant to confuse. What we lovingly call BS. All for the simple purpose of appearing to be correct.

Woe is me! How can I ever have a rewarding conversation if the state of humanity is at such a low? How can I ever have a conversation aimed toward a logical conclusion when I know everyone will twist and misrepresent logical ideas to prove their own point? I guess format is everything. It must start and end only with people I trust to be logical, rather than selfish. Sadly, I've found precious few people like that, and it's really hard to find people like that online, with only the impersonal text they leave behind to go on.

So why have I even bothered to post, and at such great length? I'm an optimist, I guess. Deep down, I really hope that like-minded people might see this and want to talk to me, away from those who would spoil such conversations with pettiness, insults, BS, and personal agendas. So, if any such people exist, feel free to let me know. Other than that, I wish you luck figuring out this issue, and I hope you all have a great day.

Later!

makes the imagined thing all the more cockamamie.
It is now my life goal to hear a man with a Swedish accent use the word "cockamamie."

It is now my life goal to hear a man with a Swedish accent use the word "cockamamie."

There's a voice thread somewhere in the archives that has him on there ... although i'm not sure he ever says "cockamamie".

There's a voice thread somewhere in the archives that has him on there ... although i'm not sure he ever says "cockamamie".
:(

Anyway, on topic:The burden of proof is very similar to hundreds of men in that it very often lies on yo' momma.

:(

Anyway, on topic:The burden of proof is very similar to hundreds of men in that it very often lies on yo' momma.

Well, my momma so fat she not only the center o' attention, SHE the center o'gravity!
EVERY MAN often lyin' on my momma!

Example of existence or non existence:

Two people are arguing about the existence of Bigfoot. First; the accepted truth is Bigfoot doesn't exist so he who says he does has the burden because he is trying to change the status quo. Second; the person that says Bigfoot doesn't exist can't possibly produce evidence of a negative (it's impossible to look everywhere), so the person that is arguing for the existence of Bigfoot has to prove it does exist because a positive can be proved.

Now there is two types of evidence, direct and indirect. Direct evidence would be if he brought home a Bigfoot. Indirect would be bringing home verifiable footprints, hair, feces, or other such.

Science recognizes both types of evidence. There is no direct evidence of electricity but there is indirect evidence that power is being moved and how that power might be moved.

This doesn't say it's about religion but if it is there is the possibility of proving God through indirect evidence.

Example of existence or non existence:

Two people are arguing about the existence of Bigfoot. First; the accepted truth is Bigfoot doesn't exist so he who says he does has the burden because he is trying to change the status quo. Second; the person that says Bigfoot doesn't exist can't possibly produce evidence of a negative (it's impossible to look everywhere), so the person that is arguing for the existence of Bigfoot has to prove it does exist because a positive can be proved.

Now there is two types of evidence, direct and indirect. Direct evidence would be if he brought home a Bigfoot. Indirect would be bringing home verifiable footprints, hair, feces, or other such.

Science recognizes both types of evidence. There is no direct evidence of electricity but there is indirect evidence that power is being moved and how that power might be moved.

This doesn't say it's about religion but if it is there is the possibility of proving God through indirect evidence.
;) ^what he said

. There is no direct evidence of electricity but there is indirect evidence that power is being moved and how that power might be moved.

Do we know of the same electricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity)?

Do we know of the same electricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity)?

No one has seen an electron. We only say they exist in theory. All use of electricity is based on that theory. It is the presently accepted theory as to how the atom works and how power is moved but since it can't be directly observed electricity is only known by indirect evidence.

That doesn't mean that every accepted theory is correct but in the realm of this thread, if you want to change the commonly accepted theory you have the burden of proof.

Take for example: The common belief was the sun and stars went around the earth. Those that said the earth went around the sun had the burden of proof to prove that theory was wrong. Now anyone that would argue that the earth doesn't go around the sun has the burden of proof since the accepted theory has changed. If you would like more examples I would recommend the book "The Day the Universe Changed".

An example as to changing a commonly accepted theory today. Evolution is the commonly accepted theory of biology. If someone wants to change it they have the burden of proof.

One other thing--a tie goes to the status quo---Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Proof.

No one has seen an electron. We only say they exist in theory. To quote the Honourable Chris Formage:
And science ... science ... is a lie. I mean, have you ever seen a sperm? We've all tried.
http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/index.php?fn=send_pm&manual_username=verdantabyss&title=Epsilon+Cult+Application&message=%1E+Do+you+regularly+play+GTA%3A+SA%3F%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%1E+Have+you+made+any+discover ies+regarding+the+Epsilon+Cult%3F%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%1E+Do+you+have+a+reliable+connection+to+Ne oseeker%3F%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A

One other thing--a tie goes to the status quo---Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Proof.Yup. Ask Mulder.

Woe is me! How can I ever have a rewarding conversation if the state of humanity is at such a low? How can I ever have a conversation aimed toward a logical conclusion when I know everyone will twist and misrepresent logical ideas to prove their own point? I guess format is everything. It must start and end only with people I trust to be logical, rather than selfish. Sadly, I've found precious few people like that, and it's really hard to find people like that online, with only the impersonal text they leave behind to go on.


If you are looking for a logical person, you better look on a different planet. And don't bother looking in a mirror.

Aristotle said men like to think they make a decision based on logic but in the end the emotional appeal will win the argument. So when you debate make sure you use enough logic to satisfy that yearning to find reason but in the end win the debate with an appeal to the emotions.

People haven't changed much in 2300 years. The last two US elections were won on "who looks cowboy tough" and "same sex marriage", even though the loser was judged by the majority of voters to make the most logical arguments.

2 people are arguing.

one claims the topic of the argument is. (is as in "exists" or is and is "is something")

the other claims it isn't.


there is no actual proof either way that either person could get.


Where does the burden of proof lie? Who is right until the other can get some evidence?

There used to be a standard here about a year ago, but now people just say STFU and "You're full of shit" and "you racist" and "you fucking liberal" and other stuff.

No one here ever changes their mind on anything, so it's not as though this is a place for Argument. This is just Contradiction and Gainsaying.

To quote the Honourable Chris Formage:

http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/index.php?fn=send_pm&manual_username=verdantabyss&title=Epsilon+Cult+Application&message=%1E+Do+you+regularly+play+GTA%3A+SA%3F%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%1E+Have+you+made+any+discover ies+regarding+the+Epsilon+Cult%3F%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%1E+Do+you+have+a+reliable+connection+to+Ne oseeker%3F%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A
Yup. Ask Mulder.

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The site didn't open for me.

The quote: "Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Proof" was made famous by Carl Sagan although many others have laid claim.

There used to be a standard here about a year ago, but now people just say STFU and "You're full of shit" and "you racist" and "you fucking liberal" and other stuff.

No one here ever changes their mind on anything, so it's not as though this is a place for Argument. This is just Contradiction and Gainsaying.

Yes but sometimes it's very entertaining contradiction and gainsaying. =D That's basically the point of being here, now.

Much like a turn-based fighting match. If it's turn-based, you can do anything to counter your opponent before his attack takes effect, but so can he, so you're so worried about countering him you don't realize he's countering you. Even if you realized it, you couldn't really do anything about it.

Though sometimes one person completes a throw and flings the other through the air, landing with a thud on hard concrete, with unexpected yet amusing retorts such as "Yes but what does that have to do with the weight of apples in Venezuela?".

Fascinating stuff.

You cannot prove a negative, and there is no need to - it is the default position until evidence/proof for the positive exists and is verifiable.

There used to be a standard here about a year ago, but now people just say STFU and "You're full of shit" and "you racist" and "you fucking liberal" and other stuff.
Pfft! You didn't live up to any standard a year ago either, so don't complain. You're one of the people who contributed (heavily, I might add) to any decline. Though in a more subtle way than shouting at people...

No one here ever changes their mind on anything, so it's not as though this is a place for Argument. This is just Contradiction and Gainsaying.
Depends on the thread and the debater.

You cannot prove a negative, and there is no need to - it is the default position until evidence/proof for the positive exists and is verifiable.yep. and that concludes the thread...

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The site didn't open for me.

The quote: "Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Proof" was made famous by Carl Sagan although many others have laid claim.

You know, only about a half hour after i tab'd that site, i found the same problem. My apologies.

It's from Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

And about Mulder, well, that's kinda self-explanatory. Just pissed me off that he didn't have enough budget for more cameras but he always had travel budget.

And about Mulder, well, that's kinda self-explanatory. Just pissed me off that he didn't have enough budget for more cameras but he always had travel budget.

Paperwork. It probably was a 1-page form for travel expenses...

...and a 30-page form, the 27-B/6, that had to be stamped by three different bureaus, signed forty-five times, filed in triplicate with four different records offices in two different departments, copied on to four-copy carbon paper and then the three color-coded copies had to be taken to their designated bureaus to be stamped and deposited in three other records offices while the original was stamped by the Executive Assistant Director for Administration and the Executive Assistant Director for Criminal Investigations from the FBI's Internal Affairs department and then the original, after being stamped had to be taken to the Information Affairs Division so that he could get the form to requisition the camera, which in turn required him to fill out forms to requisition the color coded copies of the 27-B/6 from the records bureaus and make five more copies of them to be filed in quadruplicate with each of the divisions of Administration.

And then, if he was lucky, there would be no complications and he would get the voucher to pick up his camera three weeks after it was supposed to arrive. God help him if there were complications...

Paperwork. It probably was a 1-page form for travel expenses...

...and a 30-page form, the 27-B/6, that had to be stamped by three different bureaus, signed forty-five times, filed in triplicate with four different records offices in two different departments, copied on to four-copy carbon paper and then the three color-coded copies had to be taken to their designated bureaus to be stamped and deposited in three other records offices while the original was stamped by the Executive Assistant Director for Administration and the Executive Assistant Director for Criminal Investigations from the FBI's Internal Affairs department and then the original, after being stamped had to be taken to the Information Affairs Division so that he could get the form to requisition the camera, which in turn required him to fill out forms to requisition the color coded copies of the 27-B/6 from the records bureaus and make five more copies of them to be filed in quadruplicate with each of the divisions of Administration.

And then, if he was lucky, there would be no complications and he would get the voucher to pick up his camera three weeks after it was supposed to arrive. God help him if there were complications...

NOW i'm getting it.
Mulder, of course, was one of those types who was pretty good at skirting statistical probabilities. That made those levels of bureacracy and paperwork his true bane. CGB wasn't, really - he was functional as a series of opportunities, really.

More on topic, he provided statistics of improbability, while helping to nudge that "paranormal" margin out of the 53% range into the 54.4% range.

sneep...

I love you more than is probably healthy for me to admit.

Pfft! You didn't live up to any standard a year ago either, so don't complain. You're one of the people who contributed (heavily, I might add) to any decline. Though in a more subtle way than shouting at people...

Depends on the thread and the debater.

I'm not a shouter, if you haven't noticed.

I also don't call people names, like most of the people on this board.

I'm not a shouter, if you haven't noticed.

I also don't call people names, like most of the people on this board.

I dunno. Your Deep Kimchi incarnation was kinda loud sometimes. :p

I'm not a shouter, if you haven't noticed.
*Hisses*
You're doing it again....


I also don't call people names, like most of the people on this board.
No, you don't. And you've shown that can think rationally, and even read, understand and argue sensibly against what other people post. I'd just wish you'd do that more often. It's more fun then the hyperbolic scare-mongering (and, let's face it, extreme right) version of you.

No, you don't. And you've shown that can think rationally, and even read, understand and argue sensibly against what other people post. I'd just wish you'd do that more often. It's more fun then the hyperbolic scare-mongering (and, let's face it, extreme right) version of you.

Everyone on this board has their unique quirk that allows everyone to identify who they are.

yep. and that concludes the thread...

Right, so you admit that you have no proof for the statement 'There is no Biblical God'.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Right, so you admit that you have no proof for the statement 'There is no Biblical God'.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Don't you mean there is no proof there is a Biblical God, as there is no point trying to prove the non-existence of one.

Don't you mean there is no proof there is a Biblical God, as there is no point trying to prove the non-existence of one.

Man there is plenty of proof. I guess that some people just don't count is as such huh?

The burden of proof lies on whoever wishes to make an assertion. If you want to argue Bigfoot exists, you need evidence. If you want to argue it doesn't, you also need evidence. Failure of person A to produce evidence that Bigfoot exists does not prove that it doesn't exist, just that there is insufficient evidence to say that it does.

If you're talking in terms of null and alternative hypotheses, rejection of the alternative hypothesis does not mean you have proved the null hypothesis, just that you accept it. For example if you're doing some sort of dull statistical test at some small significance level, if you fail to find correlation you don't say you proved there isn't correlation, you just say there is insufficient evidence to prove the alternative hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is something like 'I think this is the most likely thing to believe, so I'm going to believe it unless someone proves otherwise'. Not necessarily any sort of concrete, proven position, although naturally science likes to get things to work as often as possible and so working from the assumption that without evidence the obvious/easy answer is the right one makes sense.

About the negative thing. There is no reason you should not be able to prove a negative. Some specific things cannot be proven (such as when the null hypothesis can (with reasonable probability, see second to last paragraph) produce the same behaviour as the alternative, see debates about ID etc.), but a simple example of proving a negative would be 'there is a cat living in that box'. Open the box, if it does not contain a cat then you have 'proven' it just about as rigorously as you can prove anything outside an axiomatic setup like maths. It has the same level of credibility as the claim that all cats are visible to the naked eye. If you want to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist, just get everyone on the planet combing the mountains. Impractical yes, but theoretically possible. If you think of that as impossible, take the same statement and apply it to a planet with only one, very small, mountain. Does the number of mountains affect whether the reverse of 'Bigfoot exists' is a negative or not?

All use of the word 'proof' above refers to the casual usage, it should be more precisely called extreme likelihood or beyond reasonable doubt or something.


And yes you cannot 'prove' there is no biblical God unless you give the people trying to prove it some property the world would have if God existed that has so far not been noticed by anyone (including yourself, it has to be a prediction from knowledge of God rather than from experience then explained using God) and is not explained by usage of current natural ideas and the things that follow from them.

Man there is plenty of proof. I guess that some people just don't count is as such huh?

You may think there is evidence but there is certainly no proof.

Don't you mean there is no proof there is a Biblical God, as there is no point trying to prove the non-existence of one.

Actually, I was just trying to be an asshole about his idiotic signature.

But you're right. There is no proof for or against the existence of the Biblical God, and I don't think it is possible to prove the existence or non-existence of the Biblical God.

Which is why I think it's dumb when someone makes assertions like 'There is no Biblical God'.

Are you the one who pointed out the difference between proof and evidence to me in the last thread like this?

You may think there is evidence but there is certainly no proof.

Ahhhh yeah okay then I can go with that!

Yet we all place faith in stuff based on evidance.

2 people are arguing.

one claims the topic of the argument is. (is as in "exists" or is and is "is something")

the other claims it isn't.


there is no actual proof either way that either person could get.


Where does the burden of proof lie? Who is right until the other can get some evidence?Burden of proof lies with whoever makes a claim.
If person A claim that X is the case, then a burden of proof lies with A; if person B claim that not-X is the case, another burden of proof lies with B. In contrast, if A makes claim X but B only expresses a skeptical position with regards to X (rather than claim something contrary), then burden of proof lies solely with A.

Burden of proof lies--

LIIIIIIIIIESS!

In the end there is no such thing as proof outside of the mind of those in the argument. Aristotle said 2300 years ago that in the end people make a final decision based on emotion not on logic.

If you are trying to persuade someone you need to use what that person believes to be "truth". Just because you believe something is truth doesn't mean that the same things that persuaded you will persuade him/her. Each person has a foundation of basic beliefs and if what you are arguing doesn't fit into those basic beliefs you will not persuade them regardless of how much "proof" (in your mind) you throw out.

At the basis of all logic is assumption. If someone has the same assumption as you then you can build on that assumption. If they have a different assumption you have to talk until you can agree on an assumption. That assumption becomes "truth" among the two of you in the discussion. The problem is there is no "proof" of that assumption.

In the example someone used above:

If you see no cat in the box, you are assuming that your eyesight is correct. The cat could somehow be camouflaged so that your eyes are incorrect. Most of us would assume that a cat wouldn't be camo, but if someone wanted to argue the point eyesight isn't "proof". We've all had our eyes tricked.

It all comes down to which mutual assumptions each side is willing to accept.

Burden of proof lies with whoever makes a claim.
If person A claim that X is the case, then a burden of proof lies with A; if person B claim that not-X is the case, another burden of proof lies with B. In contrast, if A makes claim X but B only expresses a skeptical position with regards to X (rather than claim something contrary), then burden of proof lies solely with A.so it is indeed up to jews and christians to prove that their god exists... ;)

so it is indeed up to jews and christians to prove that their god exists... ;)

Only if they start the conversation. If they were to walk around with a big sign saying 'There is a Biblical God', then they would have the burden of proof.

If you were to walk around with a big sign (or signature) saying 'There is no Biblical God', you would have the burden of proof.

Only if they start the conversation. They did 2300 years ago by huddling together a story today called bible. but they have not come up with anything substantial as evidence or even proof since.
in reaction to that and as a conclusion of actual history of the times that are described in their holy book(s) it is save to say that their god is a fabrication and indeed does not exist.

Only if they start the conversation. If they were to walk around with a big sign saying 'There is a Biblical God', then they would have the burden of proof.

If you were to walk around with a big sign (or signature) saying 'There is no Biblical God', you would have the burden of proof.

And if he were to walk up to a christian and request that they prove to him that God exists, and they retort with "Prove God doesn't exist", who would have the burden?

They did. 2300 years ago.

Who is this monolithic 'they' of which you speak?

so it is indeed up to jews and christians to prove that their god exists... ;)Yup, and it's up to the athiest to prove he doesn't. :p
The agnostic has the skeptical position. Well, unless the agnostic claims that it is unknowable whether or not god exists. That would again be something that needs to be argued.

And if he were to walk up to a christian and request that they prove to him that God exists, and they retort with "Prove God doesn't exist", who would have the burden?

Whoever came and started a thread on it, I guess.

Whoever came and started a thread on it, I guess.

No, I mean, if he just walked up to a christian and asked them to prove that God exists.

Perhaps it would be better to say that whoever wants to convince the other of something has the burden of proof.
If I walk up to a Christian and ask him to prove to me that god exist, there is absolutely no burden of proof on him if he doesn't feel the need to convince me of his beliefs.

Perhaps it would be better to say that whoever wants to convince the other of something has the burden of proof.
If I walk up to a Christian and ask him to prove to me that god exist, there is absolutely no burden of proof on him if he doesn't feel the need to convince me of his beliefs.

Eh, I suppose. I'm not happy with the answer, but I'm too lazy to give a crap.

Eh, I suppose. I'm not happy with the answer, but I'm too lazy to give a crap.Yeah, I know the feeling; I often have that with answers to philosophical questions.
Great questions, lousy answers, that's philosophy. :p

Yeah, I know the feeling; I often have that with answers to philosophical questions.
Great questions, lousy answers, that's philosophy. :p

If we're lucky, we get lousy answers. On any given day, though, our philosophical questions are met with a quiet breeze and maybe a bird chirping and nothing else. It's like, what the fuck, God? The shit kind of answer is that? What a cop-out. Y'know? =P

If this is degenerating into: Is there a God? That is a question that takes more time than anyone on here is willing to dedicate. All of the proof is indirect. So in order to answer an unbeliever it takes time to learn about the beliefs of that unbeliever and then to relate the indirect evidence to those beliefs. Few Christians have been trained in persuasion so don't have a clue how to do this. Most just relate their beliefs without showing how they relate to the beliefs of the person they are talking to.

Even those groups that send out "missionaries" don't teach their people persuasion. I have fun when the missionaries come because I tell them they have to make their case without use of the Bible. I tell them that using the Bible as evidence is no good because an unbeliever doesn't consider the bible a valid source. They must talk about what the other person does believe and relate that.

A good example is actually in the Bible. When Paul went into Athens he didn't tell the Athenians the were wrong. He told them their beliefs were right. Then he used their beliefs to talk about his ideas of God.

Sounds like you're talking about the plethora of "does god exist" threads that pop up from time to time. My answer is that the person making the positive claim--the claim of existence--has the burden. The person making the negative claim has the advantage of the beginning of the argument being the null set on his or her side; i.e. the assumption is that nothing exists until there is positive proof of its existence.

Unless, of course, in the context of whatever discussion the second person is making a positive claim that "nothing exists."

In the eye of the beholder.

In the eye of the beholder.

Your mom's a beholder.



Oh snap. No he didn't.

No, I mean, if he just walked up to a christian and asked them to prove that God exists.

Well, according to this thread, the first person to bring up a positive claim has the burden of proof. But if UB went up to a nun and asked her to prove God existed, he is not making a positive claim. He is demanding that she make a positive claim (i.e. that God exists) and then asking her to prove it.

I think such a situation falls outside the scope of debate. It seems more like weird 'go up to strangers and annoy them with crazy talk' than honest debate.

Well, according to this thread, the first person to bring up a positive claim has the burden of proof. But if UB went up to a nun and asked her to prove God existed, he is not making a positive claim. He is demanding that she make a positive claim (i.e. that God exists) and then asking her to prove it.

I think such a situation falls outside the scope of debate. It seems more like weird 'go up to strangers and annoy them with crazy talk' than honest debate.

Yeah I guess. It would be funny as hell, though.

Yeah I guess. It would be funny as hell, though.

Especially since my mental image of UB is a somewhat pudgy, very white, 14 year old boy.

Especially since my mental image of UB is a somewhat pudgy, very white, 14 year old boy.

I'm thinking that indignant nerd from that Transformers skit of Robot Chicken.

2 people are arguing.

one claims the topic of the argument is. (is as in "exists" or is and is "is something")

the other claims it isn't.


there is no actual proof either way that either person could get.


Where does the burden of proof lie? Who is right until the other can get some evidence?
The burden of proof lies with the person making an assertion.

If I assert that there is a gnome in the garden, it is for me to establish that there is a gnome in the garden. It is not up to everybody else to prove that no gnome exists in the garden.

What about reductio ad absurdem?

Reductio ad absurdum wouldn't prove a negative. All it does is take your opponent's argument to its logical (but undesirable) conclusion.

Reductio ad absurdum wouldn't prove a negative. All it does is take your opponent's argument to its logical (but undesirable) conclusion.

Am I a nerd for imagining Harry Potter casting a spell called Reductio Ad Absurdum?

Any assertion about Gods nature is a positive assertion, that includes stating that he does not exist.

Your mom's a beholder.



Oh snap. No he didn't.

Double-Dholder is more like it!

Oh ... and in the eye, as in a blinky?