Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A common argument I see being presented by people is the Statement. "Prove I am wrong?" Except for mathematical operations one can not prove anything is wrong. No statement no matter how ridiculous or obviously wrong can be proven wrong.
As an experiment I defy anyone to offer proof that this statement is wrong.
"Giant 12 legged purple, man-eating aardvarks have invaded the USA."
Language is the great limiter in logic, where a definition of "proof" must be agreed upon before it can be discussed. The concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" has been universally applied for centuries, recognizing that an insistence upon absolutes is an environment inimical to logic.
Language is the great limiter in logic, where a definition of "proof" must be agreed upon before it can be discussed. The concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" has been universally applied for centuries, recognizing that an insistence upon absolutes is an environment inimical to logic.
True
And in my own opinion why the challenge "Prove I am wrong" borders on the ridiculous.
While it is possible to come to an agreement as to what is proof of the existence of something, I really doubt there can be an agreement as to what is proof something does not exist.
A common argument I see being presented by people is the Statement. "Prove I am wrong?" Except for mathematical operations one can not prove anything is wrong. No statement no matter how ridiculous or obviously wrong can be proven wrong.
As an experiment I defy anyone to offer proof that this statement is wrong.
"Giant 12 legged purple, man-eating aardvarks have invaded the USA."
Wouldn't this qualify as argumentum ad ignorantiam? The burden of proof lies on the one who asserts the logically positive.
Wouldn't this qualify as argumentum ad ignorantiam? The burden of proof lies on the one who asserts the logically positive.
Correct it would.
I started this thread to demonstrate how absurd it is to use the Argument "Prove xxx does not exist"
I still defy anyone to prove
"Giant 12 legged purple, man-eating aardvarks have invaded the USA."
It is an absolutely ridiculous statement. While I am a Theist and strongly believe in God(swt) I cringe when I see a Theist use the statement "Prove God(swt) does not exist." Which sadly too many of my fellow theists do and actually believe they won because no one has ever proven God(swt) does not exist.
It is basically them I want to tackle y challenge. Perhaps then they can understand why they get laughed at.
A common argument I see being presented by people is the Statement. "Prove I am wrong?" Except for mathematical operations one can not prove anything is wrong. No statement no matter how ridiculous or obviously wrong can be proven wrong.
As an experiment I defy anyone to offer proof that this statement is wrong.
"Giant 12 legged purple, man-eating aardvarks have invaded the USA."
Because the phrase "being invaded" is usually indicative of an act affecting the lives of other beings, then if not a single person has come forward and said "my life has been affected by giant 12 legged purple, man-eating aardvarks", then it is probably not an invasion.
However, if one was saying that "Giant 12 legged purple, man-eating aardvarks are here in the USA but they are invisible." then it would be hard to prove that wrong.
Because the phrase "being invaded" is usually indicative of an act affecting the lives of other beings, then if not a single person has come forward and said "my life has been affected by giant 12 legged purple, man-eating aardvarks", then it is probably not an invasion.
However, if one was saying that "Giant 12 legged purple, man-eating aardvarks are here in the USA but they are invisible." then it would be hard to prove that wrong.
Even the first one the fact no one came forward could be because the invading Aarvarks destroy the minds of all who see them and they fall under the control of the aardvarks until they are eaten. Because no one reports being affected by them is evidence of how powerful the aardvarks are at mind control.
Now you have 2 things to prove do not exist. The existence of the aardvarks and there are no people that had their minds destroyed by them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
