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.
When it comes to the existence of something of anything, the person asserting the existence is making the positive claim.
For instance, if I assert that it rained on Tuesday, and someone says that it didn't rain on Tuesday they are making the negative claim and I am making the positive claim. It falls to me to prove that it rained on Tuesday, because it is logically impossible to prove it didn't rain on Tuesday.
All the person that makes the positive claim has to do is provide evidence that there was a single raindrop that fell on Tuesday. But the person saying that it didn't rain cannot isolate every atmospheric molecule and prove that there were no water molecules present.
A person claiming that the universe is finite only has to find a border of the universe. A person claiming that it is not finite, the negative claim (hence the "not") can never prove it, because the assertion that there are no borders or limitations means there is no evidence to prove that negative.
Indeed, you can believe in Santa Claus, but a person that says they don't believe is faced with trying to identify every person on the planet and confirming that that person is not Santa Claus, an impossible feat.
If you say there are purple mushrooms growing naturally on this planet, the positive claim, and I say there are none, the negative claim, all you have to do is find one purple mushroom, whereas I have to collect EVERY mushroom growing on the planet to prove none of them are purple. And if I say that I have collected every mushroom, you can always assert that I missed some, which, given the number of mushrooms that grow and the conditions they grow in and the vastness of the planet, is a possibility I cannot refute.
Logic dictates that the person making the affirmative claim, in your case that God exists, has the burden to provide proof of their claim. Because in the vastness of an infinite universe, I cannot say that I've examined every part of the universe and proven no evidence exists. I cannot refute that there may be evidence that God exists somewhere in the universe, I can only ask you, the one asserting the existence of God, to provide me with some proof of that existence. And I can, as logic dictates, not believe in things that have no evidence of their existence.
There is a choice of to believe or not to believe. But to choose not to believe isn't a choice to believe. Belief is always a positive claim. Non-belief is never a positive claim.
....please show the "positive claim". I made a simple statement,...not a positive claim. Nowhere was a positive statement made. One must caution everyone not to jump to conclusions or make assumptions.
Who made this "positive claim" law that you beat to death?
hnsq - Game theory started as War Gaming where the opposition was rational and playing from the same rule book. Modern War Gaming ignore the innovative as illustrated by the US Coast Guard officer the proposed a Russian capture of Iceland that Tom Clancy dramaticized in “Red Storm Rising". In a similar fashion I was just reading about a War Game involving the invasion of Iran. The American General assigned to be the Iranian defense managed by using an innovative mix of the really new (terminal guidance on ballistic missiles) and ancient (runners and hard wired communications) to totally defeat the US invasion forces. Our command staff simply changed the rules so we could "win" the second round. This is typical behavior of an entrenched bureaucracy.
These entrenched bureaucracies are one of the major anti-intellectual forces active in our and all other societies. Intellectual thought may create change and change is anathema to anyone that has any status derived from their bureaucratic skills and hard won positions.
...I know where game theory started. That doesn't change the fact that modern business strategy relies on it.
Everything you just said would be 100% true in the 1970's, however business strategy has changed dramatically since then. The modern business world is one of the more intellectual forces in society today. This was not the case 30-40 years ago.
Go back and read the posts. I never make a "positive claim".
On a side note, apparently those who believe in God are not interested in proving there is a God. True believers' religion of faith-based in a belief in God, and no atheist can shake/affect that belief.
Atheists will never believe in God anyway,....so why should a believer bother discussing the issue? Discussing religion with an atheist only gives an atheist a platform to spew their hatred toward those who believe differently.
Actually just being a theist is making a positive claim. Atheist by default cannot have a positive claim. Meaning you cannot prove a negative.
I actually agree with most of your post. I also am an agnostic as it appear you are (only meaning you think it is faith based and thus nor possible to prove). So I do respect your position.
I am also going to point out that you are appearing to asking to be treated as an individual and not as the "typical" theist. I would like the same consideration. I have not spewed any hatred towards anyone in this thread.
....please show the "positive claim". I made a simple statement,...not a positive claim. Nowhere was a positive statement made. One must caution everyone not to jump to conclusions or make assumptions.
Who made this "positive claim" law that you beat to death?
The positive claim is to assert that god exists. You are making the positive claim when you ask atheists to prove that god does not exist. Because they are on the negative claim side (hence the NOT), so a challenge to them means that you are on the positive claim side.
And the positive claim law that I "beat to death", is the basic law of argumentation that anyone who has taken a logics course learns the first week. It is impossible to prove a negative. A fundamental law of logic. It is impossible to prove a negative, therefore it falls to the person making the affirmative or positive claim to provide proof.
This thread is more ppropriate for the Religion forum
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
The positive claim is to assert that god exists. You are making the positive claim when you ask atheists to prove that god does not exist. Because they are on the negative claim side (hence the NOT), so a challenge to them means that you are on the positive claim side.
And the positive claim law that I "beat to death", is the basic law of argumentation that anyone who has taken a logics course learns the first week. It is impossible to prove a negative. A fundamental law of logic. It is impossible to prove a negative, therefore it falls to the person making the affirmative or positive claim to provide proof.
Yes, there is no proof for a negative. There can only be proof for those things that exist. There can be no proof for nonexistent entities.
Believers don't believe because of proof. They believe because of desires. Nonbelievers don't share those desires.
My interpretation of "intellectualism" is these professional student, college prof's who have never worked a real job with a bottom line in their lives and are completely out of touch with the expectations of working under a deadline.
So no, I dont think its killing America. If anything we need to become more logical than intellectual.
From reading through the posts on this thread, it seems that the atheists are the ones who cannot prove diddly-squat. They are the ones who throw around terms like "skydaddy", and insist that it is incumbent upon those of faith to "PROVE" there is a God,....when the atheists cannot prove otherwise.
No one is forcing their religious views on anyone here, and none professing a religious background has stooped to the name-calling and vitriol displayed by agnostics and atheists. For those who apparently believe they are "intellectually superior",...it seems you don't have a clue.
Hark! Hail! Hark!
You go against the Great Unicorn with your foolish religion! You anger the Great Unicorn and the followers of the Great Unicorn! Turn away from your fake religion before it is too late, and turn toward the Great Unicorn! Hail! Great Unicorn! Hail!
Followers of Jesus you have been warned that you are worshiping a false god! The Great Unicorn is the one and only true God! ! Hail! There is no God but the Great Unicorn!
From reading through the posts on this thread, it seems that the atheists are the ones who cannot prove diddly-squat. They are the ones who throw around terms like "skydaddy", and insist that it is incumbent upon those of faith to "PROVE" there is a God,....when the atheists cannot prove otherwise.
No one is forcing their religious views on anyone here, and none professing a religious background has stooped to the name-calling and vitriol displayed by agnostics and atheists. For those who apparently believe they are "intellectually superior",...it seems you don't have a clue.
No logical reason exists to believe in Allah or divinities that look like monkeys.
Anti-intellectualism in America is evidenced that few Americans use their minds for other than job related functions.
Very few seek anything that is thought provoking; surf America's TV channels and you'll see the lowest common denominator dominates.
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.
This thread is more ppropriate for the Religion forum
