Burden of Proof: Really?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-03-2013, 09:55 PM (This post was last modified: 10-03-2013 10:09 PM by kim.)
RE: Burden of Proof: Really?
(09-03-2013 07:41 AM)Averroes Wrote:  Consider again the case of Pi: you can say you believe there are no such two integers whose fraction equals Pi, but you can also take a stronger position - you can say you know that, and you can do the proof. And only then you will convince anybody.

Let's forget God and focus on the Burden of Proof argument, which can be about anything. Is it true, that the burden is always on the one claiming existence? That is the issue. I say No.

When you wrote "I can't say that I know something when I don't.", I assumed you just haven't come across those proofs of nonexistence I mentioned, hence I enclosed the links (didn't mean to be smug, although it sounds like that a bit now that I read it again). Now a second interpretation occurs to me - that you think that even the existence of a mathematical proof of a claim doesn't entitle one to claim knowledge of that claim. If that is the case, our discussion probably ends here, because I can't see how one could possibly build anything meaningful on this base.

No problem and not really the case - at least not for me - I'm all for mathematical proofs. However from previous experience, someone demanding existence of an imagined thing will often not accept scientific or even mathematical proof of nonexistence. Also from previous experience, they will most likely take your scientific or mathematical proof, show how you incorrectly interpreted it, and show how it actually proves existence!! That's really annoying. Dodgy

Also, when one is arguing over something which is nonexistent it might behoove one to temporarily acknowledge it's existence or at least define it, in order to prove it's nonexistence. Now, for the sake of argument, I can do that... and you can do that.... but very often for someone demanding existence... nope, not going to work. This is where the claimant stops everything and says, "Ah ha! So, you admit existence!! Thanks, I win this argument!!!" and runs away before nonexistence has been shown the light of day.

Been there, done that, futility is a drag. Dodgy

It is an extreme rarity for fact to influence faith to drop it's pretense.
***

The first image was by famed Russian American artist Mark Rothko and the second was by Chilean artist Matta Echaurren.

Matta is probably not very widely known in the US but quite well known among artists, he was an astoundingly prolific painter. I'm glad you found his work enjoyable; I do, too. Shy

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
Post Reply

Messages In This Thread
Burden of Proof: Really? - Averroes - 20-02-2013, 08:05 AM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Chas - 20-02-2013, 08:18 AM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Averroes - 20-02-2013, 09:17 AM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Chas - 20-02-2013, 09:20 AM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - mechtheist - 20-02-2013, 11:22 AM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Averroes - 24-02-2013, 04:58 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Chas - 24-02-2013, 05:11 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Averroes - 24-02-2013, 06:13 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Averroes - 07-03-2013, 04:02 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - sandman - 07-03-2013, 04:55 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Averroes - 07-03-2013, 07:10 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Adenosis - 06-03-2013, 03:19 AM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Adenosis - 06-03-2013, 03:21 AM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Averroes - 07-03-2013, 07:00 AM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Adenosis - 07-03-2013, 08:55 AM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Averroes - 07-03-2013, 05:27 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Adenosis - 07-03-2013, 06:13 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Averroes - 09-03-2013, 07:00 AM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Adenosis - 10-03-2013, 09:22 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Full Circle - 20-02-2013, 12:24 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Starcrash - 10-03-2013, 06:09 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Full Circle - 20-02-2013, 12:17 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - kim - 20-02-2013, 12:54 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - kim - 20-02-2013, 01:48 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - kim - 20-02-2013, 02:18 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - amyb - 21-02-2013, 11:26 AM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - mechtheist - 21-02-2013, 08:39 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - TrulyX - 22-02-2013, 12:58 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - kim - 24-02-2013, 07:45 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Averroes - 28-02-2013, 07:33 AM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - DerekS - 06-03-2013, 02:04 AM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - kim - 07-03-2013, 05:58 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Averroes - 07-03-2013, 07:20 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - fat cat - 08-03-2013, 01:33 AM
Burden of Proof: Really? - I and I - 08-03-2013, 11:58 AM
Burden of Proof: Really? - I and I - 08-03-2013, 12:38 PM
Burden of Proof: Really? - I and I - 08-03-2013, 03:50 PM
Burden of Proof: Really? - I and I - 08-03-2013, 05:53 PM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - kim - 09-03-2013, 12:57 AM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - Averroes - 09-03-2013, 07:41 AM
RE: Burden of Proof: Really? - kim - 10-03-2013 09:55 PM
Forum Jump: