Religion is on the decline in every modern country as education replaces it.
We are fundamentally a project in education.
1 Like
Exactly, so just stipping that “they have to prove it,” is not in our interest. We have to prove that they are wrong. The “claim it/prove it” shit works good for on the mats/in the ring, but in the world of knowledge and ideas, it’s a bit weak.
Think of it like this: We are claiming “there is no God/higher order/grander plan.” We need to show that.
That’s not how it works though, on an epistemological level.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, because disproving a ridiculous claim requires a complete knowledge of every single data point about the entire universe, rather than the person simply showing evidence supporting what they say is true.
2 Likes
That is how it works, though. We’re on opposite sides of a metaphysical debate, I claim something, you claim something. Who owns the burden of proof?
That absolutely is not how it works. The person making the positive assertion has the responsibility to provide evidence in support of it, because the other party is otherwise required to scour the entire universe for absence of said proof rather than simply demanding it from the person making the assertion.
This goes back to the teapot in space dude.
1 Like
1 Like
I will give you a million dollars if you can disprove God.
Prove you have a million dollars first.
2 Likes
See? Also 12 characters. Fuck.
Dude, you’re just not getting this. It is all but impossible to prove a negative, whereas it is a simple matter of providing evidence proving a positive.
This has been worked out for centuries, as we came out of the dark ages of superstitious thought and is a staple of modern epistemology.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
1 Like
We have moved from believers “prove there is not a God,” to our claim, “prove there is a God.”
Both sides are making a claim.
No, one is a positive claim and one is a demand for evidence in support of it.
You cannot “prove” a negative, without access to every single bit of data about the entire universe.
1 Like
Now you’re coming around.
Also, why are we the only 2 fuckers arguing about this?
But you’re still asserting that we have a burden to do just that: prove a negative. Prove that “god doesn’t exist”, prove that I can’t levitate. Prove that I can’t shoot bolts of lightning out of my asshole.
It is on the person making the claim to prove those things.
1 Like
“Our” claim is there is no God.
So, prove it.
We’re not just countering claims of bullshit, we’re proffering them.
That is not a positive claim, that is a negative claim. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.
Are you sure you’re reading what I type?
1 Like
It’s all Boolean, to me.
God exists? Prove it.
God doesn’t exist? Prove it.
In these matters, we can never hope to “win.”
Again, you can’t prove a negative. You can’t prove there aren’t lizard people in government, the crazy dipshit ranting on the corner needs to prove there are.
1 Like