ARCHIVE: Burden of Proof

[Johnny]

The burden of proof is always on the one making the positive claim, because negative claims cannot be proven. No matter what I do I can never prove that Knight does not have an anti-gravity device. Knight, however, can prove that he does have one. Anyone who is claiming allsmiles has the burden of proof is wrong. Allsmiles cannot have the burden of proof because a negative cannot be proven.

Thus, the burden of proof is on evolutionists, the burden of proof is on IDers (regarding their idea, not their negative claims regarding evolution), and the burden of proof is on theists. It's always simple to find the burden of proof. Who is making the positive claim? They have the burden.

 

[Sozo]

If he dosen't want to show it to Allsmilies then he shouldn't go running his mouth to Allsmilies about it.

Spence said Knight told everybody. It was Allsmiles who asked for proof. Knight is not obligated to pay attention to everyone who asks for proof.

 

[fool]

---I don't care, if a fool doesn't like me!!!!!.

---I have several anti-gravity devices stuck to my ice box.
*
----------------Paul---
*

I like you, you're very entertaining.

 

[Spenser 2]

---I don't care, if a fool doesn't like me!!!!!.

---I have several anti-gravity devices stuck to my ice box.
*
----------------Paul---
*

I was just noting how you weren't really adding to the conversation but hey it's a free website right? (well, not really hence the 2)

 

[Spenser 2]

Spence said Knight told everybody. It was Allsmiles who asked for proof. Knight is not obligated to pay attention to everyone who asks for proof.

OK so semantically here you are correct but you are avoiding the point of the OP, lets just say he said it directly to All Smiles...

 

[Sozo]

OK so semantically here you are correct but you are avoiding the point of the OP, lets just say he said it directly to All Smiles...

Do you have proof that Knight actually engaged Allsmiles in a conversation about his device?

 

[SUTG]

The burden of proof is always on the one making the positive claim, because negative claims cannot be proven. No matter what I do I can never prove that Knight does not have an anti-gravity device. Knight, however, can prove that he does have one. Anyone who is claiming allsmiles has the burden of proof is wrong. Allsmiles cannot have the burden of proof because a negative cannot be proven.

Thus, the burden of proof is on evolutionists, the burden of proof is on IDers (regarding their idea, not their negative claims regarding evolution), and the burden of proof is on theists. It's always simple to find the burden of proof. Who is making the positive claim? They have the burden.

Some negatives can be proven. For example, I can prove that there does not exist in planar euclidean space a triangle whose angles total to 59 degrees. And so on...

But in this case, they are both making positive claims about the state of affairs in the world.

Knight is stating that it is the case that he has the device.
Allsmiles is stating that it is NOT the case that Kinght has the device.

Both Allsmiles and Knight have taken on a burden of proof. It isn't really a burden of proof because, as Hal says, proof only exists in mathematics and alcohol. Just the burden of a compelling argument.

But allsmiles should have an easy job in this case convincing most of us that Knight has gone :dizzy:

Think of it this way. What if Knight and allsmiles made the following claims:

KNIGHT: It is the case that Spenser 2 is wearing a blue shirt right now.
ALLSMILES: It is NOT the case that Spenser 2 is wearing a blue shirt right now.

They have both taken on a position that entails the burden of proof. Now, most of us are "weak atheists" in this regard. We have no belief in either statement!

 

[fool]

Do you have proof that Knight actually engaged Allsmiles in a conversation about his device?

The question is a hypothetical, so the conversation is presuposed as having happened.
The thread revolves around "if" Knight said this and AS said that, so if you wanna discuss whether or not the parties actually said that perhaps you should start another thread, which would be a rather short one I think since you're the only one that seems to think they actually said these things, being as most people understand that this is a hypothetical scenario made up to start a thread exploring the ramifications that would come from the conversation taking place if it did.
But don't dispare SOZO! Letargue actually did come in here and say he's got an antigravity device stuck to his fridge so I would suggest you and him go find a nice thread to discuss that in and then you won't get bogged down in these confusing hypothetical threads that seem to cause you so much worry.

 

[Apologist]

I am just curious as to why anyone would want to build said device.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Spence.... so basically what you are saying is....

Let's say Knight tells allsmiles that matter and energy can create themselves from nothing.

And allsmiles rightly responds... "no... I don't think that is possible".

The burden of proof should be on Knight to prove that matter and energy can create themselves from nothing.

Is that the kind of thing you are getting at?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I am just curious as to why anyone would want to build said device.

How do you think the pope keeps that silly hat afloat?

 

[fool]

I am just curious as to why anyone would want to build said device.

It's like wheels only better!
You could have cars but no roads cause they don't touch the ground.

 

[Apologist]

How do you think the pope keeps that silly hat afloat?

Same way Abe Lincoln did, presumably.

 

[Sozo]

The question is a hypothetical, so the conversation is presuposed as having happened.
The thread revolves around "if" Knight said this and AS said that, so if you wanna discuss whether or not the parties actually said that perhaps you should start another thread, which would be a rather short one I think since you're the only one that seems to think they actually said these things, being as most people understand that this is a hypothetical scenario made up to start a thread exploring the ramifications that would come from the conversation taking place if it did.
But don't dispare SOZO! Letargue actually did come in here and say he's got an antigravity device stuck to his fridge so I would suggest you and him go find a nice thread to discuss that in and then you won't get bogged down in these confusing hypothetical threads that seem to cause you so much worry.

Hypotheticals can be rather inept, can't they?

 

[fool]

Hypotheticals can be rather inept, can't they?

If you feel that way then like I said you can go have a non-hypothetical discussion with Letsargue about the plunger stuck to his fridge

 

[fool]

How do you think the pope keeps that silly hat afloat?

There's a miget inside?

 

[kmoney]

---I don't care, if a fool doesn't like me!!!!!.

---I have several anti-gravity devices stuck to my ice box.
*
----------------Paul---
*

:rotfl:

:rotfl:

 

[allsmiles]

seems to me that if the burden of proof is on both Knight and Allsmiles that Knight could end the dispute rather easily by producing the AG device. if it works then he really doesn't have anything to lose and Allsmiles has everything to gain. not producing the device is kind of suspect.

Knight, this 3rd person stuff is contagious.

 

[Sozo]

If you feel that way then like I said you can go have a non-hypothetical discussion with Letsargue about the plunger stuck to his fridge

If Spence wants to discuss the burden of proof concerning God, then just say so, but this silly game about Knight's device is "fool"ish.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

There's a miget inside?

Man... you don't know how right you are.