In a criminal court, the accused is _ presumed _ innocent until proven guilty, at least in most courts in the United States, and many courts elsewhere. Whether the accused is actually guilty or innocent doesn’t depend on what can be proven in court. And in many courts (e.g., US Tax Court), the accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent. It doesn’t surprise me a whit that you don’t know that.
The fact that you don’t understand the difference between presumed innocense and _ actual _ innocense is quite telling.
As for me not understanding burden of proof, you’re simply wrong. I suspect that this hurts your feelings, but it’s a fact. You need to grow up and accept it. Anyone who makes a positive assertion assumes the burden of proof. If you assert that God doesn’t exist, you assume the burden of proof of that statement: you must prove that God doesn’t exist.
You may argue all you want that I’m wrong; all you’re doing is betraying your ignorance.
Agree or not; I honestly don’t care. But if you disagree, I suggest that you consult a competent lawyer and get his opinion. You’ll be surprised.
Lmao. First, you made up polls saying that atheists are most disliked, now you can’t give evidence to why god exists despite saying “lots of evidence”.
You know perfectly well that I didn’t make up the polls: bchad gave you a link.
I’m still awaiting your apology on that one, by the way.
I haven’t chosen not to present evidence, I merely asked you why I should. Here. To let members here be a jury.
The fact that you extrapolated that to an inability simply shows how poor your comprehension skills are. All the more reason not to bother presenting evidence: you probably haven’t the skill to interpret it.
Looking back S2000 said the burden of proof for atheists is to prove God doesn’t exist. You should know it’s impossible to prove a negative. So is atheism an inherently illogical position to take? Don’t know. The best you can do is assume God doesn’t exist and look for evidence to the contrary.
Palantir, I actually answer questions people have on the L1 forums, and as I gain understanding on L2 will try to as well (as I believe helping others studying helps in the learning process) as opposed to kuro who just posts nonsense crap in the real boards. I believe I can predit his next post actually. It will be on the CFA General discussion board and will go a little something like this: “Do you think they will let me bring my comfort dog to the exam? My mum says it would help me relax.”
Obviously here in WC everythings pretty silly and not much value is added aside from some comedy.
I was wondering when someone would bring up the “impossible to prove a negative” remark.
I didn’t think it would be you, TF. I’ll give you three guesses who I thought it would be. The first two don’t count.
The problem with that statement is that it’s patently untrue, but it’s a common argument given by people who have a burden of proof that something doesn’t exist; it gets them off the hook efficiently.
In fact, it’s often easy to “prove a negative”; mathematicians do it all the time. The classic proof that the square root of two is not a rational number (put another way, _ no two integers m, n exist _ such that (m/n)² = 2) is a beautiful example.
Anyway, the fact remains that anyone who makes an assertive claim bears the burden of proof of that claim. Believers claim that God exists; they have the burden to prove that. (True) atheists claim that God does not exist; they have the burden to prove that. Agnostics make no assertive claims, so they’re unburdened.
I know that you’re smart enough to understand that. (Honestly, not sarcastically.)
I tend to believe that god doesn’t exist. I don’t really care to find evidence to prove or disprove that statement. I guess that makes me agnostic.
However, even if it god did exist, given all of the bad things that have happened in the world, and given that if an almighty god DID exist it would have allowed all this to happen, I’m not going to waste a second of my time “praying” to it, thinking about it, or worrying about what it might or might not do to me in my afterlife.
a mathematical system whose universe you can completely describe is not the same as the actual universe that by definition cannot be completely described from within. You know this. The only way to prove your example is to assume m & n do exist and find a logical contradiction based on the rules of the system that are completely known.
in a system that cannot possibly be fully described, it’s impossible to prove a negative.