posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:37 AM
Originally posted by 1234567
Remember - The LACK of evidence does not prove seomthing does not exist, only that NO evidence has yet been found to support the idea.
What the LACK of evidence does is make the idea meaningless. If they do exist and we will never see them, or any effects of their presence, who
You need to remember that so far there is NO evidence to prove they DONT exists either, so in reality your argument is fundamantalyl
This depends on who makes the statement. If you come in claiming that they do exist, you take on the burden of initial claim -- the burden of proof.
It does not fall on those who oppose you to prove a negative to your premise, all they have to do is identify your faulty reasoning, attack your
premises, and provide counterexamples. Lets explore this below:
However there is a great deal of paintings, sculptures of no human beings dating back to pre Egyptians. Now, why would the acients be creating
non human art ? We will probably never know the answer.
This is your flawed premise. Why flawed? you are making a classic mistake in analysis. You are applying contemporary context to paintings and
sculptures that are so far separated from us that this transposing of context makes their meaning wholly different and unreliable.
Therefore, I as the counter to your premise do not have to prove something unprovable, as your premise implodes just based on its bad structure.
When people come out and say this is a FACT - Something exists or does not exists, they are basing their reasoning on their own assumptions. Have you
travelled across the milkyway galaxy ? Or the universe ? If NO, then please refrain from making statements like this, because we are such a young
species, we must open our minds to the fact that life exists throughout teh universe.
Your premise here is that those who report facts are biased therefore their clams are meaningless. So far I am with you as it is a simplistic version
of the principle of argumentation theory i described above. Where the statement is less successful is the second half where you employ a non-sequitur
to make our point. What is the logical connection between traveling the milky way and being able to argue and debate? My assumption here is of
innocence, I am sure your are not intending to deceive as much as you just have not made it clear who you are responding to.
Need proof ? What about GOD - Need proof to believe in Jesus ? There is none, but millions believe it!
Using Christianity to relieve ourself of the burden of proof is an interesting if risky tactic. Risky in that there is no logical or causal link
between this and the topic so it might be read as a desperate last gasp of one who has no better argument to make.
On the other hand, it might be read that the hidden premise here is that if we believe anything 'on faith' then we have the burden of accepting
everything 'on-faith'. Ergo, Christians have to accept reptilian theory with absolutely no proof proffered as a quid pro quo of sorts.
I admire that as a funny argument to make if it was intentional. I would imagine it to be rather ineffective on the whole as Christianity and other
belief systems have the weight of centuries behind them. Do you propose a church of reptilia?