Originally posted by Doglord
Originally posted by downisreallyup
If you say "aliens exist" and I say "no they don't", it then becomes necessary for each of us to present objective evidence either for or
against, if indeed any kind of progress is to be achieved.
Incorrect, it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist. If someone claims that a thing does exist, he must then offer proof supporting that
contention. Those arguing that something doesn't exist, or is unlikely to exist, are only responsible for evaluating and responding to the evidence
provided by those arguing that a thing does exist.
It seems to me that much of your "issue" has to do with a basic misunderstanding, or possibly even ignorance, of the structure of logic and
Did I say anything about PROVING? Nope! Another attempt at deflection by using misquoting. I simply said that if conversation is to progress, both
sides should bring forth reasonable arguments based on evidence. I know that something can't be "proven" to exist, but things can be looked at
from a postulation perspective based on logic and reason.
That's funny that you would accuse me of not being logical
I've been a highly successful software engineer for over 30 years and anyone who knows me knows that I am nothing but logical. Just the fact that
you would conclude what you did about me shows your lacking in the logic department... to wit, I will establish:
1) I never claimed in my example that both sides could prove anything.
2) I stated quite correctly that both parties should provide evidence for their respective positions, preferably using rules of evidence.
3) I stated that this was so the conversation could PROGRESS in some sort of positive manner.
I soundly reject the idea that evidence is only up to the person who wishes to prove something DOES exist. If that were a sound position, that is
what would be done in courtrooms. The fact is, when it comes to God, aliens, free-energy, big foot, etc., nobody has PROOF one way or the other if
something exists. Even if you see something with your own eyes, you can't be 100% sure, and certainly nobody else can be sure.
To show that there are two ways to understand proof of something, let me quote a man who was fairly intelligent:
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. Albert Einstein
So, in like manner, no amount of evidence can every prove that these things don't exist, and only a single example can prove they do exist. If that
is the case, then the skeptics position should always be "I don't know if these things exist or are true. I will await for some evidence to be
presented." But that is not what we hear here, nooooooooooooooo! We hear "these DO NOT EXIST! Anyone who thinks they exist are stupid FOOLS! It
is an absolute fact that these things CANNOT exist!"
THAT is my complaint, right there. The people who claim that something does not exist do so with no evidence, and in fact, they can never provide any
evidence, and they state their position with absoluteness, and even insult the people who don't agree with them.
On the other hand, the people who think these things exist try their hardest to provide evidence, stating facts, providing references, but those who
"don't believe" just ignore their evidence, castigate it, or otherwise scorn it. The very people who can never prove their position have the
audacity to state their position as fact, while the people who can prove their position have their evidence rejected for any and every possible
Sheer stupidity and ridiculousness!