You're viewing part of a thread.
I wasn't arguing for the existence of god.
Let me break this down:
- "There is a god." --> Burden of proof
- "There is no god." --> Burden of proof
- "Hey, man. I don't know." ---> No burden of proof
The second one is wrong, there is no god is not a claim that requires evidence in the same way there are no fairies in my fridge doesn't require evidence
Negative claims require evidence.
Otherwise a safety engineer can go to a regulator and say "There are no structural issues with this building." He is claiming there are no issues, he needs to back that up with evidence.
Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me. 😜
That's making a positive claim about a negative outcome. "There is enough evidence to be confident there aren't structural problems" is what they're really saying.
This doesn't work for god because there's nothing to check, there's never been any evidence for god, but there's been plenty of evidence for structural issues existing.
“There is enough evidence to be confident there aren’t structural problems” is what they’re really saying.
Bro, the graphite is not there. Everything is completely normal.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Bro, the graphite is not there. Everything is completely normal.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
In that instance, the claim is "There is evidence of X problem"
They then provided the evidence of that problem and were ignored, the burden of proof was on the person making the claim that there was a problem, and there was a problem, they provided proof, and were ignored.
This has nothing in common with the previous scenario.