Satan

[deepsand]

Depends on whether or not I know what, if anything, is in it.

__________________

[JakeMoore]

What if you think it is unknowable?

[deepsand]

I either do or not not know the contents, if any.

If I do not so know, then I cannot say a priori what will serve to evidence the presence of any contents.

__________________

[JakeMoore]

You do not know what the box contains. Do you accept it when I say the box is empty?

[deepsand]

What supporting evidence have you?

__________________

[JakeMoore]

None.

[deepsand]

In which case there is no conclusion to be had other than "unknown."

__________________

[JakeMoore]

So you accept the proposition that both someone who says nothing exists and someone who says something exists have equal burden of proof?

[deepsand]

No.

I say that one who makes an unsubstantiated claim cannot require that any other rebut it.

And, that one cannot directly prove a negative, so that to demand such is fallacious.

__________________

[JakeMoore]

Saying there is nothing in a box is a positive assertion. Your response of asking me what proof I had of nothingness would be appropriate since you have said you believe whomever makes a positive assertion has the burden of proving it. That knife cuts both ways.

It is a fallacy that you cannot directly prove a negative. For instance, one can prove there are no even prime numbers greater than 2. What you mean is that no one can prove this negative...I would suggest that's because it is not true.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by JakeMoore

Saying there is nothing in a box is a positive assertion. Your response of asking me what proof I had of nothingness would be appropriate since you have said you believe whomever makes a positive assertion has the burden of proving it. That knife cuts both ways.

If by that you mean that that another has a burden to rebut, that is an issue that is long and well established as being fallacious, and is no longer open to debate.

Originally Posted by JakeMoore

It is a fallacy that you cannot directly prove a negative. For instance, one can prove there are no even prime numbers greater than 2. What you mean is that no one can prove this negative...I would suggest that's because it is not true.

Firstly, we are dealing with logic, not arithmetic.

Secondly, the cited instance deals with a definition, not a proof; i.e., that 2 is the only even prime is an a priori fact that derives from the definition of an even number, and thus requires no proof.

__________________

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by JakeMoore

Saying there is nothing in a box is a positive assertion. Your response of asking me what proof I had of nothingness would be appropriate since you have said you believe whomever makes a positive assertion has the burden of proving it. That knife cuts both ways.

It is a fallacy that you cannot directly prove a negative. For instance, one can prove there are no even prime numbers greater than 2. What you mean is that no one can prove this negative...I would suggest that's because it is not true.

Correct on both counts. I watched a professional philosopher (agnostic) bash the Internet trolls who kept saying that you cannot prove a negative. I can very easily prove a posterior negatives (there is no elephant in this room) and a priori negatives (there is nowhere in on earth an 20 cubic foot mass fully contained in a 2 cubic foot box).

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I can very easily prove a posterior negatives (there is no elephant in this room) ...

Not the type of "negative" referred to; but, you already know that.

One cannot falsify a claim of the existence of the non-existent.

Elephants are not non-existent.

Claim: John Scott possesses an elephant that is wholly undetectable to anyone other than himself.

Falsify the claim.

Originally Posted by John Scott

... and a priori negatives (there is nowhere in on earth an 20 cubic foot mass fully contained in a 2 cubic foot box).

Not a proof at all; merely a hypothetical that is denied by the definition of a cubic foot.

__________________

[Cricket]

Therefore I can say that Satan exist for me, and you simply cannot dispute that fact.

[JakeMoore]

Since both "god does not exist" and "God does exist" are positive assertions and therefore require proof how do you decide which position is the default position?

[JakeMoore]

Originally Posted by Cricket

Therefore I can say that Satan exist for me, and you simply cannot dispute that fact.

Anyone who drinks coffee knows Satan exists for them

[Muddy]

Rut roh...I'm damned.

[Cricket]

Originally Posted by Muddy

Rut roh...I'm damned.

Anyone who has met my evil twin sister knows Satan exists and was already damned Muddy.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Not the type of "negative" referred to; but, you already know that.

You did not qualify your statement. That is why you were in error. But of course, you now now that. From now on, you won't say silly things like "one cannot directly prove a negative, so that to demand such is fallacious."

Originally Posted by deepsand

one cannot directly prove a negative, so that to demand such is fallacious.

You now now that is silly, stupid thing to say. Nobody with any intelligence would say that. You know that now. Don't you?

Originally Posted by deepsand

One cannot falsify a claim of the existence of the non-existent.

LOL! You don't know. Yes, I can falsify a claim of the existence of an actual non-existent entity. If you think that is a fallacy, name the fallacy and cite the source.

Elephants are not non-existent.

Mountains flying around Seattle and eating up people are also non-existent, and I can prove that they do not exist.

Claim: John Scott possesses an elephant that is wholly undetectable to anyone other than himself.

LOL. Your appeal isn't to non-existence, it is to undetectability. And even that is able to be overcome; if John Scott could detect it, then John Scott's interaction with the elephant would leave neurological traces, same as all sensory data. Surely you don't think we live in the dark ages and sensory nuerons are invisible or even immaterial?

Originally Posted by deepsand

Not a proof at all; merely a hypothetical that is denied by the definition of a cubic foot.

Proofs by definition are a priori proofs. Or, wait, do you think mathematical proof of the infinity of prime numbers was actually demonstrated by lining up an infinity of prime numbers? That would be a posteriori.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by JakeMoore

Since both "god does not exist" and "God does exist" are positive assertions and therefore require proof how do you decide which position is the default position?

Default position is "I do not know."