|
Musicmystery -> RE: So, if you don't believe in God.... (5/19/2010 8:52:14 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
mikey's claim is negative--No god helped these people die.
Oh. I thought that he said "too many people have died without any help from "god"."
I explained this above. You are parsing semantics, not logic.
quote:
In any case it is impossible to prove the existence of the Divine, considering that it is 'outside' our universe. To prove anything, causality is required.
I agree. That's my problem when logic was invoked--by you.
quote:
I do not quite know what constitutes proof anyway, nor what value it has. Apparently lots of people consider it proven that three airplanes flew into three buildings in 2001. Whereas I know what does not constitute proof and that no such thing - negative - occurred; two of those three planes did not even exist (another negative). Fortunately, according to you, I do not have to prove those negatives.
In my original post, my point was that many people don't understand basic logic, and this statement shows that you are among those who misunderstand.
In this case, the counterargument isn't to prove no planes flew into the buildings the way you put it. That's why people don't say, as you've characterized it, "Prove they didn't," as that would, indeed, be illogical.
However, there's an existing argument, with evidence, that planes did in fact fly into these buildings. You would then have to show conclusively (1) what is wrong (logically) with the evidence/argument in the affirmative claim (and in so doing, you are making affirmative counterclaims about these errors, vs. "proving a negative") and, ideally, (2) propose and support a better explanation (claim, with evidence), i.e., an affirmative claim that accounts for the observable results more accurately (I'm assuming you at least acknowledge that the buildings were destroyed).
The problem with conspiracy theorists' arguments is typically that they ignore existing arguments/evidence in favor of "what if" alternative possibilities, ignoring both Ockham's razor and the already supported affirmative claims.
|
|
|
|
