Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
If we are talking about a formal debate, and someone has said ghosts exist, and has provided some evidence, then once you claim "Ghosts do not exist" you must either provide contradicting evidence or debunk the positive sides evidence.
Saying "I don't believe that" is also disagreeing with with the claimant. You are making an assertion that ghosts do not exist.Not necessarily. Saying "I don't believe that" is not the same as saying "you are wrong". It's saying that the claimant hasn't provided sufficient evidence to change the person's mind.
Then state it as abelief. I don't believe ghosts exist is much different that saying ghosts don't exist.No, saying I don't know keeps me from making a fool of myself when there is insufficient data to come to a logical conclusion.
Sure there is. I have never seen evidence for ghosts, and the source claiming that they exist is unable to provide evidence of existence, so this is evidence that they do not exist.
I am not burdened to prove that ghosts do not exist.
Please tell me that I need to prove that ghosts do not exist if I disagree with someone who claims that ghosts exist, so we can all see how stupid you sound.
If someone shows you a picture of a ghost, that is their evidence. You cannot then claim ghosts don't exist until you demonstrate that the picture is not genuine. So please tell me you still don't understand the difference between a truth claim and a statement of belief.
If you are not looking at a window you have no evidence of it. The only honest claim you can make is "I do not know." Anything else is semantic play.
There were predictions made regarding magnitude of error sources and results were plotted against the actual sources of error. How does this not qualify as a control?
Nice double speak there Tom. You should try to be a polotician.
If you cannot know for certain the state of the window you cannot make the truth claim that the window is not open. That is a claim that requires support of some sort.
If you do not know, what is the hang up about admitting that you do not have enough evidence to make a claim.
You refute the evidence by claiming that the satellite did not take into account all the variables it needed to, it is YOUR claim. You need to back up your claim that the evidence is not adequate. You cannot simply say "Nope, that doesn't prove anything" and walk away. You need to back it up.
Also, where is your evidence backing up your positive claim that only positive claims need to be backed up? I have shown you that ALL claims need to be backed up.
tom: would you briefly explain what, in your opinion, is the difference between a 'negative' and 'positive' claim? what does that distinction mean to you?
Yes, and that that evidence they produce can be looked at by you. If you have a problem with the evidence, and you claim the it is not real, the burden is on YOU to show how it is not real. You cannot just go and say "That photo is not really showing a ghost" and walk away. You need to back your claim up.Since ghosts and Gods are beings likely to leave no evidence, whereas schematics and technical documents are likely to leave evidence, you cannot use absence of evidence to say they are none existent. This is because the most compelling evidence for them is such a personal experience. I have known people who were extreme atheists seemingly turn into Christians overnight. To them, they have proof of God existing. This proof is from an internal personal experience that you cannot see. Same goes for ghosts. Personal experiences.
Where as schematics are documents, which are not likely to be found on this forum. Two completely different types of entities.
What are you mumbling about? People claim to have photographic evidence of ghosts. People claim to have recorded audio of ghosts. People claim that ghosts destroy things spontaneously. People claim that things levitate without explanation. People claim to have found plasma residue in the locations where they appear.
But you don't doubt, you deny (which is a negative claim). There is a difference.
You are assuming that the satellite in question contains magnetic materials. You have not demonstrated that it does.
That was not a claim of the satellite being shielded. It was a suggested that the satellite might be shielded if the designers felt that the earth's magnetic filed would be a concern.
Again Tom, it has been quoted to you that making a negative claim shifts the burden of proof back to you. You have a burden to fulfill and saying that you could not find the evidence on your opponents side is a weak attempt to move the BOP back again. Do you appreciate these rules of debate?
The burden of proof is on the claimant making the positive claim. It cannot be shifted back to the skeptic to disprove him. The person challenging the claimant is not under a burden of proof to "disprove him" because he made a "negative claim" in his challenge.
Your assertion that the skeptic bears the burden of proof is a joke. The claimant must PROVE HIS CLAIM.
So you do not agree with the validity of the sources cited that contradict your position?
What does this post have to do with ghosts? This post is asking about why you believe information about satellites is most likely to be found on this forum.I did survey the most likely area the information would be found. I looked here on this forum, at information provided by the primary source making the claim.
Oh and by the way, positive claim. Prove that data about satellites is most likely to be found on this forum.
With the ghosts example I just did demonstrate that the evidence is more likely to be found by consulting the person making the claim. I did not see anyone disagree with the demonstration.
Again, if someone is claiming that ghosts exist, but you do not, is the most likely place to find ghosts is to rent out some old houses to stay overnight in, in hopes that evidence for ghosts will appear, or is the most likely place to find evidence of a ghost from the person claiming that ghosts exist?
Also, I have already addressed your use of ghosts and Gods in the previous post. The one you seems to have missed, or overlooked completely. The post that I did have an issue with your constant attempt to shift focus elsewhere.Quotein the absence of evidence rendering the existence of some entity probable, we are justified in believing that it does not exist, provided that (1) it is not something that might leave no traces and (2) we have comprehensively surveyed the area where the evidence would be found if the entity existed...
The evidence where the data about a satallite is NOT most likely to be found on this forum. Also, quit using ghosts or God as an example, because if you notice, those do not fall under absence of evidence. See point (1) above it is not something that might leave no traces. Last I checked, ghosts and Gods might leave no traces.
Since ghosts and Gods are beings likely to leave no evidence, whereas schematics and technical documents are likely to leave evidence, you cannot use absence of evidence to say they are none existent. This is because the most compelling evidence for them is such a personal experience. I have known people who were extreme atheists seemingly turn into Christians overnight. To them, they have proof of God existing. This proof is from an internal personal experience that you cannot see. Same goes for ghosts. Personal experiences.
Where as schematics are documents, which are not likely to be found on this forum. Two completely different types of entities.