Harumi

OKay, one of my friends sent me this, and explained why the burden of proof was on me. Here's the note:

---------------
Dephanie you have a good logical basis for your reasoning but there is one thing, the burden of proof can be on anyone for logical reasons. Here's why. If i said there was a giant invisible purple monkey in my backyard that only i can see, you would think I was insane and would ask me to prove that its there. But I could ask you to prove it isn't. Its invisible so therefore you can't see it. Only I can see it or 'communicate' (this word is in quotes because i'm using communicating in a very broad sense) so as far as I am concerned it exists and I would need you to prove to me it isn't. If both parties are truly convinced of their own side then they could put the burden of proof on each other from their respective POV's. It all just depends the basis.
-------------

Does anyone see something wrong with this? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Godless Dave

Yeah, the person who thinks they have an invisible purple monkey in their back yard is nuts and the other person isn't. I love it when they hang themselves on their own rope.

[edited cause it's a monkey]

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Godless Dave ]</p>

Harumi

It's a monkey, a monkey.

Shadowy Man

You just tell them that you know they are anally molesting the giant invisible purple monkey in their backyard and they must prove to you that they're not.

Then they'll see where the onus probandi lies.

Harumi

I wish someone could just write out the exact reason why it's flawed. I'm too lazy to do it myself I guess. And I want to show this to my friend.

He also made a false accusation that stated that I talk of nothing but my atheism. Really, I'm proud of being an atheist, but there are better things I spend on in my private life.

His hypocrisy was what really got me, as well as the feeling of betrayal.

Shadowy Man

Look up "Argument from Ignorance".

Celsus

Harumi,

You can't prove a negative ("There are no..."), since you need to be omniscient to do so. Thus the onus is always on the one making the positive claim. Even intuitively, we can tell this is the case:

"There is a super-intelligent green dinosaur somewhere in the universe who doesn't obey the laws of physics."

If I challenged anyone to prove me wrong, I would get laughed at, and people would rightly tell me to prove it.

Joel

I ate Pascal's Wafer

Harumi, your friend is nuts.

Anyway, the reason the burden of proof is on your friend is because she is making the positive claim. The initial claim was the the invisibe monkey was living in her back yard, and it is up to her to substantiate the claim. You are not making a positive claim, thus you have no burden of proof. She cannot merely make an assertion and then require you to disprove it.

Now, the only way you would have the burden of proof is if you stated conclusively that the monkey doesn't exist. In this case you are also making a positive claim about the monkey (that no invisible monkeys exist in her backyard), and you would have to support that claim. Even in this instance she would still be required to substantiate her own argument. Of course you are not claiming that no invisble monkeys exist, so you do not have this burden of proof.

Tell your friend that she should sign up for a basic course in logic, or at least read an introductory book or two.

-Nick
-edited to add: also, tell her that she is making the invisible pink unicorn angry by her blasphemy. The IPU is the only entity which can be an invisble colored animal, and by stating the the IPM exists she is commiting a sin against the IPU. Tell her that the burden of proof is on her to disprove the IPU, and that the IPU will sodomized the IPM in front of children if she doesn't agree to this.

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: I ate Pascal's Wafer ]</p>

Bumble Bee Tuna

He's just trying to say he's justified because HE hears his invisible sky daddy talking to him. He's just a bit misguided. He's allowed to have whatever opinions he wants, and he can certainly base them off of his personal experience. But in a discussion, where he is trying to actually convince you that he's right, he needs to provide proof.

I like the idea of just thanking him for proving the point that Christians are delusional mental cases, though, which is what his example demonstrates.

-B

Amie

Dear Dephanie's friend,
as a fellow thiest I can assure you that the burden of proof is not on the athiests whatsoever. We are the ones making the claim of the existence of God so therefore the burden of proof is on us. dems da breaks...

PS Please joint Internet Infidels so we can delve into this further