Also, the negative statements you list are not universally recognised as being of the same order as the statement "I sense the existence of an entity I characterise as God,"
Well, yes. I haven't got to it yet, but part of my world view is that the assertion "God exists" gets all kind of special priveledges that other assertions don't get. Part of that priveledge is that "you can't prove a negative" only seems to come up when the negative is "there is no God." It seems to me that if you can prove a negative (not yet demonstrated to my satisfaction), the remaining possibly still true statement is "You can't prove *some* negatives." It would then be necessary to demonstrate that the nonexistence of God is one of those unprovable negatives to use that argument to shut off discussion.
(plates, being man-made things, demonstrably possess no consciousness, perception or volition; the floor around your chair is susceptible to examination for instability; if you had a green unicorn in your lap you would probably not be able to reach the keyboard
1) I certainly believe that plates have no consciousness, but I can't think how to demonstrate that. How would you go about demonstrating it?
2) I certainly believe that floors only "swallow people up" when there is a serious structural instability in them, and that in all other cases they do not--but I don't see how to prove it. Certainly not with the sort of extraordinary proof people demand for the other statement.
3) It could be a small green unicorn. Then I could reach the keyboard. Or it could be invisible and immaterial, then I could see through it and reach through it. These are the kinds of things people postulate about God when other people make what seem to us "commonsense" objections, so why not the green unicorn too? (Though I should note here that the traditional color for the unicorn is pink. I make no explanation of why I have departed from tradition here, and will not contest charges of heresy as regards the unicorn should anyone choose to raise them.)
Clearly, if it makes any sense at all, the statement "it is impossible to prove a negative" cannot apply to this kind of proposition.
So what kind of proposition does it apply to? Universal propositions, perhaps, rather than particular ones, and those whose converse is not excluded from possibility on the ground of absurdity.
Well, that's the rub. I think there isn't common ground on what everybody finds absurd. I find the idea of Satan controlling biologists to believe in evolution absurd, but I know from previous experience that there are people out there who don't find it absurd at all.
I'm also not sure what makes a proposition universal as opposed to specific. I can see that "there isn't a large, heavy, material, green unicorn in *my* lap" is specific, for instance and "there are no real unicorns" is general, but I perceive a gradient between the two, passing through many degrees of specificity along the way. "There isn't a unicorn in my lap." "There isn't a unicorn in anyone's lap." "No one has ever seen a real unicorn." "Real unicorns don't exist." "Real unicorns don't exist and never have existed." I'm unclear on when something becomes so general a negative that it can't be proven anymore.
And to reason from "I do not need to prove that my plates are not trying to kill me" to "I do not need to prove that the sense you have of an entity which you characterise as God is an illusion" is, I think, faulty reasoning based on an incorrect assumption.
I think that to reason from "I do not need to prove that my plates are not trying to kill me" to "I do not need to prove that your plates are not trying to kill you" to "I don't have to prove that you have no right to smash your plates over my head in 'self-defense'," however, is a pretty logical progression. I don't actually mind people who believe they sense God. I mind that subset of believers who are prejudiced against me because I don't believe. I mind that subset of believers who want to enshrine their platist beliefs into laws against making and owning plates (or their religious beliefs into laws against birth control and abortion).
no subject
Well, yes. I haven't got to it yet, but part of my world view is that the assertion "God exists" gets all kind of special priveledges that other assertions don't get. Part of that priveledge is that "you can't prove a negative" only seems to come up when the negative is "there is no God." It seems to me that if you can prove a negative (not yet demonstrated to my satisfaction), the remaining possibly still true statement is "You can't prove *some* negatives." It would then be necessary to demonstrate that the nonexistence of God is one of those unprovable negatives to use that argument to shut off discussion.
(plates, being man-made things, demonstrably possess no consciousness, perception or volition; the floor around your chair is susceptible to examination for instability; if you had a green unicorn in your lap you would probably not be able to reach the keyboard
1) I certainly believe that plates have no consciousness, but I can't think how to demonstrate that. How would you go about demonstrating it?
2) I certainly believe that floors only "swallow people up" when there is a serious structural instability in them, and that in all other cases they do not--but I don't see how to prove it. Certainly not with the sort of extraordinary proof people demand for the other statement.
3) It could be a small green unicorn. Then I could reach the keyboard. Or it could be invisible and immaterial, then I could see through it and reach through it. These are the kinds of things people postulate about God when other people make what seem to us "commonsense" objections, so why not the green unicorn too? (Though I should note here that the traditional color for the unicorn is pink. I make no explanation of why I have departed from tradition here, and will not contest charges of heresy as regards the unicorn should anyone choose to raise them.)
Clearly, if it makes any sense at all, the statement "it is impossible to prove a negative" cannot apply to this kind of proposition.
So what kind of proposition does it apply to? Universal propositions, perhaps, rather than particular ones, and those whose converse is not excluded from possibility on the ground of absurdity.
Well, that's the rub. I think there isn't common ground on what everybody finds absurd. I find the idea of Satan controlling biologists to believe in evolution absurd, but I know from previous experience that there are people out there who don't find it absurd at all.
I'm also not sure what makes a proposition universal as opposed to specific. I can see that "there isn't a large, heavy, material, green unicorn in *my* lap" is specific, for instance and "there are no real unicorns" is general, but I perceive a gradient between the two, passing through many degrees of specificity along the way. "There isn't a unicorn in my lap." "There isn't a unicorn in anyone's lap." "No one has ever seen a real unicorn." "Real unicorns don't exist." "Real unicorns don't exist and never have existed." I'm unclear on when something becomes so general a negative that it can't be proven anymore.
And to reason from "I do not need to prove that my plates are not trying to kill me" to "I do not need to prove that the sense you have of an entity which you characterise as God is an illusion" is, I think, faulty reasoning based on an incorrect assumption.
I think that to reason from "I do not need to prove that my plates are not trying to kill me" to "I do not need to prove that your plates are not trying to kill you" to "I don't have to prove that you have no right to smash your plates over my head in 'self-defense'," however, is a pretty logical progression. I don't actually mind people who believe they sense God. I mind that subset of believers who are prejudiced against me because I don't believe. I mind that subset of believers who want to enshrine their platist beliefs into laws against making and owning plates (or their religious beliefs into laws against birth control and abortion).
Which is, I think, pretty much what you mind too.