No one on Yahoo Answers has seen the shirt I am wearing today, therefore I must not be wearing a shirt.
(Just in case someone says I am employing a Straw Man argument, look here:
'The burden of proof is almost always on the person trying to prove that something DOES exist.
'For example, if I say that I have a Babe Ruth rookie card, the obvious response is "Show it to me." If I don't show you the card, it's assumed that I was lying.'
Personally, if a person claims to have a Babe Ruth rookie card, and I don't see the card, I CAN'T validly conclude he was lying. He may have been lying, but the evidence is NOT sufficient to show that. Why?)
2006-07-28 08:17:19 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
When we say something doesn't exist, it only means we haven't experienced it, and we do not know of anyone experiencing it.
In order to truly KNOW it doesn't exist, I feel proof is required. The phrase above says "almost always", not always. :)
2006-07-28 09:06:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look at it another way:
Lack of proof is not sufficient evidence that somethign exists.
It is not automatically assumed the person making the claim is lying. Doubt will be created if the claim seems impossible, involves supernatural forces, is mystical in nature, etc. There is also additional doubht when there are several people making claims about the existance of their God or god(s) and the claims contradict.
You might also want to look up the Principle of Parsimony. Put simply if there are two explanations being given for something and neither one is the obvious answer, the logical choice is pick the straingforward answer. Believing in a Christian God requires a long involved explanation, literal passages in the Bible which are simply impossible, and a Faith that contradicts modern science.
2006-07-28 15:25:54 · answer #2 · answered by Funchy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
From induction, it is likely that you do NOT have a Babe Ruth rookie card, because those cards are known to be rare. Such an extravagant claim would require proof.
However, broad experience and observation in no way suggests that failing to see you wearing a shirt would imply the shirt doesn't exist. Experience is insufficient to determine whether you have decided to display your pecs or not.
2006-07-28 15:47:10 · answer #3 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The chances that you're wearing a shirt is pretty good.
That's not a fair comparison to what you're alluding to.
If perhaps you said...
"No one has seen the anti-gravity boots that I'm wearing today, then therefore I must not be wearing them..."
That might be a better comparison. And in which case, the burden of proof is on you, as there is no reason to believe something so ridiculous (at our current level of technology)
2006-07-28 15:24:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your really bored, aren't you. The fact is that truth is almost always stranger then fiction, therefor, without empirical evidence "truth" can not be reasonably established until proper evidence is provided. And if that doesn't work, just punch them in the face
2006-07-28 15:27:11 · answer #5 · answered by djcate18 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can't prove God exists you either believe He does or not. Science cannot exclude the possibility that a greater power is in control.
2006-07-28 15:26:01 · answer #6 · answered by UT Longhorn 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
give me an example of when there would be enough evidence to conclude he is lying.
2006-07-28 15:23:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the evidence is not sufficient enough to ASSUME he was lying. it is sufficient to think he MAY be lying.
2006-07-28 15:23:20 · answer #8 · answered by yosemitedude@sbcglobal.net 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The tooth fairy, Easter bunny, Santa, god, and many more are in the room with me now. You can not prove me wrong.
2006-07-28 15:23:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i have seen the shirt that you are not wearing. am i lying?
2006-07-28 15:23:44 · answer #10 · answered by derf 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋