• Isoprenoid@programming.devEnglish
    0·
    7 months ago

    I wasn’t arguing for the existence of god.

    Let me break this down:

    • “There is a god.” --> Burden of proof
    • “There is no god.” --> Burden of proof
    • “Hey, man. I don’t know.” —> No burden of proof
    • Communist@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      7 months ago

      The second one is wrong, there is no god is not a claim that requires evidence in the same way there are no fairies in my fridge doesn’t require evidence

      • Isoprenoid@programming.devEnglish
        0·
        7 months ago

        Negative claims require evidence.

        Otherwise a safety engineer can go to a regulator and say “There are no structural issues with this building.” He is claiming there are no issues, he needs to back that up with evidence.

        Your Jedi mind tricks won’t work on me. 😜

        • Communist@lemmy.mlEnglish
          0·
          7 months ago

          That’s making a positive claim about a negative outcome. “There is enough evidence to be confident there aren’t structural problems” is what they’re really saying.

          This doesn’t work for god because there’s nothing to check, there’s never been any evidence for god, but there’s been plenty of evidence for structural issues existing.