Quote:
Originally Posted by f3lix
“You cannot prove the nonexistence of God" is just misplacing the burden of proof. Simple end to that argument.
|
Here's somebody who thinks it is possible to "prove a negative."
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philos...eanegative.pdf After skimming his essay, I'm pretty sure he didn't get the high score in Intro Logic. Not only that, who in fuck's name are these professional Logicians? Geoffrey Hunter never even considered himself this. The main thing, he fucking forgets that proving the nonexistence isn't the same as proving that a set of negative intergers is a subset of numbers. Those in the philo world would call this "equivocation." Sometimes these academics get too fucking full of themselves and just get stupid on theory. One of my friends teaches in the Philosophy Dept at U. Texas Arlington, he pulls this shit all of the time trying to create the perfect, yet simple, constructive dilemma.
Even if logicians disagreed big fucking deal. It's an extentialism argument not, an logical/mathematical on. Lindenbaum and Godel did their thing and Kierkegaard and Heidegger did another. It's akin to a general practice attorney commentating and procedural rules in the PTO.
Edit: Agree with f3lix on burden shifting.