Skeptic Project

"So long as their is some doubt somewhere, my argument wins because it isn't satisfied."

Special pleading rules.

You keep saying it can be done but keep ignoring the challenge. You can't do it or even come close to theorising on HOW you'd do it. You don't even seem to understand the scope of how bad the argument is.

"How would you prove god never created anything ever? You can't!"

Textbook shifting of the burden of proof.

Exactly! That's why someone demanding you prove a negative is a fallacy. I've been saying that the entire time.

Atheist, its an example. Srsly though? You're actually asking me if I believe the argument? Have you really not been paying attention? Nevermind, its obvious that for some reason the entire argument is flying over your head so you might as well just assume you don't understand any of it.

Just like my lie detector was an example.

That you claimed came close to satisfying my challenge, but it didn't in the slightest since apparently you don't really comprehend what is being asked.

Everyone who has debated religion (especially) or any other topic for long enough can understand what I'm saying because they have experienced someone arguing this way.

I gave you two examples of challenges that require you to prove a negative. All Ive heard is a few of you insisting that it could be done, but no explanation on HOW it could be done (other than you and your lie detector.)

So, if I challenge you to prove that a god has NEVER created anything EVER, can you do it or not? Even hypothetically, how could you do it? When you realise that you can't, think about WHY you can't.

Again, all you have proven is that no claimed psychic's have ever shown they have any special power when tested under controlled conditions.

Isn't that a negative that you just proved?

Essentially Ed's argument can be summed up as: "if James Randi doesn't say it, it isn't true."

Despite Randi's reluctance to say that "psychic powers don't exist" has much more to do with him wanting more people to take his challenge than it does the possibility that psychic powers exist.

Also, you're no James Randi. There is no "challenge." You're just being pedantic.

Regardless, Randi is an entertainer. Nothing more. He is not the be-all and end-all of logical thought.

How about this: given your standards of evidence, can you prove 9/11 WAS an inside job? What if Bush admits to it - is that proof? No, cuz you can always say, "but he could be lying about it for some unknown reason!"

What does the claim being in a positive or negative form have to do with it?

Because it shifts the argument from the probable and evidence to dealing with the extremely unlikely requiring a hypothetical complete knowledge of everything and ability to show that to someone else and as such can never be proven.

1. Prove ESP doesn't exist.

There's no way to do that.

2. Prove god never created anything ever

There's no way to do that.

3. Prove 911 was not an inside job in some way by some members of the government or men "behind the curtain".

There's no way to do that.

Someone tells you that unicorns exist. You tell them you need evidence and that if they did you would expect them to have some fossil evidence. They then tell you that fossilisation is a rare event and maybe we haven't found it yet and then say you can't prove unicorns DON'T exist. Well, of course you can't. Argument over, you can go no further.

EDIT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI

You still be trolin

No, I was right, its just I didn't want to feed a troll that won't even try and understand. It just makes things more complicated at this point.

Maybe saying "you can't prove a negative" is the wrong way to put it and what is the entire problem here.

When I say that you can't prove a negative I've explained as to why it redirects the argument to a completely fallacious line of reasoning. From what is well evidenced to what is vastly improbable. Science doesn't work that way and logical doesn't demand that you do so. That in all practical cases in arguments you can't prove a negative by the very nature that the person said it knew in advance you wouldn't be able to do it.

You kept trying to deny that my example about gods creation and 911 were provable and Snob claimed a lie detector would be enough to come close to it. Totally wrong.

I already said last time you said that if someone says prove you don't have 11 fingers you can just look at your hand you can prove it wrong. But in practical terms that never happens. If someone was to use that in an actual argument they might be challenging you over the internet where you looking at your hand and assuring them that you can see 8 fingers isn't enough, where a picture isn't enough since that can be doctored and video can be faked. Since you have to demonstrate that same knowledge you have to others. All you can do is show evidence you have 8 fingers.

If it was just this I would have said its just semantics and to forget about it, but its that you challenged me on my 911 and creation examples that made me keep going on at you.

Actually Ed, it wasn't so much a troll as it was an attempt to show you what a pedantic asshat you're being in this thread. Just because it went over your head does not change the relevancy of it.

You like James Randi, we get that. That doesn't mean you should run around parroting everything he says as if its gospel. Because it isn't. You've missed the whole point of what Randi is trying to say in the first place by doing it.

But, uh, yeah. Awesome "challenge."

BUT BUT BUT

JAMES RANDI SAID

There's something deliciously ironic about using the special pleading fallacy and James Randi at the same time.

Dear Ed: please stop using drugs.

I call this the "glass pipe fallacy", as you have to be fucked up to understand it.