Well, in practice that depends on who’s actively trying to convince whom. If you’re trying to convince me of the existence of something you believe in (like “natural law”), you’re going to have to do better than just stating your belief. If you don’t, then there’s no issue. Of course that works the other way, too.
That’s not really proof. What if I left Santa out of it - could you prove that the world is not run by vile little invisible men?
A mistake on my part. I was growing tired of Angurse constantly saying ‘I could do it!’
Run in what sense?
In the same sense that governments run countries. Exercise power over what happens in them.
So invisible men are exercising a forced monopoly on a geographical location?
Call it what you will - I’m inviting you to disprove it. You will fail, even though we both know it’s not true. That’s why logically the burden of proof is on the person claiming the existence of something - the opposite leads to an absurd conclusion.
Wow, I thought this was common knowledge..
What is the goal of these invisible men?
You appear to be dodging the question. Their goal is beside the point - the challenge is to disprove their existence. Running the country is just an off-the-cuff example. I could just as well claim that they killed JFK from the grassy knoll - your ability to disprove this statement would not change - it would still be nil.
This is exactly why the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, and not the other way around.
To make it as clear as I can - in this case, since I’m making a positive claim, i.e. that little invisible men are running the country, the burden of proof would be on me. Since I can’t prove this assertion, a reasonable person could be expected to reject it. However, and this is an important caveat, that does not preclude belief, which by its very nature is not rational or logical.
Natural rights are.
Life is.
Liberty is.
Property is.
Without these rights that are, then no defining will happen. No exploring can even occur without these rights. How do you explore human nature or otherwise without living (life), choosing [(liberty) i.e. without being able to choose to explore this, that, or other], or person [(property) i.e. without being the human that you are? can’t
As for natural law: A=A, etc…
Why? Because you say so?
I’m not sure if I understand. We can’t explore human nature if we don’t accept your unproven axioms about things that supposedly are? That’s completely ridiculous, unless I’ve misunderstood what you were trying to say.
the only way for you to have made this response is by facilitating life, liberty, and property…
you prove these by being…
and you didn’t even need me…
The only things I have proven by that post (assuming for the sake of argument you’re not conversing with a Turing computer) is that I’m alive, have liberty (to write), and have the power to control a computer, not that these are in any way inherent rights or even qualities of a human being.
Again, please quote where I said I was an amoralist. I’m growing tired of you constantly contradicting yourself and avoiding questions.
thanks for proving my point, scyg, once again, as to what is…
I honestly don’t think you know what it means to prove something. But enjoy your blissful state of self-conviction. It must be nice.
every time you respond you prove that life, liberty, and property is…
good job
This isn’t even a passable representation of Argumentation ethics, it doesn’t prove any sort of right, only capability.
Who said I was “representing Argumentation ethics”… not I.
You’re defending the status quo. Why should life, liberty, and property be maximized?