On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:27:47 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<Wppre.83701$lQ3.19590@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:

"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:3rsra1dh87shfdtkvkbbauj1a4nmvh3f0s@4ax.com...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:56:06 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<2vlre.118916$J25.28655@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:

"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:h3hqa1lfi1kvabvptb9fha13i19o6knruq@4ax.com...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:13:44 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<HX5re.1741$zm.619@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:

"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:8qopa1lb8btc716preglvues90v80bh43o@4ax.com...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 18:58:36 -0400, "Johnny"
<wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<h%2re.93472$CR5.1092@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:

<talence@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118605562.140480.25950@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Johnny, if we use your reasoning but replace a few words, it would
read
like this:

"If they assert that there are no unicorns then they need to prove
it
somehow to be believed by persons who are seeking proof."

If you find your argumentation convincing, then you should now
believe
in unicorns. You probably don't and that's because you know that
the
above argumentation rests on false logic. The reason you didn't
spot
the fallacy before is because it made an argument in favour of
what
you
already believed.

There is no fallacy in actually proving non-existence.
There are theorems which prove non-existence.

Prove the third planet of Rigel does not exist.

Why?
Did I postulate that or did you?

Irrelevant. You have said there is no fallacy in proving
non-existence. Do so.

You missed the proof, the cite?

As a general rule, yes.

So, you are writing from ignorance.
How about searching for "proof of non-existence".
Are you going to neglect to do that, and show us that you would rather be
ignorant than knowledgeable?
Are you purposefully going to refuse to look for that which I already
showed
in here which cites proof of non-existence, and spew uninformed and
ignorant
statements which I know are false because you are too closed-minded to
even
try or to accept anything other than what you merely think is the case?
Maybe you do not think that is the case and maybe you intentionally try to
refute truth to support some evil work of your own.

You are an idiot.

You are attempting to bury me with references to
specifics (which I admit exist) in an attempt to avoid the basic
issue.

If an assertion is made that something exists, either directly or
indirectly, it is the responsibility of the asserter to prove that
position. Demanding proof that it does not exist is simply a childish
attempt to avoid and evade responsibility.

proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for
his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist
(e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth,
etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations,
such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot
prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of
ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof
of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Do you understand why people would reject this type of logic? I
think
you reject your logic just like we do, except for the case where
the
word is "god".

Non-existence can be proven.

Prove there is no fairy dancing on my PC at this moment.

Why?
Did I make that assertion?

You have said non-existence can be proven. Do so.

I did NOT make the assertion.
I am not obligated to prove it.

So you are not saying non-existence can be proven?

I already typed that non-existence can be proven.
I did not type "Prove there is no fairy dancing on my PC at this moment."
Keep your words to yourself and I'll keep mine to myself.

What you say here is not keeping something to yourself. My issue is
in the content of your posts.

You have not yet proven there is no fairy dancing on my PC at this
moment.

I contend you cannot do so.

I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make here because
I'm
sincerely trying to explain my point of view.

I see what you are telling me, yet the burden of proof of any
assertion
whether it is negative or positive is not alleviated by simple
phraseology.

It is the burden of the positive assertion,
and cannot be avoided by
making it a negative for someone else to prove.

Proof of non-existence is as valid as proof of existence.
If you are incapable of proving non-existence then why act as if
others
can
not do such?

I have given you two opportunities above. I am waiting.

I already provided a link that shows that proof of non-existence is
valid.

Nope. A logical fallacy.

Your refusal to accept truth is noted.

proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for
his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist
(e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth,
etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations,
such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot
prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of
ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof
of existence must come from those who make the claims.