Quote:
|
Quote by: Fangrim Not so simple.
Theist makes claim A: X exists.
Atheist pokes holes in claim A. Claim A remains unproven.
Given that situation, the X hypothesis still remains unproven, both ways. Until Atheist proves Claim B: X does not exist, it is not proven that X isn't real. X is unproven, yes, but it isn't proven to not exist. |
I think you misunderstood what he was saying.
He was saying that poking holes in the actual
claim would render it false. This is a correct assessment - as poking holes in a claim involved how it can not be consistent with reality.
However, you were probably thinking that by "claim", he meant "argument". Indeed, if he were to poke holes in an argument for a claim, that does not invalidate the claim in and of itself.
Allow me to demonstrate the difference between the former and the latter.
Claim A, in this scenario, is "there is a ball under the box".
If Zhavric were to say "the box is made of lead, and is not hollow. This is inconsistent with it containing a ball", then to disprove that claim, I said "but the box is not hollow, and I saw the ball placed there" - then I'd have disproven his claim.
However, if he were to say "I did not see the ball put under the box; this is inconsistent with it containing a ball" - then he would be incorrect, provided that the ball's placement under the box is not necessitated by Zhavric's observation of it. That doesn't mean that his claim can't be correct, it means that his proof doesn't prove it is.