Existence does not Require Proof
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Dr. Bo endorses the idea “one who claims existence exists must prove existence exists.” He does so in the graphic on this website at:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Proving-Non-Existence.
I say he is wrong. Here is my explanation.
I shortened Ayn Rand’s definition of an axiom to: An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents because they have to use it in any attempt to deny to it.
Ayn Rand is known more for her politics than her philosophical breakthroughs in epistemology, such as her clean definition of an axiom. Like all others, she made other mistakes, but her definition of an axiom was a giant step forward in metacognition.
The most fundamental, irreducible and absolute axiom states: existence exists.
Any attempt to deny these two words (existence exists) requires the acceptance of the existence of the argument used in the refutation, and, therefore, falls of its own weight.
It is also the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept.
Answers
1
Dr. Bo endorses the idea 'one who claims existence exists must prove existence exists.'
Not at all. I do see how you can infer this from my last line " The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims." What I need is more nuance to that statement. This wasn't meant to be an absolute law, but a heuristic in dealing with claims that are either not self-evident (e.g. "I exist") or is clearly demonstrable (e.g. "Arizona exists").
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course