How can a non-existent thing be proved to be non-existent? Dont you think it is a stupid attempt to do so?

Answer 1

look at our leader

Answer 2

It is stupid to think that you know it all when it is so clear that human race itself does not have all the answers to everything. It is seen that the human sense organs have a limit to their ability to see / hear / touch etc and even whilst using sensitive instruments this ability is only extended a little bit.

Hardly anyone thought about the existence of atoms / electrons / neutrons etc until suitable instruments had been invented to see these things and even now scientists think there might be even more subtle objects that we have yet to discover.

Almost everyday newer species of lifeforms are being discovered - some in the most unbelievable / un-inhabitable places - these push the boundaries of our knowledge everyday.

To think that you know everything when such discoveries are still being made everyday is certainly a fault only you can have and also try to correct.

Modern science is continually challenged by religious thinking. Modern medicine is proving to be unsafe and traditional remedies are being seen to be more effective.

You can choose what you want to believe in and also choose to remain ignorant.

Answer 3

I am reminded of a story which used to be quoted in Govt Companies where procedure is more important and to prove that the lowest price quoted by a firm for an item is not workable you have to place an order first, suffer non delivery or delayed delivery, or hopeless quality and having burnt once finger thus you are then allowed to go to the higher priced firm for supplies.

There was an old lady in a village Let us call her KADAMBARI
One fine morning she was found dead at home. Since she had none to look after the villagers took upon themselves to cremate the body and so carried the body to the forest and keeping it down at one corner all those who carried the body went in search of dry wood to burn the body. In the meanwhile the old lady who was in coma but alive regained her consciousness and got up . She found herself in an unknown place and in her semi conscious stage she moved away form the scene in a different direction. When the few villagers returned with firewood they did not find the body of the old lady. They were frightened that they would be taken to task. They thought that some wild animal must have carried her body. So they just set fire to the woods brought by them and after the fire subsided they went back to village and said they have burnt the body of the old lady and immersed her ashes in the nearby river.
After few months the old lady KADAMBARI who had by then fully recovered from her illness returned back to her old village.
As soon as she entered the village boundary all the children ran home saying that the ghost of the old lady has come. By the time she reached her old home all the villagers had gathered there and they too started to pelt stone at her saying that her ghost has come as her dead body had already been burnt. Since there was none to support her that she was physically alive hale and healthy the old lady was left with no alternative except to move away.
She then said aloud Ok I will prove to all of you I am alive and not dead. So saying she went to the village tank out side the village and got herself drowned.After a day or so her dead body floated on the surface of water. All the villagers assembled and an enquiry was held and it came to light that her body was not really burnt as stated by few earlier and that the old lady was infact alive and it was not her ghost.
So you see to prove that she was not dead the old lady has to die.
So to prove existence or non existence about which we do not know the real truth we have to go through the procedure to prove

Answer 4

when reffering to something of a less spiritual nature, you might be able to disprove its existance by pointing out another factor that depends on its existance or non-existance. For instance, I could disprove the existance of the huge fire that consumed all of Africa in 1563, because (besides there being no recording of something like that) Africa wouldn't be here now if such a fire had existed.
When it comes to God, it's slightly more opinion-driven, rather than logic. You are right in saying it's pointless, because one side will always have waht they think of as definitive proof that He exists, and he other side will alwasy believe they can shoot that down for a fact. It's like asking someone: "Who was the best contestant on Idols this year? I don't want your opinion, I want you to tell me who was the best in technical and definitive terms." It's impossible, because every person believes they are right.

Answer 5

Every truth leaves a physical imprint on the earth... Every one... as there is no proof jesus ever existed, and humans did try.... just like no holy grail was ever found cause the cup didn't exist.... Religion relies on people's gullibility... god's laws are called nature... nature does not allow for virgin birth's or for humans walking on water ...Jesus is an attempt to prove " something" is greater than the laws of nature. it's just not true.

Answer 6

Non-existent thing can not be proved to be non-existent.
It also can not be proved to be existent.
And because of this it is considered non-existent or simply not evident to be existent.

Answer 7

It is not possible. Similarly, it is not possible to prove an existant thing is existant, considering the scope of the human mind to imagine touchable, hearable, visual things (e.g. during a dream)

Answer 8

Let me give a couple of examples:--

"Ether" in space does not exist.

Phlogiston does not exist.

Perpetual motion machines does not exist.

Such non-existences these have been inferred by experiment.

Answer 9

Yes.
Actually, in a scientific investigation first comes a hypothesis and only then you set about trying to proove it. If there is no scientific reason to even raise a hypothesis, certainly it is pointless to try and proove it.

Answer 10

To prove the negative is an experiment in futility.

Answer 11

Yes, but it makes for an excellent strawman, when logic fails to support your position.