A question for atheists: How can I tell when there are no cookies left in the cookie jar?

Question

I have heard that one can never demonstrate a negative, so is there anyway to tell when a cookie jar is empty?

Sorry, broxolm, but the question is not at all stupid.

When someone asks an atheist to prove there is no God, the answer is almost invariably, "one cannot prove a negative so the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim". In this case, the postitve statement would be "There are cookies in the jar." The negative statement would "there are no cookies in the jar, " i.e. the jar is empty.

Joe C,

So you can prove a concrete negative, just not an abstract negative?

Answer 1

Shake it.

Answer 2

Wow, I"m a Christian and I would like to apologize to everyone how stupid this asker's question is.

First, it is very possible to demonstrate a negative. If I have negative 5 dollars that simply means I owe someone five dollars.

Second, an empty jar is not a negative, it is a neutrality (zero).

Third, the way to determine if a cookie jar is empty is to open the cookie jar and look inside. If you are not allowed to open the cookie jar, then you shake it. If you don't hear a rattle, then it is empty. If you are not allowed to touch the cookie jar what do you care if it empty or not? Didn't your mother teach you not be spoiling your dinner?

Leave the Atheists alone, they are bad off enough without you ranting on them.

Answer 3

I see your point, but the argument seems to be semantic more than anything; Look at it this way; the statement could be worded "There are zero cookies in the jar". This statement can be proven correct; it is not a negative statement. It specifies a value and a location. If this is the case true; if not; false. Simple.

Ok so your quiestion refers to the mathematical proof of the existence of God; You are correct, it is impossible to disprove that God does not exist, as time, being for all intents and purposes infinite means that there is no cutoff point; no defined parameters as to the time frame of the experiment, as it were.

The problem I have with this argument used by theists (I am neither, but dont like the word agnostic) is it is very fuzzy. If one were to decide that when travelling at the speed of light a person turned into a bus, itnis unlikely that this could ever be conclusively proven wrong. It is precisely for this reason that the burden of proof has to fall on the claimant.

It seems like a combatitive way of using the notion of proof against a mode of thought, rather than trying to philosophically engage the debate it continues to be this political debate of trying to discredit the other side.

Just my thoughts. ;)

Answer 4

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, since the argument actually presented by the opponent has not been refuted.

Its name is derived from the use of straw men in combat training where a scare crow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.

Setup of a straw-man
One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.

Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

Some logic textbooks define the straw man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation.

However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the scope of the opponent's argument, either to where the argument is no longer relevant or as a step of a proof by exhaustion.

As a rhetorical term, "straw man" describes a point of view that was created in order to be easily defeated in argument; the creator of a "straw man" argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous. An example of this is when person A says "I don't think children should run into the busy streets". Person B will say "I think that it would be foolish to lock up children all day with no fresh air". This insinuates that person A's argument is far more draconian than it is.

Answer 5

I don't understand what you are talking about, not being able to be negative. I didn't think athiests observed that (or any other ritual of the sort).

And you could say, We need to get more cookies, rather than cookie jar is empty.

Answer 6

Sorry that's not a negative. You obviously don't understand the simple difference between disproving something that cannot exist, and lifting the lid of the jar and seeing if anything is inside.
But nice try. Well, not really, but I feel you should be encouraged in your childish attempts to protect your invisible friend...

Answer 7

Cute.

You forget, in the case of "proof of God," you can no more prove the positive than you can the negative. The existance of life, matter, and cookies may be all the proof you yourself require, but it is hardly definitive from a scientific standpoint.

Answer 8

Open the jar and look inside. Or just buy a clear cookie jar.

Answer 9

properly, you do look a ethical guy or woman, and use stable good judgment. yet i desire to allow you comprehend that the anti-christ isn't a cookie or a cookie jar, And atheists may be the 1st he will circulate after, stable good judgment or not, and you'd be no journey against his craftiness.

Answer 10

A cookie jar would never be empty, it would be filled with air. assuming you take it to space to avoid this, it would then be filled with vacuum. It may be devoid of cookies and that would be readily measurable..

Oh, and I don't know anyone who refutes the existence of either cookies, or cookie jars.

Answer 11

I'm not atheist, but I'll try.

A cookie jar is empty when it is the opposite of being full.