You realize there is no such things as "proof something doesn't exist" right?

Question

I'm not arguing for or against anything right now, just pointing out a logical fallacy that seems to be an epidemic in this seciont of answers. If I asked you to prove that my imaginary friend didn't exist how would you do it? Find traces of nonexistent DNA and say "Hey look, this DNA doesn't exist." You've then actually done he opposite and proved that he does exist because there was DNA. Basically there is no such thing as non-proof so you can't prove something non-existent, only unlikely, unnecesary, irrational, ordownright silly. Just consider this next time you think you're being clever.

To eduar.... I agree. Although a better example would be that you can prove -1 doesn't have a rational square root. But you know what I meant.

To anonomous, hahaha, you got me there, I should have phrased that better.

Answer 1

If you think that you might have cancer you might be inclined to see a doctor. The doctor has a protocol to examine you and see if you have cancer. The doctor then must prove that you do not have cancer. He or she then will check to see if any of the conditions as they relate to cancer exist in your body. The doctor must prove a negative by seeking to prove the inverse and will tell you after the examination whether you do or do not have cancer.

As for your imaginary friend, it is difficult to impossible to prove scientifically. Another protocol must be utilized. Within the realm of what is Imaginary, we are not concerned so much with checking to see what is real but rather what is possible or probable. By our own senses we can tell that the imaginary friend does not exist (in the present tense or in a physical sense) even though what is imagined is very real to the person imagining it. Before a diagnosis of schizophrenia might be made, an evaluation should be made as to the nature of that which is imagined.
For example, if a person was an engineer and the thing imagined was a design for a bridge and the engineer stood on the river bank and turned to you and said, "Can you see the bridge"? Then, he or she began to describe the bridge to you and even drew you a picture of it and showed you the blueprints, then, in this case we would be inclined to rule out mental illness. What is imagined could possibly become real (future tense) in such event that work is done to accomplish it. Getting a sample of the asphalt or concrete would not be possible at this point because the bridge is not yet built.

Is something Real because we see it - or - Do we see it because its real?

At this point, using the five senses, it would be possible to prove that the bridge does not exist but what is the point of that. Of course it does not exist....yet.

Now, using this line of reasoning, I conclude that there is a God, a Designer of Reality, a Creator of things observable. There is no design without a designer just as there is no bridge without an architect. In this aspect, the universe itself is proof of God handiwork.

As for your imaginary friend however, we may need a mugshot. For this we may need to check a lineup from my son's imaginary friend website. Check it out:

http://awesomehouseparty.com/house/home.jsp?startPoint=login
.

Answer 2

Carl Sagan once came up with an example he called "the dragon in the garage." (From A Demon-Haunted World)

He supposed that your friend claimed that there was a dragon in his garage. You go to see this remarkable thing, but when you get there... you don't see anything. Your friend says, "aha! But, I neglected to tell you: it is an invisible dragon!" Undaunted, you wave your hands in the air where the dragon is supposed to be. You feel nothing. Your friend observes that it is an invisible, *incorporeal* dragon. You bring out a thermometer to record the heat from its fiery dragon breath, but your friend tells you that its breath consists of heatless flame.

In short, for every method you devise to test your friends claims, your friend develops a reason as to why your test fails, but maintains his claim that the dragon is "there."

Maybe it's me and some shallowness of thought on my part--I don't know--but I've always found Sagan's example to be pretty profound. One conclusion (among many) that I draw from it is, ultimately, whether or not an invisible, incorporeal, heatless fire breathing dragon is in your friend's garage doesn't matter... because, as this dragon does nothing that can be measured or recorded, his existence matters as much as if he did not.

While we may conclude that "we can't prove that the dragon doesn't exist," we may render all claims to the dragon irrelevant. We also may start to wonder why it is, given that our friend cannot see, touch, or otherwise measure the dragon, either, that our friend believes in it as much as he seems to do.

On the other hand, the Atheist in me might take Sagan's example a step further. I would take it for granted that there are certain things which are integral to the concept of a "dragon." Things that, without them, the term "dragon" really doesn't apply at all. I don't know whether fire-breath is it, exactly, or a certain (visible) form, or what have you. What I'm pretty sure of, though, is that, if you have an invisible, incorporeal, heatless creature, it *isn't* a dragon. In this way--once we've fixed a definition for dragon--we can indeed establish that there is no dragon in the garage. There might be *something* there. But a dragon? Not if it doesn't test for the things that a dragon must, if it makes sense to call it a dragon.

Some people might balk at having a hard and fast definition for a dragon. But I believe that those people, too, have such a definition for a dragon and everything else, even if those definitions are strictly implicit. This is how we, for instance, recognize things and tell them apart; they meet and match the criteria we have for them.

Answer 3

I completely agree with you Dan. Eduarodi...I see what you're saying, but what you talk about was made up by men. It was a rule set up that way. Of course we know it can't be wrong, because we made it. We know it is possible to prove the inexistence of things that don't fit within the rules that we created. It is however impossible to prove that things occurring in nature do not exist.

Answer 4

By definition an imaginary friend doesn't exist, because it is immaginary.

If the definition of something doesn't allow something to exist then it can't exist. Like a rock so heavy God couldn't lift it, or a spherical cube. By definition it can be shown thoes things don't exist. They don't really describe anything.

Answer 5

You are right there is not way to prove a universal negative. I do not belief in god and I have good reasons to believe the way I do, otherwise I wouldn't believe the way I do. Even though I have these reasons, this is not a proof that god doesn't exist, it a belief: it is at best a hypotheses.

Answer 6

Actually, that's not entirely true. You can prove that there is no odd number that can be exactly divided by two, for example. It is possible to prove inexistence.

The problem, actually, is another. I, for one, am not interested in proving anything. Let people believe whatever they want. I know I don't believe in god, but if others want to believe, that's their own business. What really bugs me, is that their assumption (which is at best as good as mine) is the one that's running the world, and I'm ruled by it. That's really annoying.

EDIT: I'm not precisely a genius in mathematics. I like it, but that was the best I could do. :-)

Answer 7

scientifically speaking, trying to prove lets say...God exists or doesn't by using DNA when he created DNA.. lt's like duhh.
therefore, point proven, b cuz u can't prove he doesn't exist.

ever watch "weird science"? try the bra thing on the head you'll probably get better results.

Answer 8

While you can't prove a negative you can disprove that god loves and watches over us just by noticing to countless Innocent children he allows to suffer the most vile forms of abuse.
Tammi Dee

Answer 9

This is why the onus is to prove that something DOES exist, and the logical default state is one of nonexistence.

Answer 10

You can prove that something doesn't exist if and only iff you sample all elements of the group.