I can prove that there is no elephant in my living room. An EPT test has proven that my wife is not pregnant. Are these not negatives which are proven scientifically? Who believes that you can't prove a negative? Why can't a negative be proven by dispoving the inverse? Isn't this the scientific method by definition?
2006-12-16 07:31:00 · 10 answers · asked by TheNewCreationist 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
If I take out the negatives in this question I get. "Can you prove that something Does exist"?
2006-12-16 07:48:47 · update #1
You and I are just smarter than most other people. Thumbs Up.
Jack: Unicorns are imaginary.
2006-12-16 07:32:59 · answer #1 · answered by motorcitysmadman 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You can prove nonexistence at a point. A room is a just a set of points. The case of the non-existent elephant is solved (for this room). What is less easy is to prove that an elephant doesnt exist anywhere BUT, how's this - kill all the elephants and then scour the world in search of elephants. When you find NONE you can assert that the universe is void of elephants (why? couldn't there be elephants on mars or some other planet?).
The assertion that you cannot prove a negative is itself a negative claim that (by it's own implication) can not be proven. To disprove it, all you have to do is prove a negative (go ahead, try).
And you have to draw a contrast between, say, pregnancy or elephants and a god. Pregnancy has implications as do elephants. Gods do not (yes, you claim they created everything but that claim is a different proposition that must be proven or disproven independently of the claim that god exists). Anyway, if you have proof of an elephant and present it to a blind man, presumably even though he cannot see the elephant he must agree that the elephant exists. You will have a hard time do that with a god.
2006-12-16 15:46:50 · answer #2 · answered by Middle Man 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hhaha lol. Feel sorry for you on this one Hugene. A few of These answers are quite funny. Some are good
Not laughing at you, just the responses.
Such a simple thing and yet it gets lost in the communication and atmosphere of R & S.
Last night while sitting out the front of my house enjoying a bourbon and coke, I was discussing this exact thing with myself. And this is what I found. Proving the negative to be a negative requires setting the boundries. Weird beliefs set the boundries out of reach. "Its invisible", "Its spiritual","Its outside existence at the moment","Its in the tale of the Hale Bop commet" etc
You can prove there is no elephant(defintion of 'elephant' = Boundry #1) In your room (location = Boundry #2). If the elephant is a 'spiritual' elephant then we cant prove it does not exist.
In order to prove that the tasmanian tiger still exists, the way is simply to produce one. To prove it does not exist requires the boundries to be defined. "does not exist on Earth"
I dont agree with atheist using the 'invisible pink unicorn' or 'flying spaghetti monster' in defense of this particular argument. Its condescending, and clearly not in direct relation to what the believer is attempting to suggest.
Its impossible to provide emphirical evidence that directly supports the negative to be true
It is possible to provide emphirical evidence that indirectly supports the negative to be true. (one just has to prove the opposite to be the case)
I get this often thrown at me.
Still the owness is on the one making the positive claim to provide the evidence.
2006-12-16 22:36:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That question buggs me out at times. Pardon self for my ebonical language, but that's me. Any and everything exists. The difference is do you believe in it or not. I "know" it all exists. What I know and know not. But does not at all mean I have to believe in it. There is an incredible difference. Some can believe that jesus is GOD. I don't believe it, but I know it to be true in some people's worlds. If it functions, it exists. PERIOD. But does not at all mean I have to believe in it. If something exists in just ONE person's beliefs, then I know it exists. But I DO NOT have to accept it to my belief. But I must accept the autheniticity of it's existance. It's only logical. But this just like anything else, this can always be argued against and proven true or untrue to the covet of another. PEACE!
2006-12-16 15:40:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
"If I take out the negatives in this question I get. "Can you prove that something Does exist"?"
Sure. Provide evidence. If you can't provide evidence, however, we're going to have to go with the default : That it doesn't exist.
2006-12-16 16:01:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Try it.
Prove to me The Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist.
2006-12-16 15:33:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You know what an elephant is. You can find one and compare it to your tv to see if it is the same thing. How do you scan for God? If your wife is checked they know what there looking for. God hes no properties. If you know how to find him let me know? (other then reading the bible or praying)
2006-12-16 15:37:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The scientific method proves things that aren't true, so I agree they can prove things that don't exist. They lie about everything.
2006-12-16 15:45:39 · answer #8 · answered by Fish <>< 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Easy.
Prove that NO orange elephants exist.
(NOTE: elephants are NOT imaginary)
2006-12-16 15:34:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
nice thinking...keep the madness running
2006-12-16 15:34:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋