Atheists:: I have a logical issue with most of you spouting this phrase...?

Question

I just recently made a post for theists and non-theists alike, here::
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ap3NxQSfefqP21zP2GPsqZbsy6IX?qid=20070403113427AAan7R9

And, the most used phrase by the atheists, which they all claim is "logic," was:: "You can't prove a negative."

Here is the issue I have with that phrase...
This "negative proof" claim, as many of you atheists claim as your logical "proof", has occured in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena. (i.e. "A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist.")

The problem with this supposed object of logic is that its opposite can also logically be claimed! (i.e. "A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist")

You see, as I said in my last question, theists and atheists are really no different! Each can logically spout the inverse of the other's claims!

While and Atheist will say: ""X is not true because there is no proof that X is true." A theist will say: "X is true because there is no proof that X is not true." (This is what we call logical fallacy)

So why do we get both theists and atheists alike still trying to prove that they are right based on "logic," when -in fact- both claims are based on Faith?

Answer 1

You can prove a negative, by proving a contradiction of its contrapositive.

For example, "There are no two integers, a and b, such that a/b is in minimal form and a/b is the square root of 2." This is a negative existence statement. However, if I take, "There are two integers, a and b, such that a/b is in minimal form and a/b is the square root of 2," I can derive a contradiction that a/b is equivalent to (2a)/(2b), which is a contradiction because the presence of the 2's indicates the fraction is not in minimal form.

As such, I've proven the negative existence of two integers which divide and are the square root of two, thus proving sqrt(2) to be irrational.

Using the same form of logic, it's quite possible to prove that there is no theistic version of a deity. Deism and atheism are the only options, and short of what one labels the initiative force of the universe, either 'deity' or 'natural forces', there is no significant difference between the two.

Answer 2

You are mistaken. The statement "X is true because there is no proof that X is not true" can be applied to an infinite number of variables. With this statement alone, one would have to accept that there is an invisible pink unicorn living on one of Jupiter's moons or that a neon green teapot is hiding on the other side of the sun. There is no proof that these things are not true after all. This is why the statement is useless for backing-up any theory.

On the other hand, the statement "X is not true because there is no proof that X is true" can be used to logically disprove the existence of magic unicorns and mythical teapots. It also shows that there is no God because there is no evidence to suggest that a God exists.

The two logical statement you discussed in your question are not equal in power. Only one can be used to defend ideas while the other does absolutly nothing.

Answer 3

I would say that a healthy skepticism against any assertion would be prudent.

assertion I:
There is a God.

assertion II:
There is no god.

To make either of these assertions more than an opinion shouldn't they have substantial empirical proof?

Is not the logical burden of proof on the person making an assertion?

What really irritates me is when people go on and on about what God thinks and wants without even showing that he exists much less has a 'will' for us.

If God is what many say that he is then why so many implied contradictions?
(e.g., Why would God "Love" us if we are so infinitesimal as to be like sand? Does God "Love" sand?)

Answer 4

That's ridiculous.... saying something exists because there is no proof of non-existence?!! How do you prove something that doesn't manifest itself exists? Doesn't the fact that IT'S NOT ANYWHERE prove that it does not exist?

The term "supernatural force" is one that can be interpretted differently. If by "supernatural force" you are referring to a god, then there is no proof whatsoever that such a thing exists. Whereas proof of non-existance is abundant in that this "god" of yours is nowhere. The fictional book that was written 2000+ years ago that you live by called the bible DEMANDS he exists, but then.... it was written by a primitive people a LONG time ago! Primitive cultures that offered human sacrifices to the "gods" to please him... i wonder why there were natural disasters at all if they were giving their "god" what he wanted!

Primitive people often rely on religions to explain what they do not understand or cannot/do not want to accept.

Take a look at this: The atheist eve comic strips are the greatest things i've found on the internet. This one fits your little scenario perfectly.

http://www.atheist-community.org/images/cartoon/51420Yc151614Wk25K10f5.jpg

Answer 5

What are you bitching approximately. that's the non secular and Sprituality section, no longer the "Im a Christian and what i say is the only suited element" section. Get off your intense horse and study some solutions, than perhaps you could learn from others, improve as a guy or woman. faith is something anybody would desire to and must be knowledgeable as you adult males shop attempting to slide your ideals into government, politics and faculty structures. And extremely certainly, the final time no one stood as much as you we had the darkish a while, im arranged with being advised Convert of Die, quite feels like the band wagon i desire to leap in on. Get a life.

Answer 6

While and Atheist will say: ""X is not true because there is no proof that X is true." A theist will say: "X is true because there is no proof that X is not true." (This is what we call logical fallacy)

-- Yes, and that's why we don't say that. You're setting up a straw man.

Answer 7

Actually, we can reasonably prove that god doesn't exist if you would take the time to actually define some of god's personal characteristics: For instance, if you say "god is blue and lives in the oak tree in my yard", then we could easily prove or disprove that.
However when you refuse to provide any testable definition for what god is, then it's silly to say that someone can't prove god doesn't exist...you've set it up so that it can't even be examined.

Answer 8

So since you cannot prove Homer Simpson does not exist, he exists, right ?

You cannot disporove a negative in any arena, religious, scientific, cartoons, life, whatever, you cannot disprove a negative !!

Answer 9

I guess that just means we will all have to accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the only true god. Afterall, we can't prove he's not, and people say he is...so it must be!

Welcome to a world of utter nonsense.

Answer 10

It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Any attempt to do so is illogical.