Who came up with the silly idea that you can't prove a negative?

Question

I keep hearing this garbage that you "can't prove a negative." Thesists like to trot this out to try and discredit the mere notion of atheism. They say it's more rediculous to say God doesn't exist than to say he does, because you can't prove something doesn't exist.

Umm...no.

Here's a logical proof of a negative:

All Christians believe in God.
No atheists believe in God.

No atheists are Christians.

Oh no! I've just proved that atheists cannot be Christians! But wait, how do I know that there isn't some kind of funny invisible atheist hiding on the dark side of the moon that IS a Christian?

That's the kind of silly argument these people come up with to prove "you can't prove a negative." You know, "prove that there is no invisible pink elephant on the moon." That has nothing to do with LOGIC, and everything to do with the difficulty of measuring something. That's a PRACTICAL impossibility, not a LOGICAL impossibility.

Please learn the difference.

If God is so vaguely defined that you cannot disprove his existance, than what is the use of worrying about him either way?

Then God is just about as useful to us, and as worth of serious discussion, as invisible pink elephants on the moon.

If the Christian god existed, certain things would be true, like prayer being effective, or the accuracy of the Bible. But those things are demonstrably not true, therefore the Christian god can be proven not to exist.

No, I didn't "restate a definition."

It's obvious you've never bothered to study logic or rhetoric as subjects.

Come back when you have something to say that isn't completely wrong.

No, Lisa, you did not study logic.

I did not "define an atheist." If you think that, you're just wrong. That has nothing to do with being polite or not. You are wrong.

Zero, negative, blah blah blah. I proved that atheistic Christians do not exist. You can do the same for anything. I will not reiterate my entire argument because you're too lazy to understand it.

Even then, I'll cater to your stupid challenge.

"Prove anything doesn't exist."

OK fine. I can prove a black hole doesn't exist in our solar system by comparing what would have to be true if one did with what we know to be true.

Black holes distort space around them and absorb nearby matter.

We do not observe distorted space in our solar system, or matter going missing.

Therefore, no black holes exist in our solar system.

Real hard, wasn't it? It's the exact same thing with God. If God existed we would observe certain things that we do not. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Stop using the stupid and wrong argument that it is impossible to prove things do not exist.

Answer 1

I'll meet you half way. We can prove a defined, contra-natural contention to be false, like the Christian god, simply by pointing out 1 of the many contradictions that arise when believers attempt to rationalize his so called existence.

e.g.- The laws of thermodynamics are unbending and accepted as fact. Because the notion of "creation" clearly violates these laws, we know "creation" is false. If "creation" is false, the notion of a Christian god is also false.

But a pantheistic god, being abstract, cannot be proven false. There's no aspect to pantheism that can be assigned probability. This gives us no means to falsify claims of a pantheistic god.

That said, those who claim pantheism as their spirituality often view "god" and nature as 1 in the same, so they don't make contra-natural claims to begin with. They just muss accepted terminology.

Answer 2

Ah yes, the pink elephant canard.

The trouble is that the God of at least deist conception is no pink elephant, but something philosophers and cosmologists have taken seriously for centuries.

There are some existential questions that the idea of a god is a not unreasonable solution to. Why is there existence? for instance is answered potentially with a few approaches:

- there's always been an existence of some sort
- existence was specifically intended to be the case by an intelligence capable of causing it to.

It is more complex than that of course, but I don't have hours and pages to write. There is the whole question of time's own finiteness, which is kind of mind boggling.

But - to be brief - if we accept that the deist conception of god is a not unreasonable conjecture as to why existence exists, the issue of disproof becomes important. While certainly some kinds of disproof are possible, this particular one isn't.

And here's why - of the two options I offered, both rely on something unfalsifiable, since they are extra-universal.

"there's always been an existence of some sort" requires a multiverse of some sort. However, since we are within the universe and unable to observe phenomena beyond it, the multiverse is neither provable nor falsifiable.

Ditto God. So that too is at least a specific negative that cannot be proven.

As to disproof of the Christian God, that too is more complicated than you likely think it is. Christianity is not a book. It is a religion that sprung about as a community (that is what the word "church" means.) You can certainly demonstrate that certain interpretations of Christianity cannot be right. I'll grant that. But Christianity certainly has an ephemeral and mystical side, and that's probably pretty disproof-proof as well. (pun intended.)

Answer 3

Your example of proving a negative logically is fine.It may show that you can prove a negative logically. Yet is it indeed a negative?

In your example, doesn't NO simply mean ZERO? Is zero a negative?

As the person above said, all you have done is define an atheist.

You proved that atheists are not Christians, that's all you did.

Also, it does not relate to 'proving that something doesn't exist'. Show me logically how you prove something does not exist. I challenge you. I want to see YOU do it.

Btw, I did study LOGIC. I also learned to respect others when having a philosophical debate, which you apparently have yet to learn.

Answer 4

I agree that you can certainly prove the non-existence of some things. For example, I can prove that there is no highest prime number.

But mathematics operates using well-defined defintions and rules. "God" on the other hand is something so vaguely definied and by definition defying the laws of natural things, that it seems useless to try to prove or disprove the notion.

Answer 5

you are able to write approximately stars that take drugs, devote crimes, carry weapons, drink alcohol and issues like that. do they could desire to be American pop stars? As i stay in the united kingdom, we hear plenty some singer noted as Amy Whinehouse who's continuously taking drugs and ingesting, entering into hardship with the regulation, who's continuously in rehab and issues like that. Her husband is likewise in reformatory. She could be well-liked as a good singer, yet she completely contraptions out the incorrect image. Shes not a good occasion. yet another is Pete Doherty who's a singer and ex boyfriend of variety Kate Moss. Im not sure if he has been locked up now, yet he became into continuously discovered smoking and taking drugs. yet he continuously have been given faraway from it basically with the aid of fact hes in call for. childrens think of they could take drugs and issues like that and wreck out with it with the aid of fact in call for human beings do. yet they wont.they'll get carry of a plenty harsher punishment.

Answer 6

LOTS of people think you can't prove a negative.

Answer 7

Thank you. They would benefit in a course on real logic.

_()_

Answer 8

And we would care why?

Answer 9

we already know and this is RELIGION YOU LEARN THAT!!