Why do people think you cannot disprove somethings existence?

Question

It isn't that hard. Lets look at this example:

Circular Squares.

Now, be amazed as i disprove the existence of something, circular squares. In order for something to be 'square', it must contain 4 sides. In order for something to be 'circular', it must contain no sides (the definition goes beyond that, but its irrelevent). Because something cannot have both no sides, and 4 sides, circular squares DO NOT EXIST.

In other words, you can prove something DOES NOT exist, by proving it CAN NOT exist. If it contradicts its own definition, it cannot exist, therefor does not exist, ok?

So, question: Can you disprove somethings existence?

1st answerer:

First of all, haveing 4 sides id PART of the definition of a square, the rest of the definition is IRRELEVENT. yes i have proven circular squares dont exist!

Second of all, it doesnt matter because this is only one example, even if i didnt prove anything the fact remains that it is POSSIBLE to disprove somethings existence, by proving it CANNOT exist. There is alot of things you can prove cannot exist. invisable pink unicorns. something cannot be pink and invisable at the same time. somethings are impossible, which proves they dont exist.

Answer 1

Wow! You just overturned 2300 years of formal logic! Too bad Bertrand Russell wasn't around to benefit from this wisdom!

Answer 2

Lots of shapes have four sides and are not squares. You have proved nothing.

You have offered evidence for the non-existence of something. Not proof.

EDIT

No, a square is a plane figure with four equal sides and the definition of circle has nothing to do with "sides" as it is a plan curve everywhere equidistant from a center point. So, your "proof" of "sides" is irrelevant since a circle is NOT a shape with "no sides." Of course circular squares do not exist because the notion is contrary to what a square IS.

Since you believe it is possible, prove Santa Clause doesn't exist!

Answer 3

In the sense of your question, it follows that simply by virtue of ones desire to disprove its existence, the object exists - otherwise there would be no cause or condition which premeditates a desire to disprove it.

Of course, in the bigger sense the way to disprove the inherent, independent existence of anything is to simply attain a little single-pointed concentration and pursue insight on the emptiness of all phenomena...

So, yeah I think you are right, but for all the wrong reasons.

Answer 4

Like 2 +2=4? I don't see it. But it exist.
No, I'm NOT amazed. Your definition became circular reasoning. Figurit out.

Answer 5

Go study non-euclidean geometry... triangles don't always add to 180 degrees; "parallel" lines will intersect or diverge.

Answer 6

Prove leprechauns don't exist.