Can you find anything wrong with this reasoning?

Question

Q. Prove that god does Not Exist. A. Cannot, a negative cannot be proven.

1. One cannot prove that an object under discussion does Not Exist. Rather, the object is assumed Not to Exist until such time as it can be demonstrated that the object Does Exist.

2. "One cannot prove a negative" simply means that one cannot prove empirically that the object under discussion does Not Exist. One must empirically prove that the object under discussion Does Exist.

3. The burden of proof rests upon the party proclaiming that the object under discussion Does Exist.

The question again is: Can you find anything wrong with this reasoning? If you cannot, please tell me. If you can, please point it out to me. Thank you.

Thank you to all who responded. It will take some time to assimilate the information, but I will git er done. Grendel's Father.

Answer 1

You can prove a negative. If I say that my desk drawer does not have a yak in it I can prove it by opening the desk drawer for all to see and reach in and smell.

The problem is that you can't assume that anything exists and you can't assume that anything doesn't exist. If you can't show to a reasonable certainty that something exists and you can't show to a reasonable certainty that it doesn't exist then the reasonable position is to say that you don't know if it exists or not.

Just a few years ago we could not detect that there were planets around any stars other than the sun. Now we can. A few years ago we could not say that we had proved there were no planets around stars other than the sun. Lack of proof of an assertion is not proof that the opposite assertion is true.

The burden of proof remains on the person making an assertion of truth. So if a theist says there is a god, the burden of proof is on the theist. If an atheist says there is no god, the burden of proof is on the atheist. Sophistry won't avoid this.

Answer 2

i assume those arguments are completely valid, altougth, as you basically suggested, the 0.33 is shallow, and that i ought to declare that the 1st heavily isn't genuine, for the reason which you additionally could make room on your existence for each and all of the flaws which you somewhat decide to do. besides, there's a probability for a society to make all of those arguments extra acceptable than the will of having young ones, wich particularly situations is only hidden at the back of the phobia of that type of responsability. I agree that there are some people who should not be mum and dad, yet there are a number of women folk people and adult adult males that must be great mum and dad, yet is extra undemanding and extra gentle to no longer do it. What i will allow you to already know is that, there is not any longer an greater and extra friendly undertaking than having a toddler, there is that this saying approximately what you ought to do formerly you die: plant a tree, write a e book, and raise a toddler, this is the clossest you would be to inmortality- your infants is your legacy to humanity. See what's happenning in some international locations interior the international, the place extra women people (and adult adult males) are taking one in each of those judgements, and that they are dealing with a demographic turnaround, this is even transforming into a great threaten to the financial equipment. So, i might think of, we ought to continuously no longer overstimate, or perhaps inspire that existence type, and we ought to continuously commence analizing and giving the genuine fee to the relatives way of existence. do no longer think of i'm a housewife, who's closeminded. i'm a single mom, I actually have a proffession, i artwork to offer my son the ideal i will, and to offer him one in each of those existence he might have with a married couple at homestead - I actually have a pair and that i'm happy with him. And it incredibly is been dificult yet friendly and passable.

Answer 3

The problem with the reasoning is it only applies to physical objects, like a rock or a tree. It does not apply to the metaphysical realm. Metaphysical "objects" are, by their nature, not objects which are seen and touched such as items in the physical realm.

The problem in general with attempting to prove the existence, or non-existence, of God is that neither assertion can be proven using today's science.

Also, just because a person cannot prove their assertion, it does not make that assertion untrue - only that they are unable to prove it. More importantly, just because a person cannot prove their assertion, it doesn't mean the counter-assertion IS true.

So, the irony of it all is that both those who believe in God, and those who do not, are both acting on faith.

Answer 4

Well yea, depending on your definition of god, it can be disproved. There can be a higher being, but it wouldn't be considered god if it didn't really create us or the universe, would it? So if we prove that the universe was created without a creator, we'd essentially be disproving god. Something like god would in theory be perfect, but perfection along with morality is subjective. But yea, if you want to debate I have more.

edit-Either way, evolution makes the concept of a god useless. It shows the universe wasn't created for and doesn't revolve around people. Morality is just based on behaviors that are good and bad for society.

Answer 5

I agree with your line of logic, EXCEPT that the burden of proof does not necessarily lay with those claiming it is true. It may lay with the one who holds the evidence. If the one who is holding on to the evidence does not want to show the evidence, then it would have to be trusted that the evidence exists; or the evidence does not exist making the claim false.

Those who do not have the evidence will have to either trust that the evidence is either not true, or that it is true, they just do not have the evidence.

Either way it is a faith-based decision to assume that the existence of the evidence is either true or false.

Answer 6

In simple terms, what you are saying is that the burden of proof lays on those who believe in a hypothesis rather than the ones who "don't" believe in it (you avoided the word, but I will avoid it by using HYPOTHESIS to equal GOD) In any hypothetical theorem based on speculation by any or both parties is reliant on only one FACT. IT IS SHEER SPECULATION, until proven, and the burden of proof does not lay on they who believe in any hypothesis "as" theorem, the burden of proof lays on the ones making the "speculation" that such a hypothesis does not EXIST. In the case of the hypothesis, existance or not, PROOFS by an arbitator of debate as to non-existance only tends to gain no more THAN a debate BASED on their own speculatory evidence for even they can not PROVE such a hypothesis does not EXIST. So what is the gain ? ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, for any arguement ON the hypothesis by either party believer, or non-believer will only lead to an embarrassing display of IGNORANCE on the part of both parties. And that my friend is based on the one real fact theorem. OUR existance is "limited" to our own KNOWLEDGE and not the CREATOR(S).....

Answer 7

Not really, that you can not prove a negative should be obvious to any one who has taken Logic in college or has any scientific background.

"Prove that X doesn't exist" is a flip/trite statment from an under educated individual or one that is agruing from ignorance.

Answer 8

God is not an object, but a Person. Persons are not subject to scientific investigation because relationships are not repeatable. This entire line of reasoning is irrelevant.

Answer 9

Sigh. Google "The Flying Spaghetti Monster". If you want to sound smart, at least try and keep up with the current level debate.

Answer 10

1 and 2 state the same thing, so choose one and discard the other.

Now you're left with two posits, neither of which you have proven. So, prove your posits, and then we can move on to using them.