"You cannot prove a negative"
Options
Punisher__
Members Posts: 3,031 ✭✭
This is not an intelligent sounding hypocrisy. This is actual logic.
You cannot prove a negative without restricting the problem or demonstrating a conflicting positive. For example, you cannot say there are no plaid crows. Even if you could demonstrate there are none on Earth (restricting the problem), you cannot exclude the existence of a plaid crow somewhere else in the universe. If you could say that A excludes B, and A exists, then you can say B does not exist.
So to say that "? is not", cannot be logically proven. Because "? " is defined as having universal transcendence. So in order to prove the proclamation, like any universal negative, one must have absolute transcendence and universality.
Burden of proof on the non-believer? No.
You cannot prove a negative without restricting the problem or demonstrating a conflicting positive. For example, you cannot say there are no plaid crows. Even if you could demonstrate there are none on Earth (restricting the problem), you cannot exclude the existence of a plaid crow somewhere else in the universe. If you could say that A excludes B, and A exists, then you can say B does not exist.
So to say that "? is not", cannot be logically proven. Because "? " is defined as having universal transcendence. So in order to prove the proclamation, like any universal negative, one must have absolute transcendence and universality.
Burden of proof on the non-believer? No.
Comments
-
And thats how the believers can say "well see, he could exist, somewhere...."
-
Punisher__ wrote: »This is not an intelligent sounding hypocrisy. This is actual logic.
You cannot prove a negative without restricting the problem or demonstrating a conflicting positive. For example, you cannot say there are no plaid crows. Even if you could demonstrate there are none on Earth (restricting the problem), you cannot exclude the existence of a plaid crow somewhere else in the universe. If you could say that A excludes B, and A exists, then you can say B does not exist.
So to say that "? is not", cannot be logically proven. Because "? " is defined as having universal transcendence. So in order to prove the proclamation, like any universal negative, one must have absolute transcendence and universality.
Burden of proof on the non-believer? No.
Well, if that isn't convenient... smh I guess Santa Claus really does exist. -
Punisher__ wrote: »This is not an intelligent sounding hypocrisy. This is actual logic.
You cannot prove a negative without restricting the problem or demonstrating a conflicting positive. For example, you cannot say there are no plaid crows. Even if you could demonstrate there are none on Earth (restricting the problem), you cannot exclude the existence of a plaid crow somewhere else in the universe. If you could say that A excludes B, and A exists, then you can say B does not exist.
So to say that "? is not", cannot be logically proven. Because "? " is defined as having universal transcendence. So in order to prove the proclamation, like any universal negative, one must have absolute transcendence and universality.
Burden of proof on the non-believer? No.
You are suggesting that ? can be defined. We may measure things as positive and negative, but it doesn't mean ? is that way. Who knows what His Ways are other than what the Bible says? I can say that ? exist, but it doesn't give me the right to think that He is just a "positive" force or think He is showing any favoritism. -
the religious are able to hide behind this fact. ? isn't defined, so we can keep adjusting his abilities to keep him real. when you ask, where did ? come from...same answer. these circular arugments will continue until the real truth is found, if it is found.
-
theillestrator wrote: »the religious are able to hide behind this fact. ? isn't defined, so we can keep adjusting his abilities to keep him real. when you ask, where did ? come from...same answer. these circular arugments will continue until the real truth is found, if it is found.
What makes you think that the inability to define ? is necessarily something to hide behind? Take the whole "? is all knowing" statement. If ? says He is then He is. What I define it to be is an attempt to say that I know what "all knowing" is in respect to ? . It would be foolish for me to argue what it is that He knows because I don't know. It would be arrogant to think so as well. -
alissowack wrote: »You are suggesting that ? can be defined. We may measure things as positive and negative, but it doesn't mean ? is that way. Who knows what His Ways are other than what the Bible says? I can say that ? exist, but it doesn't give me the right to think that He is just a "positive" force or think He is showing any favoritism.
Nope.
I am suggesting that it's a lot more complex to prove negative claims, because these types of claims do not have the basis to be proven.
If someone says "prove ? 's non-existence", you can't logically prove the non-existence of something, not just ? 's. -
Punisher__ wrote: »Nope.
I am suggesting that it's a lot more complex to prove negative claims, because these types of claims do not have the basis to be proven.
If someone says "prove ? 's non-existence", you can't logically prove the non-existence of something, not just ? 's.
Maybe it is not the type of question to ask "logically", but it is a question that can't be denied by the non-believer. A question as such that implies more than just merely showing that some magical being is here or not. What is implied by answering for ? 's existence is that if ? doesn't exist, then the issues of creation, morality, free will, and the after-life doesn't exist. Those who don't believe ? exist believe that these things are not influenced by a deity...or for that matter ? doesn't exist because those issues are not dealt with according to what we believe ? should do. -
alissowack wrote: »What makes you think that the inability to define ? is necessarily something to hide behind? Take the whole "? is all knowing" statement. If ? says He is then He is. What I define it to be is an attempt to say that I know what "all knowing" is in respect to ? . It would be foolish for me to argue what it is that He knows because I don't know. It would be arrogant to think so as well.
if you are christian and the bible says he is all knowing and he sent his son to earth to die for us, the he has been defined to that extent, and when the bible is dismantled peice by peice by evidence and inconsistencies, then that definition is wrong and if you no longer follow the bible then you are not christian. but christians do hide behind the you cant define ? bs (as evidenced in religilous a documentary) and to them i say "if ? cant be defined by me and be disproved then you cannot define him either" or are you somehow better. more intelligent or stronger. it takes more strength to question and walk away from the group than it does to continue with the status quo. -
Correct, a negative can't be proven.
The existence of some mystical entity should logically be held in doubt until there is proof of existence. There is no such thing as proof of non-existence...of anything. I've never seen proof that unicorns and hobbits and the tooth fairy don't exist, but that's no reason to think there's a good chance any of those things do exist. -
TheCATthatdidntDIE wrote: »if you are christian and the bible says he is all knowing and he sent his son to earth to die for us, the he has been defined to that extent, and when the bible is dismantled peice by peice by evidence and inconsistencies, then that definition is wrong and if you no longer follow the bible then you are not christian. but christians do hide behind the you cant define ? bs (as evidenced in religilous a documentary) and to them i say "if ? cant be defined by me and be disproved then you cannot define him either" or are you somehow better. more intelligent or stronger. it takes more strength to question and walk away from the group than it does to continue with the status quo.
There is what ? makes known and things that ? makes unknown. ? says He is all knowing...so what the Bible says that? What does that truly mean in respect to ? ? I would have to try to determine that or explain that to you in which honestly I can't, nor do I believe I have the right to do so. Sure, there are people trying to explain this but for the most part I feel that there is more at stake than ? 's Existence. A lot of the defense you get from people has a "self-seeking" agenda to telling you ? exist and you have seen this at work especially in churches. -
you cant prove a negative, but we dont have to be completely right in order for you to be wrong. 6x6=36. if i didnt know the answer, but you said it was 250, i would know it was wrong, and i could prove it by following the flaws in you mathematical equation much as i follow the flaws in the bible. how do you know the bible is flawed? man wrote it, ? did not come down and write it himself, it passed through human hands, which messes up the purity of the word as the author whether knowingly or not, inserts his own idealism into "gods" word
-
TheCATthatdidntDIE wrote: »you cant prove a negative, but we dont have to be completely right in order for you to be wrong. 6x6=36. if i didnt know the answer, but you said it was 250, i would know it was wrong, and i could prove it by following the flaws in you mathematical equation much as i follow the flaws in the bible. how do you know the bible is flawed? man wrote it, ? did not come down and write it himself, it passed through human hands, which messes up the purity of the word as the author whether knowingly or not, inserts his own idealism into "gods" word
I'm not sure how you apply the logic of this thread to the fallibility of the Bible. The main point of this thread is that you cannot logically prove anything to be non-existent in the universe. Basic logic and reasoning can always cast doubts on attempts to concretely prove something does not exist or did not happen. This is why, in criminal trials, the defendant is found "Guilty" or "Not Guilty", but cannot be found "Innocent". "Not Guilty" means not proven guilty, but no one can be proven innocent because it would be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you didn't commit any crime.
With that said, you're switching over to a discussion of the Bible being flawed, but your reasoning doesn't make sense. You're claiming because it was written by man, and not ? , it is definitely flawed because man cannot write an infallible book. Your premise is based on the teachings of the Bible, though. While we understand, from a biological and medical approach, that no man is omnipotent, the assertion that no man can write a Holy Book without flaws in it is 1) an idea you got from Biblical teachings and 2) dependent upon a universal standards for what is correct and what is a flaw. In other word's a standard set by ? . Come to think of it, it's further dependent upon believing in the existence of an infallible ? , because otherwise the "flaws" that are in the Bible are a moot point because it's all fiction anyway. That would be like reading Harry Potter and saying "I don't think this is a completely accurate account of what happened". -
shootemwon wrote: »i'm not sure how you apply the logic of this thread to the fallibility of the bible. The main point of this thread is that you cannot logically prove anything to be non-existent in the universe. Basic logic and reasoning can always cast doubts on attempts to concretely prove something does not exist or did not happen. This is why, in criminal trials, the defendant is found "guilty" or "not guilty", but cannot be found "innocent". "not guilty" means not proven guilty, but no one can be proven innocent because it would be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you didn't commit any crime.
With that said, you're switching over to a discussion of the bible being flawed, but your reasoning doesn't make sense. You're claiming because it was written by man, and not ? , it is definitely flawed because man cannot write an infallible book. Your premise is based on the teachings of the bible, though. While we understand, from a biological and medical approach, that no man is omnipotent, the assertion that no man can write a holy book without flaws in it is 1) an idea you got from biblical teachings and 2) dependent upon a universal standards for what is correct and what is a flaw. In other word's a standard set by ? . Come to think of it, it's further dependent upon believing in the existence of an infallible ? , because otherwise the "flaws" that are in the bible are a moot point because it's all fiction anyway. That would be like reading harry potter and saying "i don't think this is a completely accurate account of what happened".
do you have proof youre not ? ? -
I can prove that I am not ? in behavior, by ? women, however, if ? is thought to denote a person's true desires and sexual preference, regardless of action, I don't think I could concretely prove anything to you one way or the other. How would anyone give unquestionable proof of what their sexual preference really is? I'm not ? though so don't worry about it.do you have proof youre not ? ? -
shootemwon wrote: »I can prove that I am not ? in behavior, by ? women, however, if ? is thought to denote a person's true desires and sexual preference, regardless of action, I don't think I could concretely prove anything to you one way or the other. How would anyone give unquestionable proof of what their sexual preference really is? I'm not ? though so don't worry about it.
But you cant prove youre not ? though right? -
If a my consistent track record of heterosexual behavior does not satisfy the burden of proof you require, I don't know what else I could provide you with.But you cant prove youre not ? though right? -
shootemwon wrote: »If a my consistent track record of heterosexual behavior does not satisfy the burden of proof you require, I don't know what else I could provide you with.
But there is no burden of proof, because you said you cant prove a negative -
But there is no burden of proof, because you said you cant prove a negative
Right, asking someone to prove they aren't ? is an impossible burden of proof. -
shootemwon wrote: »Right, asking someone to prove they aren't ? is an impossible burden of proof.
So you could be ? ? -
So you could be ? ?
I'm certain that there is no chance of me being ? , but I don't know a way for me to prove this to you or others beyond all doubt. -
shootemwon wrote: »I'm certain that there is no chance of me being ? , but I don't know a way for me to prove this to you or others beyond all doubt.
That means I can accuse you of being ? and you cant refute it
So youre ? . -
That means I can accuse you of being ? and you cant refute it
So youre ? .
Burden of proof is on you, otherwise this whole forum is ? because everyone gets called a ? on the IC at some point or another. -
shootemwon wrote: »Burden of proof is on you, otherwise this whole forum is ? because everyone gets called a ? on the IC at some point or another.
Yeah but I disagree you cant prove a negative, so according to my philosophy i can prove it
But according to your philosophy you might be ? :wrist: -
Yeah but I disagree you cant prove a negative, so according to my philosophy i can prove it
But according to your philosophy you might be ? :wrist:
If you can prove that you're not ? , do so. -
