I am at my computer science class and I felt like brainstorming.

 

Proving a negative. That's what most theists require us to do when they say "Prove there is no God!". That is not how it works.

 

Everybody knows that the burden of proof lies on the one who makes the claim. I will not go into detail on this, because it is plainly obvious, we have allot of threads and most people here understand the scientific method.

 

However, you can disproof something, but, to disproof it, you have to proove something else that is in contradiction with the current claim and has significantly more evidence than the other.

 

Three cases:

 

1. Newtons theory of gravity. Einstein discovers relativity. Einstein completes newtons theory and restructures it.

 

2. Theory that storks are bringing babies from the sky at the doorstep. Actual evidence that supports the theory of birth overwhelms the first, thus completely nullifiing it.

 

3. The theory that explains how the universe came into being at the Big-Bang. Black-hole genesis theory. Time-space folding. Quantum instability. Others that I am not familliar with ( hope I did not invent them ). They have equal, insufficient evidence to decide which is the valid one, but all of them are possible.

 

Proving a negative is not how it works. Proving something else, that makes the reffered theory obsolete, is how you can disproove it, by creating a conflict with it.

 

What is your oppinion on this matter? The battle of observation and thought is strong in this one.

Views: 97

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The statement is misleading: it is not about proving a negative, but rather proving that something that does not exist, exists...that is a contradiction, a non sequitur
While in the case of God, the relevant phrasing may be "a proof of nonexistence," the 3 examples that the OP lists are specifically about proving that something is not true, rather than proving that something doesn't exist per se. In any case, in mathematics we often prove that certain things do not exist, too.

As for this statement "it is not about proving a negative, but rather proving that something that does not exist, exists," I would disagree. It is rather proving that something that does not exist, does not exist.
Asking someone to prove something's non-existence, as others have said, is illogical. It can be taken to the extreme when you ask if they can prove Vishnu doesn't exist. Or Thor. Or leprechauns. Or vampires.
I wouldn't call it "illogical" to ask someone to prove the non-existence of such entities so much as "unreasonable."
Disprove, proof, prove, opinion. Other than that your proposal seems fine
Oh, the humanity.
Speaking English properly is the first step in using English as a means to communicate an idea to one another. Would you not agree?
Proving god does not exist is like trying to prove someone he doesn't have the XDDVTR-Turboshell car.

He doesn't have that car, because no car in the world was manufactured with that name.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof" - Hitchens.
Just because we don't bear the burden of proof does NOT mean that we KNOW the truth. We feel VERY strongly that we are right and can provide a mountain of reasons -- but that does not mean we have proof. As far as I'm concerned, we are right in every logical, scientific way. All I'm saying is that logic and science don't claim certainty. The last time I checked . . . it's religions that claim certainty.

RSS

© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service