Proving a negative
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.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Malcolm on -
Well, as a former mathematician, let me assure you that in some cases one can indeed prove a negative, making of course certain assumptions about the foundations of mathematics and logic.
The fact that this technique is not more widely applicable has less to do with the fact that you are dealing with a negative as with the nature of what one accepts as "proof" of something.
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Stewart on -
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
-
Permalink Reply by Malcolm on
-
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Mario Rodgers on -
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Malcolm on
-
I wouldn't call it "illogical" to ask someone to prove the non-existence of such entities so much as "unreasonable."
-
Permalink Reply by Kris Potter on -
Disprove, proof, prove, opinion. Other than that your proposal seems fine
-
Permalink Reply by Vernard Mercader on -
Oh, the humanity.
-
Permalink Reply by Kris Potter on
-
Speaking English properly is the first step in using English as a means to communicate an idea to one another. Would you not agree?
-
Permalink Reply by Vernard Mercader on
-
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on -
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.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
What's new today
Forum
The Racists Really Won't Like This!
Started by Unseen in Miscellaneous Sciences. Last reply by Matt Giwer 8 minutes ago. 23 Replies 1 Like
Blog Posts
SO A CHRISTIAN DOESN’T TOLERATE MY VIEWS…WHY BE SO ANNOYED?
Posted by Eljay on May 19, 2013 at 12:36pm 0 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
