Philosophy: You can't prove a negative

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truthstalker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Truthstalker

Guest
You cannot prove a negative.

Says who?

It seems self-contradictory to me. If you prove the statement, then the statement you just proved is false.:whacky:
 
Try it yourself.

Keep in mind that this defense is often misused – ‘there is no God’ is actually a positive statement, postulating the state of nonexistence. Same with ‘there is no elephant in my microwave’. Negation of the phrase does not make it a negative philosophical statement: ‘there is no God’ is properly termed the inverse of ‘there is a God’, and both are positive assertions.

‘It is impossible to logically prove either the existence or nonexistence of God’ is an actual logical negative. It cannot be proven true, only proven false – but until somebody does, it makes sense. Trying to prove it true is like dividing by zero in a well-formed equation: can’t happen, or at least all that work is down the drain.
 
Mirdath said:
Try it yourself.

Keep in mind that this defense is often misused – ‘there is no God’ is actually a positive statement, postulating the state of nonexistence. Same with ‘there is no elephant in my microwave’. Negation of the phrase does not make it a negative philosophical statement: ‘there is no God’ is properly termed the inverse of ‘there is a God’, and both are positive assertions.
Click to expand...
One knows the nature of an elephant, so when one says that there is no elephant in my microwave, it is not the same as saying that there is no God; since God is above nature and cannot be measured “directly” by the five sense’s. One does not “know” and surley cannot know that there is no God, since ultimate reality cannot be measured and one would have to be God to know if the was no God, and the fact that you are God, would be contradictory of the first premise. Are you feeling dizzy yet?

Any evidence in favor of a super nature, would have to be in the form of indirect and suggestive dimensions, produced from the study of are natural world. There is plenty of suggestive evidence in favor of a super-nature, (a nature that transends are own universe and including its fundemental dimensions). I have yet to find evidence that is suggestive of the non-existence of a super-nature.

Peace.
 
Mirdath said:
That isn’t proof.
Click to expand...
It is not an empirical proof; but it is a kind
Of proof, as in, it is as good as your going to get.🙂

what I’m talking about is putting ones “faith” in a possible truth with out being biased either way; a truth that is more likely then any other possible truths; and if there are no other known logical possibilities, then the odds on an idea such as God being the truth is almost an absolute truth, and for me, that is good enough. I was an atheist not to long ago, and if atheists could show me away that the universe could have logically come into being with out any intelligent cause, then you would be correct in saying that both sides have equal evidence and it would be more difficult for me to honestly put one’s faith in God. Big bang Cosmology tells me otherwise.

If there are two sides to an argument and one at least sees things in the universe that are suggestive of a super nature; then a super nature is the most likeliest truth; though far from being scientifically verifiable, for me, it is the most likely truth that is possible, and that is truth enough that I can put a reasonable faith in it; then there’s the reported miracles; the historical records of Jesus, and a resurrection that could not have happened unless the Romans did something with the body; plus the apostles including five hundred other eye witness’s saw, not a Ghost, but a physical being that they could touch, and it was Jesus.

You’re a lot like Thomas; he didn’t believe until he had his figures on the pierced palms of Jesus’ hands. It’s a shame you have such high standards that you won’t consider faith; advocating empirical science alone, might save you from possible error and embarrassment, but it keeps away from the loving embrace of God.
 
Mirdath said:
‘It is impossible to logically prove either the existence or nonexistence of God’ is an actual logical negative. It cannot be proven true, only proven false – but until somebody does, it makes sense. Trying to prove it true is like dividing by zero in a well-formed equation: can’t happen, or at least all that work is down the drain.
Click to expand...
I can readily construct a valid argument proving your statement true (that doesn’t mean it would be a sound argument however)

I don’t think many people understood the point the thread starter made. If you prove that you can’t prove a negative, you’ve just proved a negative, contradicting the conclusion of your proof. Therefore, you cannot prove that you can’t prove a negative.

But that doesn’t mean that you can prove a negative. It only means that if you can’t prove a negative, no one can prove that’s so. There’s a distinction between “truth” and “proof”
 
freesoulhope said:
Intresting:hmmm: like to hear what that is?
Click to expand...
Well, something could be true but at the same time it could be that one couldn’t prove it was true. If something can be legitmately proved true, then it is of course also true. But if something is true, that doesn’t necessarily mean it can be proved true.
 
freesoulhope said:
Intresting:hmmm: like to hear what that is?
Click to expand...
This is simply Godel’s incompleteness theorem in Math. You cannot construct a formal consistent language where every true statement can be proved true using the language. There will always be true statements that cannot be proved, OR the language is inconsistent (you can prove some false statement is true).

He proved that is true :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top