Is it possible to prove something does NOT exist?

[The Sum of Awe]

If not, why not?

If so, please show an example.

And if yes, and you are an atheist (this does not apply to agnostics of course) CAN you prove God does not exist? It matters not who has the burden of proof in this scenario. Ignoring that theists are responsible to prove God, and I agree, if you do have proof God doesn't exist, could you provide some?

 

[ChristineES]

No. Because everything does exist, even if it only exists in the mind of a person or people.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

No. Because everything does exist, even if it only exists in the mind of a person or people.

I agree!

But then it only changes the question to: Does God objectively exist outside of minds?

 

[ChristineES]

I agree!

But then it only changes the question to: Does God objectively exist outside of minds?

I can't truly answer the question. I have faith that God exists but I wouldn't be able to convince anyone of that who didn't really believe it.

So the answer could be: Possibly.

 

[columbus]

I agree!

But then it only changes the question to: Does God objectively exist outside of minds?

Things can be proven not to exist only when they are sufficiently well defined. God is not very well defined. Unless you do what I do and define God as the reason there is anything. That is not very helpful for anything else though, as it doesn't tell you anything important.

Tom

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If not, why not?

If so, please show an example.

And if yes, and you are an atheist (this does not apply to agnostics of course) CAN you prove God does not exist? It matters not who has the burden of proof in this scenario. Ignoring that theists are responsible to prove God, and I agree, if you do have proof God doesn't exist, could you provide some?

Yes it is possible to prove something exists. The ancient greeks figured that out more than two thousand years ago.

In metaphysics there is the Law of non-contradiction. Which means it cannot exist and not exist in the same respect. A good example is a square circle. No matter what kind of circle you have it will never be a square. That is because what defines it as one would contradict it being something else.

God however cannot be put into this logical sequence though.

 

[Willamena]

If not, why not?

If so, please show an example.

And if yes, and you are an atheist (this does not apply to agnostics of course) CAN you prove God does not exist? It matters not who has the burden of proof in this scenario. Ignoring that theists are responsible to prove God, and I agree, if you do have proof God doesn't exist, could you provide some?

It's possible to prove it in the sense that one is satisified of the truth of something.

God is said to be omnipresent but undetectable. So is the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Therefore God has the same status as a fictional character. Therefore one can be reasonably satisifed that God does not exist.

 

[outhouse]

CAN you prove God does not exist?

Easily.

By showing examples of how only man has defined the concepts based on plagiarizing previous mythology.


The concept factually evolved, and only man did the evolving.


No one doubts that man factually creates deities, and most people naturally discount thousands of these previously created concepts, less one, they have no evidence at all for.



We also have the fact if you make a claim of existence, you need to be able to substantiate that claim, and since that claim has never been substantiated, there is nothing there to prove does not exist.

Remember it is a mistake to claim "nothing" there is no such thing. When describing gods you are talking about something not nothing. Imagination is something. Mythology is something. And it is pretty easy to place god concepts in these classes.

 

[Nakosis]

I agree!

But then it only changes the question to: Does God objectively exist outside of minds?

Brains exist. A mind is what?

I look at the brain as the hardware, the mind as the software. Is the mind a non-physical object?

 

[Nakosis]

If not, why not?

If so, please show an example.

And if yes, and you are an atheist (this does not apply to agnostics of course) CAN you prove God does not exist? It matters not who has the burden of proof in this scenario. Ignoring that theists are responsible to prove God, and I agree, if you do have proof God doesn't exist, could you provide some?

Depends on definition. You can define God in a manner that exists or in a manner that does not exist.

So can you define God as something that doesn't exist? Sure.

Sorry example. Define God as an imaginary being created by primitive thinking. Ok, you defined God as imaginary.

The Sun was a God for a while. Not much comprehension about the sun there but you could definitely see and feel God everyday.

It's possible to define something into or out of existence. Then according to your definition, go about a logical argument as to whether it exists or not.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Things can be proven not to exist only when they are sufficiently well defined. God is not very well defined. Unless you do what I do and define God as the reason there is anything. That is not very helpful for anything else though, as it doesn't tell you anything important.

Tom

I think defining God as the most valuable existence/the most important thing or "the all being" tells you something important. It's hard to put words on it, but I think the best way to explain "God" is by: The scalp is to hair, the water is to fish, as god is to all existing. Therefore I think saying God is existence is rational.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Brains exist. A mind is what?

I look at the brain as the hardware, the mind as the software. Is the mind a non-physical object?

I agree to this too! I look at the two the same way! I think is safe to say they hold a physical existence as a process, but have an abstract existence of an emergent property so technically non-physical.

 

[Bunyip]

I think defining God as the most valuable existence/the most important thing or "the all being" tells you something important. It's hard to put words on it, but I think the best way to explain "God" is by: The scalp is to hair, the water is to fish, as god is to all existing. Therefore I think saying God is existence is rational.

Sure, but that is a pantheistic god you are describing - not a theistic god. If you define god as the universe as you have - then it is reduced to mere semantics. Why not just call the universe 'The Universe'? Calling it god is just changing names.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Sure, but that is a pantheistic god you are describing - not a theistic god. If you define god as the universe as you have - then it is reduced to mere semantics. Why not just call the universe 'The Universe'? Calling it god is just changing names.

Only the last statement is strictly pantheistic. I'm not relating to the background, but the "source". Not exactly the starter, or the reason behind it, but that which it is of (not 'in'). Pantheism, and my last statement, just simply find it rational to not differentiate the two. I'm unsure of those "natural pantheists", but I believe God is conscious.

Also I am not, nor are any other pantheists, trying to change the name of the universe as "god", God isn't a name, it is a title. The reason to call it both the Universe and God is the same reason I call John Doe, "Doctor".

 

[Bunyip]

Only the last statement is strictly pantheistic. I'm not relating to the background, but the "source". Not exactly the starter, or the reason behind it, but that which it is of (not 'in'). Pantheism, and my last statement, just simply find it rational to not differentiate the two. I'm unsure of those "natural pantheists", but I believe God is conscious.

Also I am not, nor are any other pantheists, trying to change the name of the universe as "god", God isn't a name, it is a title. The reason to call it both the Universe and God is the same reason I call John Doe, "Doctor".

Exactly, it is just a title when used that way and loses all meaning. If as you say 'God' is just a title, then sure you can prove that a title exists - but what wpuld be the point?

The problem is that just re-naming something known to exist 'god' does not really mean anything. The universe is not known to have any of the qualities, characteristics or attributes generally associated with the concept of god (certainly in any theistic sense) - like consciousness.

So by the same token I could call my egg sandwich god, and can prove that my egg sandwich exists - but given that my egg sandwich has none of the characteristics, attributes or qualities of a god it means nothing.

The only way that being able to prove or disprove god can have any purpose is if we are reffering to a specific ENTITY, not a title.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Is it possible to prove something does NOT exist?

For the record the best answers have already been given but I like mine: The answer to your question is "Yes, but only if something doesn't exist." That leads you right back to your original question however. If you don't know whether it doesn't exist then you don't know if you can prove it, however if it truly doesn't exist than logically you might be able to prove it. The good thing is that if something does exist, then logically you shouldn't be able to prove that it does not.

In Math they answer this question by counting the hiding places. If while looking for (apples) you count all of the places in a set and none of the places have an apple, then there are no apples in the set. Its like playing hide & seek; but the problem is that to prove something isn't there you must first exhaust all possible hiding places.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Exactly, it is just a title when used that way and loses all meaning. If as you say 'God' is just a title, then sure you can prove that a title exists - but what wpuld be the point?

Because not everyone believes something exists that fits the title. Even though the title is ill defined. Once it is defined, though... once someone has a reason to title something "God", the title is useful. As far as I can tell, "God" has no common definition, and probably no shared properties either among theists.

The problem is that just re-naming something known to exist 'god' does not really mean anything. The universe is not known to have any of the qualities, characteristics or attributes generally associated with the concept of god (certainly in any theistic sense) - like consciousness.

The universe is not known to have consciousness, but it comes off that way at least to me.

So by the same token I could call my egg sandwich god, and can prove that my egg sandwich exists - but given that my egg sandwich has none of the characteristics, attributes or qualities of a god it means nothing.

The difference is, though, that the title is placed correctly needn't a reason. If someone experience X and feel that it is something they'd consider God, then it is a fitting definition. It is apparent you do not think your egg sandwich is godly, and so it is irrational.

The only way that being able to prove or disprove god can have any purpose is if we are reffering to a specific ENTITY, not a title.

Polytheism is exceptional in this case, it's a very odd theological view. But for monotheists, pantheists, and such, the title God can only be applied to a single, unique entity. That if God is not unique, it no longer hods the highest value as a preserver of existence.

 

[Sapiens]

If not, why not?

If so, please show an example.

And if yes, and you are an atheist (this does not apply to agnostics of course) CAN you prove God does not exist? It matters not who has the burden of proof in this scenario. Ignoring that theists are responsible to prove God, and I agree, if you do have proof God doesn't exist, could you provide some?

One can never prove that something does not exist. It's like infinity, there are an infinite number of rooks that you might turn over to see if god was hiding there, and there is always at least one more that you've not looked under and you can never be sure that god hasn't sneaked around behind you and secreted himself under a rock that you'd already checked.

I can not prove that god does not exist, I can just demonstrate that the stories that are told of god are BS and that it is rather unlikely that he/she/it exists. That's why I give my self a 6.9 on Dawkins' seven point score system.

 

[Ouroboros]

If not, why not?

If so, please show an example.

And if yes, and you are an atheist (this does not apply to agnostics of course) CAN you prove God does not exist? It matters not who has the burden of proof in this scenario. Ignoring that theists are responsible to prove God, and I agree, if you do have proof God doesn't exist, could you provide some?

Hmm...

A hole in a paper is "no paper". (Kind'a representing a "nothing".)

The paper exists. The non-existence of paper can be seen, even though it's basically is nothing there.

Just thinking loud...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

One can never prove that something does not exist.

Depends upon what one means by "exists". I can prove that pi is transcendental and that there exists no rational number x such that 2^(1/2)=x (there is no rational number that is the square root of 2). It can be argued that these numbers do not exist, but we run immediately into the problem that the Greeks did. I measure two sides of a right triangle and find both equal to length one. The unit (inch, meter, furlong, etc., is irrelevant as the ratio for side a & b remains a/b = 1). The actual length of the hypotenuse cannot be a rational number of unit lengths.

Then, of course, there is Descartes' proof that even in some Matrix world or a dream or a reality created by a wizard it remains true that "I" exist, because to assert that "I" don't exists requires that "I" to assert it, thus resulting in a reductio ad absurdum.

It's like infinity

Which one?