-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is it possible to prove something does NOT exist?
- Thread starter The Sum of Awe
- Start date
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
So the agnostic can therefore, and must prove that God exists and God does not exist?
According to Par, the agnostic has to prove both sides. Quote: "Then they are double responsible to give proof of both sides."
Which is ludicrous. How can you prove both that God is and isn't, and why is that a necessity for having a "not-knowing" position? (A-gnostic)
outhouse
Atheistically
Well said. "It" exist in imagination, and has to be placed forward as evidence to be evaluated as existing beyond that.
And that is my point.
I can show how only man defined these concepts at will for nothing more then want and desire.
By showing the origins of an idea, we can show conception of the idea.
outhouse
Atheistically
I would call said person, closed minded or ignorant to the evidence at hand. :angel2:
I have no idea of what you mean.
"Informed" is not an accurate word to use in this context. Just because one is informed it does not have to follow that one has to consider or care about the matter of existence of deities. Perhaps "motivated" would fit better.
I'm not sure it is a good idea to seek good reason for such a purpose, though. It makes the matter of belief look a whole order of magnitude more important than it is.
Actually, considering the classification as atheists, agnostics and theists, it seems very clear to me that the only group among the three that has any significant need of caring about their responsibility of belief is in fact the theists.
After all, agnostics basically take no stance, and atheists simply live their lives without implying or demanding anything.
I realize you will disagree, but I wish you stated more clearly why.
For the time being I will have to guess that you are simply set on a belief that people owe God belief in his existence, and that is simply not something I will agree with. Perhaps more to the point, it is not a belief that can sustain itself on its own, either.
One of the most intelligent & profound statements I've ever come across.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
She does that a lot.
She constantly say smart things on this site.And I agree with her. Agnostics (all of them, most, many, few, I don't know?) would have good reasons to why they're agnostics, the same goes for atheists, theists, etc. Many have good reasons. Some have very good reasons. Many, maybe most, might not have any reasons at all.
It wasn't that profound! Maybe a little profound. :bow:
The informed agnostic, who has good reason for the claim that they do not know, has already taken a side, one that needs no proof of "god" either way.
Paarsurrey was not talking about the informed agnostic. The person who simply "cannot decide" left or right is left with some direction to turn, whether they want it or not. Reality informs that.
Per Paarsurrey's claim, it's not a matter of proving both sides. One or the other will do. But the responsibility to prove either side is still there.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
How can a person bear a burden of proof to show that they do not know?
How could one prove that they do not know?
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
However, that which is pink is visible, therefore an invisible pink elephant is an oxymoron. It can't exist. like a square circle, you are attempting to defy the law of non-contradiction.
Pink - any of a group of colors bluish red to red in hue, of medium to high lightness, and of low to moderate saturation.
Pink - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
color - a phenomenon of light (as red, brown, pink, or gray) or visual perception that enables one to differentiate otherwise identical objects.
Hmmm, it says a phenomenon of visual perception. Should we define that?
You see, it is impossible for an invisible pink unicorn to exist.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Your reasoning is sound. If indeed you get to choose how something is defined, you can define it as something that either exists, or define it into non-existence. However, things that are, simply are, and require no definition whatsoever. Definitions never add clarity to a thing. They only serve to diminish it. But that which is, is what it is, no matter how you define it.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I'm not sure I understand.
Let me break down what you're trying to tell me:
The informed agnostic has taken a side. The side he/she has taken is that there's no need to have proof of "god" either way.
Am I understanding you correctly there?
That would account for most people. We're not fully 100% informed of all things there is to know, so whatever side we take will be based on the limited view and knowledge we have.
But again, to repeat what you're saying in my own words:
There are two kinds of agnostics. The fully informed who is agnostic based on sound and solid reasoning. The uninformed agnostic who is just wobbly and can't make up their mind.
Am I close?
It sounded to me that he was demanding that atheist/agnostic had to prove that God doesn't exist. Why would an agnostic informed or otherwise first of all be required to prove anything, besides proving that God doesn't exist if they most likely are basing their belief in the unknown on the lack of proof to either side?
Put it this way. The uninformed agnostic wouldn't know either way, so his/her reason to be agnostic would be lack of information or reasoning. That's the proof of their agnosticism. It's not a proof of God or not-God, true, but my impression of Paar's comment was to prove God's non-existence. (Maybe I misunderstood him?) The informed agnostic would have sound reasons to believe there is no evidence for or against God, so to ask him/her to give the reasons against God would go against what they hold to believe, wouldn't it?
Another way, I don't know if there's water on Pluto. I'm agnostic about it. So do I have to prove to you that Pluto does *not* have water to support my lack of knowledge if there is water or not?
Is there a gnome in my garden? Do you know? If you don't know, would it be fair to demand that you prove that there isn't a gnome in my garden to support your lack of knowledge?
Bearing the burden does not obligate someone. The burden is there despite them.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
And that's the truth with the burden of proof. Well said.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Is it possible to prove something does NOT exist?
Every one of us does it on daily basis.
For instance:
Is there electric current in a wire?
Can't one check it?
Is there somebody in the room with the door closed?
Just call the person or knock at the door or open the door and see inside.
Regards
Every one of us does it on daily basis.
For instance:
Is there electric current in a wire?
Can't one check it?
Is there somebody in the room with the door closed?
Just call the person or knock at the door or open the door and see inside.
Regards