Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Why not give a straight answer instead of the brush off please?
How can the position of not knowing bear a burden of proof?
-
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
Why not give a straight answer instead of the brush off please?
How can the position of not knowing bear a burden of proof?
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
That would suggest that the person was not in the room - not prove that the person does not exist.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I think what you can do is prove that something doesn't exist in the sense of someone else making a claim. That is, if someone claims that they have found Bigfoot, you can disprove them by examining the evidence...
In this way, I think that it's possible for atheists to prove that God doesn't exist inasmuch as Christians say that He does. It's not as if Christians are presenting nothing and saying that something exists -- traditionally, Christians have argued that there are testable, tangible things that prove that God exists.
So I think that by examining the veracity of Christian claims, atheists have a good reason to believe that God doesn't exist based on those claims.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
That is not how I see it. I think that by examining the veracity of Christian claims, atheists have good reason to believe that Christians have offered insufficient evidence to believe that God does exists.
Not knowing what happened before the Big Bang does not necessarily imply that there was nothing before the Big Bang. A lack of evidence for God is not necessarily evidence for the lack of a God. It could be, but not necessarily so.
The atheist may have good reason to doubt the existence of God, but insufficient cause to believe in the non-existence of God. I believe this is the only honest approach.
Honestly, the atheist doesn't know if God exists or not. They have no evidence to support either position. They have no evidence for the lack of God, and they have no evidence for the existence of God. Their answer should be, "I just don't know."
We can talk about what they hope is the case.
We can talk about what they think might be the case.
But they ought not assume to know what they in fact do not know.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Correct. It shows that the person is not in that room - not that they do not exist.
Last edited:
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
So you disagree?
I'm sorry, but I tend to be very specific, or at least I try to be.
There is a big difference between believing that God doesn't exist, and not believing that God does exist. Surely, you can see it?
If one believes that God doesn't exist, there is no room for the God that might exist. This one is already convinced, To move from this position to the other requires a reversal of belief.
However, if one doesn't believe that God does exist, he may also not believe that God doesn't exist. There is still some wriggle room to believe that God does exist. This one is not convinced. To move from this position to the other requires only a slight shift in belief, and not a complete reversal of belief.
The difference exists, but it is usually over-valued. "God" is such a vague and unevidenced concept that the difference between active disbelief and lack of belief is nearly immaterial.
That may well be true. If it is, that hints that belief in God lacks evidence to support it, and may be entirely wishful thinking.
But how meaningful is a reversal of belief in God supposed to be?
Not much, IMO. It is just not a big deal.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Well from my perspective, as one who believes every single word of the Bible, it is as meaningful as the difference between eternal life and eternal death.
Is that meaningful?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Using your definitions ... no it is not.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Okay. Fair enough. We're about all wrapped up here, you and I, right?
If it is not possible to prove something doesn't exist, then it cannot be that there exists any person who can prove something doesn't exist. Therefore, that person can't exist, and thus there is something we've proved doesn't exist.
Thus, under the assumption that it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist, there can't be something that can prove this, and that something necessarily can't exist. Ergo, it must be possible to prove something doesn't exist.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
The fact remains that the universal absence of an entity is not proveable. In your example, you would be unable to prove that the person in question does not exist.[tquote]
Thus, under the assumption that it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist, there can't be something that can prove this, and that something necessarily can't exist. Ergo, it must be possible to prove something doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]
The fact that this is trivially and obviously wrong via e.g., the Barber's Paradox allowed Russell to prove that Frege's symbolic logic was flawed as there exists an entity that was allowed in his system but which Russell proved cannot exist.
Wrong. The person in question is the person who can prove that it is impossible to prove something can't exist. If that person existed, then that person couldn't exist. If that person did exist, then that person has proven they don't exist, which is impossible. Alternatively, that person's proof is wrong, which again proves that there is no such person.
I'm going to assume that you aren't familiar with formal logic (if you are, we can reduce the following to symbols rather easily).
1: It is possible to prove that things don't exist. |P
Use the proof strategy reductio [ad absurdum] or "contradiction" and assume the contrary:
2: For any x whatsoever, it is not possible to prove that x doesn't exist. |A
3: There exists an entity y who can prove that there exists some x such that x doesn't exist |A
4: y cannot exist | by 2 & 3
Conclusion: it is possible to prove that there exists a "universal absence" of any "entity" capable of proving that it isn't possible to prove something doesn't exist.
In short, given that there exists some entity capable of showing it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist, that entity is a counter-example to the assertion that it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist, and that entity cannot exist.
Last edited:
Then it is possible to prove something doesn't exist.
I don't need to. If you are right, then the OP's question is resolved: it is possible to prove something doesn't exist and your friend Jeff can do so.
If Jeff can't do this, then my argument still holds as all you have done is assume the consequent of an assumption I made to the contrary. That is, I assumed that you were correct and it isn't possible to prove the "universal absence" of an "entity". I showed that under that assumption, necessarily there must be a "universal absence" of the "entity" capable of proving your claim.
Jeff is a counter-example to your argument, not mine. If this Jeff really did exist, it would simply provide more evidence for my argument and completely disprove yours (which I've already done).
I'll try to simplify:
I assumed that you were correct, and showed that under this assumption a contradiction follows proving you are wrong.
You assumed that you were wrong (Jeff is a counter-example to your argument), and under that assumption you are still wrong.
Which is irrelevant, because Jeff is utterly irrelevant to my argument. At best, Jeff is a counter-example proving you wrong. At worst, Jeff doesn't exist and my argument (which never involved Jeff) still holds.
If it were impossible to prove the "universal absence" of any "entity" y, then it must be true that there can be no entity capable of proving this "universal absence". However, for this to be true, then we have a "universal absence" of an "entity" (namely, that entity capable of proving the "universal absence" of any "entity").
Your argument leads to a contradiction, proving it wrong. If you were right, there would by an entity capable of proving that it is impossible to prove the "universal absence" of any "entity", only that entity couldn't then exist.
I don't know how many ways to rephrase this such that you grasp the contradiction entailed by your argument.