Is it possible to prove something does NOT exist?

[Bunyip]

Legion

Sure. The best way to prove your point is to prove that Jeff does not exist.


Have a go.....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion

Sure. The best way to prove your point is to prove that Jeff does not exist.

If Jeff exists, then I am right. If Jeff doesn't exist, I am still right. I'll try to simplify even more:

My friend Jeff can prove that something doesn't exist. So there!

And you can not prove otherwise.

Let's assume that the above is true. If it is true, then it follows that it is possible to prove something doesn't exist. Further, if I proved that you had no friend Jeff (or that you did but Jeff was wrong), this would have absolutely no impact on my argument. You've introduced something that is at best irrelevant and at worst (for you, anyway) proves you wrong. Whether or not Jeff exists and whether or not Jeff can or can't prove something doesn't exist has no logical relation to my argument. It is irrelevant.

To make things more concrete, imagine I said that that I can prove pi is an irrational number. You argue that your friend Jeff claims he can prove pi is an irrational number. Why on earth would it be of the slightest concern to me to prove something about whether or not you or Jeff are wrong or lying?

Have a go.....

You are asking me to prove something about your irrelevant claim that your friend shows that I'm right. Why? More importantly, given that I proved you wrong already and that hasn't changed, why not actually try to introduce logic to your argument? Actually, why not present an argument, as so far all you've done is say I'm wrong, introduce a (possibly imaginary) friend proving you are wrong, and ask me to prove something about your (possibly imaginary) friend.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The best way to prove your point is to prove that Jeff does not exist.

I don't get how you fail to follow my argument, but it does suddenly occur to me why you think the above has any logical relevance or does anything other than show you aren't grasping the logic here.

You are asking me to prove that a specific entity/person doesn't exist. Perhaps you think that the best way to support my argument would be to do so, given that I am arguing it is necessarily true that it is possible to prove certain things don't exist.

This is a fundamental reasoning error & and is an illogical inference. Again, I'm assuming you aren't familiar with formal logic and thus the quantifiers ∀ and ∃. So I'll try to show how your confusion here is leading to such incredibly illogical claims.


The OP's question is a "for all/every" question, in that it asks whether X is true for every/for all cases Y. To prove this wrong, it is necessary only to show that there exists a single case Y for which X is not true.

More concretely, imagine I assert that all people speak English. To show this is true, one must show that for any/every person X, that person X speaks English. To show that it is false, I need only show that there exists ONE person who doesn't speak English.

Likewise, in order to prove that it is false to claim "it is impossible to prove the 'universal absence' for any entity X", I need only find a single instance in which it is possible. I do not need to prove any particular entity doesn't exist, because to falsify the claim requires only that I prove there exists at least one entity for which this claim is false.

 

[Muffled]

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?

I believe so. Say a person is not wearing shoes. Since shoes are visible that fact that the person has bare feet proves that he is not wearing shoes.

I am a Christian and convinced that God does exist and have personal proof of it.

I believe the atheist has a problem proving God doesn't exist because God can't be seen. And then there is so much evidence that He does exist which has to be discounted in some way.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe there is a flaw in that logic. The undetectability of God is not the same as the undetectability of God so they do not have the same status.

Also I believe there is no evidence that a pink unicorn exists but there is plenty of evidence that God exists.

I believe the difference is that God can decide to sommunicate and the pink unicorn can't.

 

[Willamena]

I believe the difference is that God can decide to [c]ommunicate and the pink unicorn can't.

How do you know? What I mean is, how is it that you can say anything about the invisible pink unicorn at all?

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe this is like saying that one has read a dissertation by Joe Shmoe that God doesn't exist so that means He must not exist. That is fallacious because Joe Shmoe does not have any credibiloity.

I believe there is no evidence for evolution.

I believe the Pink Floooooyd tribute band did a good job of manufacturing the sound of Pink Floyd but they are not Pink Floyd. The fact that they are not Pink Floyd does not mean that Pink Floyd does not exist.

I believe the claim is well substantiated.

 

[Muffled]

How do you know? What I mean is, how is it that you can say anything about the invisible pink unicorn at all?

I believe I am trusting in you personal integrity when you say that the Pink Unicorn is a fictional character.

 

[Willamena]

I believe I am trusting in you personal integrity when you say that the Pink Unicorn is a fictional character.

So you added your own fiction to it, and to God.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Legion

Sure. The best way to prove your point is to prove that Jeff does not exist.


Have a go.....

To maybe simplify what legion is saying...

If you make an absolute claim that requires itself to be the exception then the claim is not absolute.
"There are absolutely no absolutes!" Is a self contradicting statement.

If you say we cannot prove something doesn't exist then we have already proven that "something that can prove something doesn't exist" doesn't exist.

Its the same sense of what I was saying earlier that we can't have square circles. Because the two conflict in essential traits to qualify as one or the other.

However none of this is truly meaningful for the intended topic of the debate which would be trying to find a way to disprove god.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't get how you fail to follow my argument, but it does suddenly occur to me why you think the above has any logical relevance or does anything other than show you aren't grasping the logic here.

You are asking me to prove that a specific entity/person doesn't exist. Perhaps you think that the best way to support my argument would be to do so, given that I am arguing it is necessarily true that it is possible to prove certain things don't exist.

Correct. And of course you will be unable to do so.Hence the challenge - it wll prove you wrong.

This is a fundamental reasoning error & and is an illogical inference. Again, I'm assuming you aren't familiar with formal logic and thus the quantifiers ∀ and ∃. So I'll try to show how your confusion here is leading to such incredibly illogical claims.


The OP's question is a "for all/every" question, in that it asks whether X is true for every/for all cases Y. To prove this wrong, it is necessary only to show that there exists a single case Y for which X is not true.
More concretely, imagine I assert that all people speak English. To show this is true, one must show that for any/every person X, that person X speaks English. To show that it is false, I need only show that there exists ONE person who doesn't speak English.

Likewise, in order to prove that it is false to claim "it is impossible to prove the 'universal absence' for any entity X", I need only find a single instance in which it is possible. I do not need to prove any particular entity doesn't exist, because to falsify the claim requires only that I prove there exists at least one entity for which this claim is false.

Which you can not do anyway.


And now please prove that Jeff does not exist.

 

[Willamena]

Correct. And of course you will be unable to do so.Hence the challenge - it wll prove you wrong. Which you have not done, you have merely postulated the existence of a person.

Particulars are only example.

 

[Bunyip]

To maybe simplify what legion is saying...

If you make an absolute claim that requires itself to be the exception then the claim is not absolute.
"There are absolutely no absolutes!" Is a self contradicting statement.

If you say we cannot prove something doesn't exist then we have already proven that "something that can prove something doesn't exist" doesn't exist.

Its the same sense of what I was saying earlier that we can't have square circles. Because the two conflict in essential traits to qualify as one or the other.

However none of this is truly meaningful for the intended topic of the debate which would be trying to find a way to disprove god.

I understand what Legion is arguing,it is just fallacious. No mate, if we say that you can not prove that a specific entity (that being the argument, not just an abstract 'something' - an entity, a being) does not exist, then no - you have not proven that something that can prove something doesn't exist doesn't exist.

It is the usual verbose erm 'argument' from Legion that essentially falls apart on examination.

I understand the 'square circles' argument, it is a common deflection - but I am not talking about proving the absence of an abstract mathematical concept, I am talking about proving the universal non existence of an entity. (Which is impossible)

 

[Bunyip]

Particulars are only example.

Can you elaborate? I haveno idea what you are trying to say.

 

[Bunyip]

Monk of Reason

The point is simply that one can prove the non-existence of abstract conceptual ideas like a square circle, but not an entity of uncertain characteristics (like god).

I thought it worth bringing up because apologists like WL Craig tend to use the 'square circle' rebuttal to demonstrate that non-existence can be proven, but
of course it is not sustainable as an entity (god) and a concept (square circles) are very different things.

It boils down to a semantic argument about whether 'something' is referring to a concept or an entity, and then tends to devolve into equivocating from one to the other. Sure you can prove that square circles can not exist, but you can not prove that an entity, a being does not exist.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Correct. And of course you will be unable to do so.

I have already done so. You want me to do something like prove that Santa Clause, unicorns, or Jeff don't exist, because for some reason your grasp of logic is so poor you fail to realize that if a statement is assumed to be true and (under that assumption) a contradiction follows, the assumption is necessarily false. I find it difficult to prove anything to someone who displays so little a grasp of basic logic, let alone anything remotely resembling a framework within which anything can be proved. I've tried to scale the logic down to your level, but have thus far apparently failed to simplify enough so that you can understand.

As I tire of arguing logic with an historian who majored in history but is a specialist in espionage and is incapable of relying on basic logic, here we go:

I understand what Legion is arguing,it is just fallacious.

Were that true, you could show the fallacy. This:

No mate, if we say that you can not prove that a specific entity (that being the argument, not just an abstract 'something' - an entity, a being) does not exist, then no - you have not proven that something that can prove something doesn't exist doesn't exist.

Is nonsense. But unlike you (and using logic rather than avoiding it like the plague as you do), I can show how it is fallacious. I am doing far more than proving that an entity doesn’t exist. That’s comparatively trivial. I am demonstrating that were that the case (i.e., were it true), then we find a contradiction. To relate this to the “round circles” argument, what I am doing is assuming (for the sake of argument) that there are round circles, and showing that this leads to a contradiction and thus is false.
However, as your grasp of logic is virtually non-existence, I’ll try to stimulate some semblance of rational thought in your argument(s). Prove something exists.
When (or if) you finally figure out that you can’t do that, and realize that proof is fundamentally a matter for formal logic & mathematics (ignoring the fact that the two aren’t distinct), then perhaps you’ll realize that the question is utterly meaningless and the discussion pointless.

And now please prove that Jeff does not exist.

Sure. Define "proof", "entity", "exist", and then relate this to your question and I'll happily answer. Of course, as you haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about, I won't hold my breath.

I might try to demonstrate how utterly you are incapable of addressing this question simply by addressing how a proposition (or anything) can be proved. As you have shown you aren't familiar with any formal system, logic, argumentation, or basic reasoning, I know you can't do this. But as you insist on asserting a claim that refutes itself, you might at least try to grapple with the depths of your incapacity to actually understand the relevant questions here.

 

[Tiapan]

I can prove a rabbit does not exist in this box. All hypothetical subatomic particles were not proven to exist until recently. however many things may potentially exist in the vastness of the universe but it is unlikely that exotic species eg heavens and gods will exist as all the rules of physics are as applicable on alpha centauri as here on earth. The universe is full of surprizes but all without exeption are logical and in hind site expected. So is it possible to prove something does not exist? Yes if it is of the physical universe and no if it is the figment of someones imagination.

Cheers

 

[paarsurrey]

I can prove a rabbit does not exist in this box. All hypothetical subatomic particles were not proven to exist until recently. however many things may potentially exist in the vastness of the universe but it is unlikely that exotic species eg heavens and gods will exist as all the rules of physics are as applicable on alpha centauri as here on earth. The universe is full of surprizes but all without exeption are logical and in hind site expected. So is it possible to prove something does not exist? Yes if it is of the physical universe and no if it is the figment of someones imagination.

Cheers

I agree with what I have colored in magenta.

Regards

 

[Renji]

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 how you define 'god(s)'.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Monk of Reason

The point is simply that one can prove the non-existence of abstract conceptual ideas like a square circle, but not an entity of uncertain characteristics (like god).

I thought it worth bringing up because apologists like WL Craig tend to use the 'square circle' rebuttal to demonstrate that non-existence can be proven, but
of course it is not sustainable as an entity (god) and a concept (square circles) are very different things.

It boils down to a semantic argument about whether 'something' is referring to a concept or an entity, and then tends to devolve into equivocating from one to the other. Sure you can prove that square circles can not exist, but you can not prove that an entity, a being does not exist.

I haven't seen where legion claimed he could disprove god. We can disprove gods that have characteristics we know to be false or self conflicting. Beyond that no.