Negatives could be proved

[painted wolf]

I don't really like to re-quote myself. But I'll do it for you:

For the wise to understand, few words are needed.

If you didn't understand my statement, well it is really your problem, I'm sure not everyone here will be unable to grasp what I tried to say. No offence!

PS: And BTW, I said "an organism that makes ALL GRASS go red". I wasn't trying to be picky, but still your correction makes no sense.

How do you know that the redness isn't caused by an organism... or that it won't spread to other grasses?

I'm just trying to keep you from making declarative statements that are demonstrably false (we all know that grass is green).

The black swan is not something you want biting you on the butt.

wa:do

 

[jasonwill2]

How do you know that the redness isn't caused by an organism... or that it won't spread to other grasses?

I'm just trying to keep you from making declarative statements that are demonstrably false (we all know that grass is green).

The black swan is not something you want biting you on the butt.

wa:do

There are no green stars.

But really, if you know of a star that is green (that isn't in false-color for showing certain gases), give me it's name and/or classification and number (New Galactic Catalog, Messier, ect) so I can confirm it. And again, it can't be green in false color, it has to be predominately green naturally.

 

[PolyHedral]

There are no green stars.

But really, if you know of a star that is green (that isn't in false-color for showing certain gases), give me it's name and/or classification and number (New Galactic Catalog, Messier, ect) so I can confirm it. And again, it can't be green in false color, it has to be predominately green naturally.

I'm sure I could find a predominately green star if I had all the data in front of me. However, it'd still be putting out enough extra radiation that it appears white.

 

[paarsurrey]

As many as for any other about-humans experiment.



You are right, but "for the wise to understand, few words are needed". When OP made his statement, he was implying that "well you can prove a possitive, but what about a negative?". It won't really help to say: "you actually can prove nothing, science doesn't work that way". His use of the word "prove" is just a way to save words. Or so I interpreted it!

My point is, the statement "humans don't have 80 million red cells", is true (to be picky, you can exchange the word "true" for "highly accurate due to the evidence we posses"), because we have a lot of evidence that support that statement, and no evidence against it. And as you see, it's a negative statement.

I agree with the OP that some people have kind of a "blind faith" that negatives can't be proven. I don't know where did they read this but it's quite extended, not only on this forums lol. Actually, I think the only thing science can not "prove", is simply what can not be tested.

It is a rhetoric of the atheists; they ask others to prove and give evidences but they themselves are evasive to prove what they believe in blind faith and they have hardly any evidences to put forward.

Negative could be proved; if they are atheists with reasons they should prove that the one true attributive creative God does no exist and give evidences for that; they have none to offer, in my opinion.

 

[jasonwill2]

I'm sure I could find a predominately green star if I had all the data in front of me. However, it'd still be putting out enough extra radiation that it appears white.

Well I meant that it appeared green, and as far as I know no thing exists, and I have never hard of it existing. Infact, I'm curious as to why there are no green stars.

 

[otokage007]

It is a rhetoric of the atheists; they ask others to prove and give evidences but they themselves are evasive to prove what they believe in blind faith and they have hardly any evidences to put forward.

Negative could be proved; if they are atheists with reasons they should prove that the one true attributive creative God does no exist and give evidences for that; they have none to offer, in my opinion.

I think you missinterpreted me. I also think negatives "can be proven", although as you can see, some people here gave u pretty smart answers why it is not really "correct" to say they can actually be "proven". But yes, in the most practical sense, negatives can of course be proven. However, I also stated that nonexistence is an exception to this. Nonexistence can't be proven as far as I know. I really can't find a way to prove the nonexistence of mythical figures like Gods, or titans, or Harry Potter. Can you?

 

[paarsurrey]

The one true attributive creator God is a reality, in my opinion, and is not mythical; so His non-existence must be proved with strong evidences.

My religion says:


[14:11] Their Messengers said, ‘Are you in doubt concerning Allah, Maker of the heavens and the earth? He calls you that He may forgive you your sins, and grant you respite till an appointed term.’ They said, ‘You are but men like ourselves; you desire to turn us away from that which our fathers used to worship. Bring us, then, a clear proof.’

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

 

[Gjallarhorn]

The one true attributive creator God is a reality, in my opinion, and is not mythical; so His non-existence must be proved with strong evidences.

My religion says:


[14:11] Their Messengers said, ‘Are you in doubt concerning Allah, Maker of the heavens and the earth? He calls you that He may forgive you your sins, and grant you respite till an appointed term.’ They said, ‘You are but men like ourselves; you desire to turn us away from that which our fathers used to worship. Bring us, then, a clear proof.’

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

...or you could just take the easier and more logical route of positive proof.

I mean, unless you want to scour the universe for the invisible intangible dragon that breathes heat-less fire which I am 100% certain exists.

 

[otokage007]

...or you could just take the easier and more logical route of positive proof.

I mean, unless you want to scour the universe for the invisible intangible dragon that breathes heat-less fire which i am 100% certain exists.

......
:d

 

[painted wolf]

There are no green stars.

But really, if you know of a star that is green (that isn't in false-color for showing certain gases), give me it's name and/or classification and number (New Galactic Catalog, Messier, ect) so I can confirm it. And again, it can't be green in false color, it has to be predominately green naturally.

I'm not an astronomer... but you are welcome to look at all the stars in the universe to prove that one isn't out there.

Zubeneschamali is said by many viewers to be green, though to others it seems white. I haven't looked myself, but it seems like a good place for you to start.

Though, technically stars aren't really a particular color (they all give off light in the full spectrum) they just have a temperature range that emits more in a particular part of the spectrum. The sun is no more "yellow" than it is ultraviolet, microwave or xray (though it's peak output in the spectrum is actually "blue-green").

The problem is that our eyes are pretty limited when it comes to detecting light spectra and we can't see the "blue-green" color of the sun because, like every star, it gives off all spectra of light at the same time.... thus our eyes blend it into "white".

So, there could potentially be "green" stars but we would never see them with our bare eyes because of the anatomy of our rather poorly designed eyes. In fact "green" is one of the hardest colors in nature to produce. Mostly it's a trick of layering blue and greenish yellow pigments to trick the eye into seeing actual green.

Why are there no green stars? | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

What is fun is the fact that for the same reasons, if we orbited a red giant in real life we would see it as white just like our sun, not red. Because again, it's giving off light in the full spectra and our eyes will combine that into white.

wa:do

 

[Tristesse]

It is a rhetoric of the atheists; they ask others to prove and give evidences but they themselves are evasive to prove what they believe in blind faith and they have hardly any evidences to put forward.

Negative could be proved; if they are atheists with reasons they should prove that the one true attributive creative God does no exist and give evidences for that; they have none to offer, in my opinion.

Shifting the burden of proof is always an attempt to avoid the burden. Sorry my friend, but it's not my job or anyone else's to proove your claim false, it's yours to provide evidence that it's true, or at least probable.

 

[PolyHedral]

...or you could just take the easier and more logical route of positive proof.

I mean, unless you want to scour the universe for the invisible intangible dragon that breathes heat-less fire which I am 100% certain exists.

You hardly need to scour the universe; I'm absolutely sure said dragon lives in my garage.

 

[paarsurrey]

Shifting the burden of proof is always an attempt to avoid the burden. Sorry my friend, but it's not my job or anyone else's to proove your claim false, it's yours to provide evidence that it's true, or at least probable.

I don't have, necessarily, to prove a being that exists and has lent us existence. Don't we exist?

 

[Tristesse]

I don't have, necessarily, to prove a being that exists and has lent us existence. Don't we exist?

The fact that we exist is evidence that we exist and not how our existence came to be. So, yes, if you are asserting that a god is responsible for our existence it is your burden to provide evidence for your claim.

 

[paarsurrey]

The fact that we exist is evidence that we exist and not how our existence came to be. So, yes, if you are asserting that a god is responsible for our existence it is your burden to provide evidence for your claim.

How would you prove that you exist? Please

 

[Thief]

So after all of this....

Could a demo be constructed ( and need it be constructed) to show
how an event cannot happen?

And is it then needful to carry on to show, how somethings simply are not?

I think it's the flip side of the same coin.

But somethings have no 'proving'.
(we are in the science AND religion section)

 

[Tristesse]

How would you prove that you exist? Please

My senses confirm my existence. Could my senses be wrong? Sure, however, I'm forced to operate within the paradigm of the reality I experience. And if someone is asserting something beyond the reality I experience, like a god, then that assertion needs to be demonstrated.

 

[otokage007]

How would you prove that you exist? Please

She can be observed, there's no need for an experiment to determine she exist. The experiment should be about if u are hallucinating or if she's out of your imagination. Well, I can confirm I see her too. Maybe you can gather some thousand testimonies to say "she is likely a real person".