jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (98 posts)

Does the science prove negatives?

  1. profile image70
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    I am very thankful to our friend ediggity to write the following post in a thread elsewhere here. The point he has mentioned needs to be discussed in detail, so I start the thread.

    ediggity  wrote:

    “Yes, my religion has faith.  That is a main focus of my religion. I deal with reality every day; I'm also concerned with the afterlife.

    I wouldn't expect you to comprehend much of anything else I wrote, especially after stating something as absurd as not being able to prove a negative.  They prove negatives all the time in the science you so blindly put your faith in. “

    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/62734

    1. Beelzedad profile image58
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting to note that the afterlife actually has nothing to do with reality. I would welcome though, ediggity's offer of showing us this so-called reality.



      While believers fail at logic and rationale every step of the way, we can offer believers their own brand of logic to refute their gods existence based on eddigity's rationale.

      We have tested for his god, but all tests have come up negative. Hence, his god does not exist. The negative has been proven.

      Q.uod E.rat D.emonstrandum. smile

      1. ediggity profile image61
        ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Wow, great science without a test.lol

        You only further prove my point. Sad, but thank you anyway.sad

        1. Beelzedad profile image58
          Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It would appear ediggity is not interested in hearing anything other than his own voice. As usual. smile

          1. ediggity profile image61
            ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Nope, not interested in philosophy at all.  Only science and religion. Neither of which you make valid points in.smile

            1. Beelzedad profile image58
              Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, I understand you're not interested in that which threatens your beliefs. And, you will dismiss everything that does our of hand, right on time and right on queue.

              Considering that I have refuted the existence of your god using YOUR own brand of logic must be infuriating so much that those are the only responses you've been able to muster...

              ... right on time and right on queue. smile

              1. ediggity profile image61
                ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Please refer to the title of the thread. "Does science prove negatives?" not "Does philosophy prove negatives, or that something doesn't exist"

                I have no "brand of logic" I used actual scientific examples, to prove that negatives can be proven.

                You substituted YOUR philosophy, with no actual scientific test. Nothing to surprising.smile

                Stick with philosophy.

                1. Beelzedad profile image58
                  Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I do understand that you're unable to think beyond the scope of your belief system and are pretending there is some other reality that holds your beliefs where up is down and black is white. Failure on your part to demonstrate this reality has in no way precluded your failure to respond with an argument in kind. smile

                  1. ediggity profile image61
                    ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm sorry, I don't understand your philosophy.sad

  2. profile image70
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    Why science does not prove negatives? Why it is incapacitated to prove negatives? Or it is just laxity or an excuse of the Atheists to put the burden of proof on to the Theists.

    1. simeonvisser profile image86
      simeonvisserposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The burden of proof for the claimed existence of anything has always been and always will be on those who claim it exists.

      1. Jerami profile image73
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Most respectfully I ask you to ponder....
        When was this law enacted?  And can we prove that such a rule is valid.
            Maybe the US constitution.
            It is true in criminal law that if the prosecution makes a negative claim against you then they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you should go to Jail.

           When making a negative claim this claim must be proven.
        But where else is this a rule that to make a positive claim about someone, this must be proven??

        1. simeonvisser profile image86
          simeonvisserposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          This is not a US thing, it's basic logic. The post I was replying to was in particular about religion and God. Now, the existence of God is not an obvious thing.. we know that various things exist like the universe but God's existence is a separate question. You can't walk around around claiming that you believe in God's existence and then ask anyone who disagrees to prove that God does not exist.

          Let's say I believe in some physical phenomenom X and you say you don't think it exists. Is it up to me to show that it does or up to you to show that it doesn't? Exactly, the burden of proof is on me because I'm claiming that something is going on while you do not.

          1. profile image70
            paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I think the same way one cannot walk around claiming that one is an Atheist meaning God does not exist.

            One should prove that God does not exist with reasons and arguments and should not shy off.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The Star Goat vomited the Universe 12,000 years ago. Please prove it did not.

              Go!

            2. simeonvisser profile image86
              simeonvisserposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              That's what I was trying to say. A non-religious person is not *adding* something to the world. We can easily agree that the universe exists because we're all in it. But a non-religious person is not making any claims beyond that. If you believe in God you're obviously adding something new into the equation. It's up to the person who claims that to prove or make it reasonable that such addition entity is needed. The non-religious person simply says: I'm not convinced by your arguments.

              You cannot believe in X and expect the burden of proof to be on those who do not believe in X, in particular when X is not obvious.

            3. getitrite profile image79
              getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



              It has been shown with REASON & ARGUMENT that the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent, ubiquitous being is absurd. 

              It is also nonsensical to believe in the exsitence of something that, to this point, is only in the imagination of indoctrinated delusional followers.

              Although there is no proof of the non-existence of your God, the concept itself is absurd, thereby giving Mark's Stargoat theory just as much relevance.

      2. arb profile image78
        arbposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The burden of proof does not exist for the person claiming the existence! It exist in the demand for proof, only, if I choose to care whether you accept the claim. If I am content in what I know and have little care whether you accept it then burden does not exist. Conversely, if you are trying to extract my proof as a benefit to your skepticism and I do not give it to you, then you suffer the burden of lost benefit.

        1. getitrite profile image79
          getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          In other words, we can spew any nonsense that enters our minds, and...and...that's it.

          1. arb profile image78
            arbposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            you seem to prove your own assertion!

            1. getitrite profile image79
              getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Correct!

        2. Beelzedad profile image58
          Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Quite true, we are free to bring into existence any and all musings from the imagination that we want and are free to believe in the existence of these imaginative beings with little care of anyone else who might question them.

          For example, I could quite easily claim that it was I who slew the Jabberwock, unfortunately, we ate it afterward so there is no evidence for its existence. smile

  3. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    Science cannot prove negatives only fail to support positives.  Thus the saying: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  You can't look everywhere, so it is always possible proof of the positive exists but was missed.

    1. Jerami profile image73
      Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      A negative can be proven.
        A square peg does  NOT  fill a round hole.

        A size thirteen foot does NOT  fit within a size eight foot print.

         Negatives are proven all of the time.

      1. profile image70
        paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you; good and simple examples, the natural ones.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          What nonsense. These are positives. lol

          The Star Goat  vomited the Universe 12,000 years ago.

          Prove it did not.

          Go!

      2. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        A negative in science is not an assertion in the negative, it is an absence, non-extistance, nothng happened-the null hypothesis.  And the null hypothesis is never proven, it is the default state for failing to prove the alternatuve hypothesis.

        It strikes me that some people on this forum have very strong opinions about things they don't spend a lot of time doing, or do not in fact have any direct experience of at all.  Which is not very scientific.

        1. ediggity profile image61
          ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          This is NOT an assertion in the negative.

          Work done by a force is negative if the applied force has a component in a direction opposite to the displacement.
          90o < θ <= 180o as Cos θ is negative

          Sorry, I forgot:

          W=F(s)(Cosθ)

          This is WORK, this actually did happen.

          This is very "scientific"

          1. Paraglider profile image88
            Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yes of course a deterministic equation can yield a negative solution. So what? We've already explained that that was never in doubt except by the mathematically illiterate, some of whom confuse 'negative' with 'non-existent'. I think you need to raise your game!

            1. ediggity profile image61
              ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You are completely missing the point and origination of everything I wrote.  It is you who needs to, "raise your game!"  Please see the post above.

              Science does prove negatives.

              1. Beelzedad profile image58
                Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                And, using your brand of faith based logic, science has proven the non existence of your god. smile

                1. ediggity profile image61
                  ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry, science uses facts, Religion uses faith.  Again, I am sorry you don't understand how science works.sad

                  1. Beelzedad profile image58
                    Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, continue to dismiss out of hand that which you're unable to respond with intelligence. smile

              2. Paraglider profile image88
                Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You're right. I hadn't realised you were arguing in pursuit of such a small trivial point. Bu OK, if tautology floats your boat, bask in it, with my blessing wink

                1. ediggity profile image61
                  ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No prob, we all make mistakes.wink

              3. MrNick profile image60
                MrNickposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Science CAN, in the right circumstances, prove negatives.

                What is the correlation to proving God though? Or not proving?

                For us to prove a negative we need a number of things - including definitive facts, quantifiable forces and effects etc.  Now to my knowledge not only do we not know that about the Christian (or any other) God we are not allowed to ask because of the religious teachings of faith vs the seeking of proof.

                Certainly no one I have ever spoken to is able to give anything quantifiable that science could use to disprove (or prove) God's existence. 

                Now I am no expert in this (my expertise is more to do with historical religions), but I am not sure how someone who is using the argument 'science can prove negatives but can't prove there is no God so he must be here', or any similar argument, has a leg to stand on if they don't provide quantifiable evidence of their faith.

                Faith, it seems, is a spiritual thing that can not be proven etc.

                Personally I have no major issue with religion aside from it's ability to keep moving the goal posts, which I find frustrating.

                1. profile image70
                  paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  1.    Reason being that it is not in the domain of science.
                  2.    The Creator-God Allah YHWH is attributive and all His  attributes are in absolutes and hence not quantifiable.

                  1. MrNick profile image60
                    MrNickposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    EXACTLY my point.  You can not complain that science hasn't proved a negative when religion then argues that you can not quantify the god's influence.

                    Whichever side of the debate you stand on it seems odd to have a go at science for not proving something when you disallow the possibility of it ever doing so by refusing to accept quantifiable data as being part of the 'God equation'

    2. profile image70
      paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I could not understand the last part of your sentence. Do you mean science fails to support positives? In what manner? Please explain with some example.

  4. Paraglider profile image88
    Paragliderposted 6 years ago

    Folks, this whole thread is based on a common misstatement of a logical fact. The fact is: It is impossible to prove non-existence of something. (Reason: because to do so, you'd have to check in every location, for all of time).

    Lazy usage has reduced this to the meaningless proposition, "you can't prove a negative"

    More interesting is to realise that science proceeds by disproof of testable theories, not by proof. But note that word 'testable'. It means 'falsifiable'. Unless a theory is put forward in testable form, it doesn't rank as science, (even if is true).

    1. ediggity profile image61
      ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Work done by a force is negative if the applied force has a component in a direction opposite to the displacement.
      90o < θ <= 180o as Cos θ is negative

      Negative work done, proven

      -(3^0)= -1 proven

      Take a test for HIV, and hopefully it will come back negative, proven.


      All negatives, proven.


      Folks, this is what happens when people confuse philosophy with science, excluding the creation of a hypothesis.


      Q.uod E.rat D.emonstrandum

      1. profile image70
        paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        So negative are proven in science; the Atheists don't want to prove that the Creator-God does not exist.

        I think the reason given: "because to do so, you'd have to check in every location, for all of time" does not seem to be correct.

        They have all the time to do that. Why don't they do it?

        1. ediggity profile image61
          ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Correct, but maybe not that they don't want to, they can't.  Additionally some don't care to at all, so it is a moot point.

        2. getitrite profile image79
          getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



          I don't understand why you find this to be incorrect.  Is it only because you really have no proof of your belief in your non-existent God?

          It is a fact that we can't prove the non-existence of something.  It is impossible.  Expalin why this would be incorrect.

        3. Paraglider profile image88
          Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That's silly. With the best will in the world, I can't start a billion years ago or a billion miles away. How many people do you think you'd need to look under every stone in Africa? Now make that every star in the universe, and think again. You can't examine every place for all time.

      2. Mark Knowles profile image59
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Dear me.

        The Star Goat vomited the Universe 12,000 years ago.

        Please prove this not to be true.

        Go!

        This is the problem when people confuse baseless philosophical claims with reality. lol

        As Paraglider pointed out - "It is impossible to prove non-existence of something."

        1. ediggity profile image61
          ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          And this post is the result of blind faith in science confused with religion.lol

          1. Mark Knowles profile image59
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            So - you cannot prove the Star Goat does not exist? Why not? Science proves negatives all the time. wink

            1. ediggity profile image61
              ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I cannot prove it, because I have faith in God, not science in God.  You've just proven my point.

              You just don't get it, do you Mark?lol



              http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JzzJo8V05eQ/TFHk-wUQxYI/AAAAAAAAASg/9Q9_37U5mfs/s400/Evil+Eye+-+Dr+Evil.jpg

      3. Paraglider profile image88
        Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, all that is fine, but the point is the the phrase itself 'you can't prove a negative' is bandied about like some kind of holy grail, whereas in fact it is so loose and sloppy as to be meaningless, except in specific cases.

        1. ediggity profile image61
          ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The original phrase was,

          Cagsil wrote:

          "You are the one who has to give proof, because there is no way to prove a negative, which is what you've asked me to do.

          Since, a negative cannot be proven, then it falls upon you to prove positive proof to your claim."

          To which I wrote:

          "I wouldn't expect you to comprehend much of anything else I wrote, especially after stating something as absurd as not being able to prove a negative.  They prove negatives all the time in the science you so blindly put your faith in."


          Which has been done.  So, I agree the phrase "you can't prove a negative" is "loose" and "sloppy", but I don't think it's meaningless.

  5. Mikeydoes profile image75
    Mikeydoesposted 6 years ago

    Science has only proven that we know nothing.

  6. getitrite profile image79
    getitriteposted 6 years ago

    The only reality is Goddunnit!

    God said it
    I believe it
    That settles it.

    la la la la la la la la la la la la!!!

    1. ediggity profile image61
      ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Look everyone.  It's the philosophy tag team.  Took you a little while to get in the ring.smile

      1. getitrite profile image79
        getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



        Already on the defensive I see...before I can even say hello.
        No need for anger, I'm only here to extract the truth.

        Sorry if that puts you on the defensive.

        1. ediggity profile image61
          ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Lol, not defensive, you're just predictable that's all.smile

          1. getitrite profile image79
            getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



            I feel very sorry, ediggity, that you feel such a strong compulsion to defend your fraudulent belief, that you stay constantly on the defensive in anticipation of reason entering the picture.

            1. ediggity profile image61
              ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I feel sorry that you put so much blind faith into science, and concentrate so much on philosophy.

              1. getitrite profile image79
                getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                However I think I recall your use of science to support the biblical version of reality.  You seem to have more faith in science than I do.

                1. ediggity profile image61
                  ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm sorry, I don't have faith in science.  I have appreciation for it.  I require empirical proof of science, where as you proceed with blind faith.

                  1. Beelzedad profile image58
                    Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    The funniest remarks from believers are the ones where they contradict everything they believe encapsulated in one simple statement. smile

                  2. getitrite profile image79
                    getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



                    Suffice it to say that I have not abandoned my intellect in lieu of improbable and outlandish rubbish.  It's how I survive.  If you see that as, merely, blindly following science, then I hope you have a superior alternative for my survival.

  7. profile image70
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    The topic is:

    Does the science prove negatives?

    1. Beelzedad profile image58
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes and no. And, the reason the answer is split is because the word "negative" is being used in varying degrees of context.

      Yes, science can show a null result. In other words, the effect predicted in the hypothesis did not occur. This could be considered a "negative" result, one that did not agree with the prediction as opposed to a positive result, one that agreed with the prediction.

      No, science cannot prove a negative in that science cannot claim that something doesn't exist. It simply isn't a claim that science can make due to the possibility and probability that such things can exist, however small and infinitesimal those odds can be.

      Perhaps, we haven't the ability or capacity to check out some parts of our own galaxy to see if unicorns and leprechauns do in fact exist somewhere on a distant planet we have yet to discover, happily frolicking or maybe at war with each other.

      No one really knows for sure, science included. smile

  8. profile image70
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    If the Atheists cannot prove the non-existence of the Creator-God; then the best option for them is to keep silent and just say nothing; but they roam about telling the Creator-God does not exist; if that is their claim; they must prove it.

    I say this for the Atheists; as far as the Science or the Scientists are concerned; it does not concern them as it is not their field.

    Since when, the Scientists and Atheists have become synonyms?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe you should keep quiet until you have some proof? Surely this would be the reasonable and rational thing to do?

    2. Beelzedad profile image58
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ah, I see you are an advocate for dictatorship and autocratic society based entirely on YOUR set of beliefs thus leaving the rest of us with no rights of our own. We are forced to forfeit the freedom to challenge the ideals in light of the sheer magnitude of failure they achieved in their delivery.

      We are but slaves to your commands, in essence.



      So sorry, but the funding required to prove your god doesn't exist was routed to finance the ongoing search for Santa Claus, his Reindeer and Elves, last reported missing from Islam. smile

    3. MrNick profile image60
      MrNickposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "If the Atheists cannot prove the non-existence of the Creator-God; then the best option for them is to keep silent and just say nothing; but they roam about telling the Creator-God does not exist; if that is their claim; they must prove it."

      Surely they are denying his existence, rather than claiming he doesnt exist?

      The claim of the presence of a Christian God has been central to the West's history for a huge amount of time, and before that other God's.  The claim that they do not exist is, until recently, a counter culture asking why we have to accept the 'recognised truth' without facts.

      The CLAIM is mostly being made by the religious, it is the scientists that ask for proof.

      (all just my understanding of it)

    4. getitrite profile image79
      getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So I will re-write your statement as follows and it should still be sound:

      If the Muslims/Christians cannot prove the non-existence of the Stargoat; then the best option for them is to keep silent and just say nothing; but they roam about telling the Stargoat does not exist; if that is their claim; they must prove it.

      I say this for the Muslims/Christians; as far as the Science or the Scientists are concerned; it does not concern them as it is not their field.

      Makes sense?  Right, teacher?!

  9. profile image70
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    The Topic:

    Does the science prove negatives?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It is logically impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Science cannot prove the non existence of something.

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This.  End of story.

        A negative is a "non" a "nothing happened" -- not something that happened with a negative valence.

  10. profile image70
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    I think Science is not designed to ascertain existence of the Creator-God.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yet still you have no reason or logic to disprove the Star Goat. Science only proves that which exists. Of course it cannot ascertain existence of your non-existent god. sad

      1. ediggity profile image61
        ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        0° K smile

      2. Nick Malizia profile image61
        Nick Maliziaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What's your beef with star-goats, man? XD

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          There is only One Star Goat.

          We all know intuitively that the Star Goat vomited the Universe 12,000 years ago. Only delusional fools deny this self-evident Truth. They do this because they have no morals or ethics and wish to idolize a false Man-god and get divorces. Sad. sad

  11. lostdogrwd profile image61
    lostdogrwdposted 6 years ago

    my thing with science is, is there any science with out money.  no money no science , and even if some true science do get though, the money dictate where a lot of science go to.

    1. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What is your point?  There are no churches without money, no children, no education.  It is an endeavour of man.

      Money is not evil, not even according to Jesus.  He said *the love* of money is the root of all evil.

  12. Nick Malizia profile image61
    Nick Maliziaposted 6 years ago

    As to the original question: scientists do some pretty messed up stuff to animals in research, but holistically I think science has been pretty useful. I'm sure anyone in here who would rather fart around online than read a book can agree with this sentiment. :-P

  13. profile image70
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    The posters here say; that science proves negatives; so the Atheists should prove that the Creator-God never existed.

 
working