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.
“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. “
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.
Wow, great science without a test.
You only further prove my point. Sad, but thank you anyway.
It would appear ediggity is not interested in hearing anything other than his own voice. As usual.
Nope, not interested in philosophy at all. Only science and religion. Neither of which you make valid points in.
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.
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.
Stick with philosophy.
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.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your philosophy.
So, your philosophy is reality? Now that's a good joke.
Reality is just slightly beyond the pages of your bible. Try looking away from those pages a moment. Really try hard.
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.
The burden of proof for the claimed existence of anything has always been and always will be on those who claim it exists.
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??
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.
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.
The Star Goat vomited the Universe 12,000 years ago. Please prove it did not.
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.
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.
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.
In other words, we can spew any nonsense that enters our minds, and...and...that's it.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you; good and simple examples, the natural ones.
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.
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:
This is WORK, this actually did happen.
This is very "scientific"
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!
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.
And, using your brand of faith based logic, science has proven the non existence of your god.
Sorry, science uses facts, Religion uses faith. Again, I am sorry you don't understand how science works.
Yes, continue to dismiss out of hand that which you're unable to respond with intelligence.
Whatever you have to say to convince yourself you're right.
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
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. 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.
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'
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.
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).
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
The Star Goat vomited the Universe 12,000 years ago.
Please prove this not to be true.
This is the problem when people confuse baseless philosophical claims with reality.
As Paraglider pointed out - "It is impossible to prove non-existence of something."
And this post is the result of blind faith in science confused with religion.
So - you cannot prove the Star Goat does not exist? Why not? Science proves negatives all the time.
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.
The original phrase was,
"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.
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!!!
Look everyone. It's the philosophy tag team. Took you a little while to get in the ring.
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.
Lol, not defensive, you're just predictable that's all.
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.
I feel sorry that you put so much blind faith into science, and concentrate so much on philosophy.
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.
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.
The funniest remarks from believers are the ones where they contradict everything they believe encapsulated in one simple statement.
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.
I am glad to say I haven't either, but it's not about how to survive, it's about how to live form eternity. Your physical survival is finite no matter how much science you blindly follow.
Of course, you and I only know this life, so any speculation about eternity is based in nothing but a willful abdication of the mind, and consequent madness.
Yes, I know that, but it has nothing to do with blindly following science. However you have absolutely no knowledge of this eternity you speak of...no matter how much you wish it to be true. It is only the assertions of madmen from the past.
The science of psychology is very amusing.
Again, all of that is your philosophy, and contributes nothing to the original intent of the thread.
"Yes, I know that, but it has nothing to do with blindly following science."
Then what happens when you die?
I sincerely don't know. Honestly, I don't know.
I cannot give you any answer unless I answer purely from conjecture. So I won't tell you an answer based upon my, or someone else's imagination. I can't rely upon someone's imagination for the answer to life's deep questions.
Well, if "I don't know" is all you got, then have fun in this life. It's odd that you don't know what happens when you die, but you are positive what won't happen when I die.
I have only told you the absolute truth. I do not know what will happen to me, or you, when we die. Why are you so angry that you can't even accept the truth? Unbelievable.
Are you trying to make me tell a lie. I'm sorry, I'm being totally truthful with you, and there is NO evidence at all that you or anyone else has that will change that. A distorted imagination is no evidence at all.
It is also true that anyone who thinks that he knows what happens after we die is clearly delusional. I REFUSE to say that I know something that I do not know--that would be dishonest.
This is absurd! Why do you insist on pleading for the validity of abject nonsense?
No, I am literally saying,
"Well, if "I don't know" is all you got, then have fun in this life."
There is no hidden meaning behind my statement. That is what I literally mean. If you're ok with, "I don't know" then so be it, and have fun.
It seems you are the one who is angry and can't accept the truth.
Lastly, I am pleading for nothing, simply making an observation. You are certain about what will not happen to religious people when they die, but uncertain about what will happen to you when you die.
Take a chill pill man.
In this matter, the truth is that some people are honest enough to state that they don't know what happens after we die, while others choose to be delusional. I have accepted that.
But you, yourself, know that your beliefs of an afterlife, based upon Christianity, is completely absurd.
I don't know what happens, to me or YOU, after death, but I am betting an eternity in hell that your beliefs are completely false.
May God bless you.
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.
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?
Maybe you should keep quiet until you have some proof? Surely this would be the reasonable and rational thing to do?
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.
"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)
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?!
It is logically impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Science cannot prove the non existence of something.
I think Science is not designed to ascertain existence of the Creator-God.
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.
What's your beef with star-goats, man? XD
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.
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.
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
The posters here say; that science proves negatives; so the Atheists should prove that the Creator-God never existed.
by wordscribe417 years ago
The following post is in response to a statement made by another hubber and the many posts I've read using logical fallacies:"the burden of proof" is NOT on the believers. There is no burden to prove He exists...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar3 months ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So...
by paarsurrey12 months ago
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/51248pisean282311 wrote:do you think god's value would remain if there are no humans..god needs human since humans can only pray , hope and believe..do you agree to this?Paarsurrey...
by Obscure_Treasures6 years ago
In this advanced era Science has been able to invent new things....bt a above mentioned question still remains on back of my mind...
by ahorseback5 years ago
Look at the general similarities in all of the inter- related Anti- God posts and you see a huge underling motive ! For one ; Finding proof is not the same as the seeking of ,or having of - faith...
by preacherdon6 years ago
There are many who are atheist and agnostic because they either don't know or don't believe God exists. Creation tells us that God exists but atheist explain Him away with evolution and Big Bangs. So, my question is,...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.