Refuting Theist Arguments - Negative Proof

[drrobertoboogie97]

"It is logically impossible to prove a negative." You're wrong here. I can prove that there are no married bachelors. I can prove that there are no odd numbers divisible by 2. I can prove that there is no finite infinity. How? By reductio ad absurdum i.e. the method of disproving claims absurd or contradictory.

[monkeytail2002]

Sentient hot dogs did exist but then I bought a hot dog rotisserie....

[stej33]

Not all people who say God exists uses the ''Prove he doesnt'' as proof, many christians now who witness and experience the presence of God and are healed in the name of Jesus Christ have obvious physical evidence that defies modern day science and physics, also ther are many placesin the bible that are mentioned that still stand 2day and are exactly the way the bible claims, Sodom and Gamorra is covered in craters, Mount sinai blackened on top on much more. There is plenty of evidence out there

[brrapscrollcheck]

Can I not prove something doesn't exists by proving that it does exist? If I prove that the acceleration of freefall on earth is 9.81ms^2 then have I not proved that it isn't something else?

[bIueviper]

Sir, You are exactly right! Im glad there are people like you! I gave 5 Stars by the way.

[m1garand00]

So, i know you have a good point about that type of argument, but to be honest. The fact that the love of so many communities and broken people have turned to the belief in God, science does not add on to a humans anything other than the fact he's there to act and die. God offers a person transformation in their heart, not of the physical being. And as well what purpose have you made this video for?

[MrMindfucker]

manhattandeclarationorg

153460 signatures in support.

And growing...sign it!

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them.

[orcodrilo]

Nicely explained, there is no need to "proof something does not exist" to ask for it is a flawed endeavor.

Think of this:

¿Do I lie when I claim that I own all the invisible paintings in the world ?

Since there are none invisible paintings, the claim is a flawed statement, I am not lying all the invisible paintings in the world are 0 and I own 0 which amounts for all of them.

[UnderratedSnipes]

Also, let's say that I make something up that no one has ever thought of before and I say that it doesn't exist. Wouldn't that mean that I would have to prove that it doesn't exist since I was the first to make a claim about it? You also say that it's impossible to prove a negative, doesn't that make your logic flawed?

[UnderratedSnipes]

It is impossible to prove or disprove anything. By your logic, all logic is flawed. Since logic is based on what you know, you do not possess all knowledge in existence and therefore cannot have logical thoughts. And if your logic is flawed, you haven't proved a thing.

[WankershireEngland]

Well the problem here is that you're assuming theists are in any way interested in logic and reason. The mere fact that they believe in absurd fantasies illustrates that they are not.

[Nihilist127]

Dude senient hot dogs exist I was talking to one the other day it told me it was the last of its kind then I got hungry and ate him.

[timeisticking1360]

This video is kinda contradictory cos you're proving a negative. You state "You can't prove a negative" and then give reasons for it. But while you're doing that you're proving a negative ... what's up with that?

[notsyort]

They said the argument that "You can't prove a negative" is a falacious argument.

i.e. "all swans are white"

If one swan is black, a negative has been proved.

[OmorosePanya]

...That isn't a negative statment. A negative statment is "Prove Santa DOESN'T exist". One can't do that. It is up to those who believe he exists to prove that he does.

[notsyort]

I think our problem lies in the difference between a negative statement and a negative proof.

"santa doesn't exist" is a negative statement

"santa does exist" is a positive statement

proving "santa doesn't exist" needs a positive proof

disproving "santa does exist" needs a negative proof

the use of the words positive/negative proof makes things confusing.

i prefer to use proof/disproof. I can get my head around that.

sometimes things can be disproved, e.g. the existence of a god.

[OmorosePanya]

And can can we disprove god when nobody is willing to define him? We need an operational definition, yes? Otherwise, how do we know what proves and disproves him? That's the problem with all this. The Bible defines him as "Is" and "I am" and various substanceless analogies. If people want to believe in him or anything else, fine. Let 'em. The belief in itself doesn't hurt anyone. When people do get hurt, the smartest thing to do is attack what gives it power (gov't?) not the belief itself.

[notsyort]

A god is an omipresent, omnipotent, omniscient being.

No theist demands anything from a god that could be done with lesser parameters.

And Belief's CAN hurt. Belief in a god is often manipulated by Religions to the detriment of society and the species. THAT HURTS.

Analogy: If you're not holding a gun, you can't shoot anybody. The gun doesn't hurt anybody on its own. People with guns can kill.

[OmorosePanya]

No. Not a dictionary definition. Something that has scientific significance. (Hint: You're not going to find it because faith-systems don't describe them.)

No. The belief itself does not hurt. If it did, then EVERYONE who believes in any deity(ies) would be destructive. The problem is the things that give them power, such as the gov't. Take their power away and they have nothing to harm others with. Not collectively, anyway.

People period kill. It's not like lack or religion prevents that.

[godawgs06]

This is a common argument used on both sides, each equally inane.

[shonester]

If "X" is hypothesized. You can't refute "X" without proof. So you can either choose to believe in the hypothesis OR be unsure if the hypothesis is correct.

This leads to either being agnostic OR believing in God. Atheism is in a impossibility.

[OmorosePanya]

Incorrect. (A)theism is about an invididual's belief in a deity or god, not the diety or god itself. So, a theist would say "I believe in this god" while an atheist would say, "I don't believe in this god". The fact that these relate to the measure of faith (relative to the individual and not the god) assures us that atheism is a possibility.

[notsyort]

If i say i believe in a particular cat, i have to believe that cats exist. Believing in a god necessitates the proof that a god can exist (before proving that that particular god exists).

[OmorosePanya]

You think people need objective proof to believe in something? If that were true, then faith wouldn't exist. Beliefs exist whether you want them to or not---period.

[notsyort]

I didn't say you can't have faith without proof.

The existence of Religion proves that you can have faith without any evidence at all.

But what's the point of believing something if there's no good reason to do so?

I have faith - i put it in things when i have reason to do so

e.g. that the internet can be used for me to communicate this post to you;

or that the floor won't spontaneously dissolve from beneath me.

Believing that Santa exists does not involve a good reason, so i don't do it.

[OmorosePanya]

What's the point in having faith? Obviously there is a good point since the overwhelming majority of the world does. Unfortunately, no-one has to run their opinions by you, nor do they have to make sense to you. I'm sure you believe in something that seem unreasonable--they don't have to be god-related. Why do some people believe others love them when they don't? Why do some people depend on others when they shouldn't? Some things simply are not logical. Deal with it.

[notsyort]

I don't believe things that are unreasonable.

Because that would be unreasonable. Understand?

I don't have sufficient space nor time to explain why the things you have chosen as examples of illogicality are not actually illogical. But they ARE logical. So i DON'T have to deal with that.

[OmorosePanya]

Ah, so you're perfect---you never make cognitive errs and you are always logical.

Nice to know I am speaking to a child.

(Hint: You're not likely to recognize them as unreasonable, so your self-evaluation is as good as useless.)

Don't have the space nor time? That means you don't have an answer ;D (There is a PM function. y'know.)

[MrJamesyboi121]

to shonester: ok so you are agnostic about flying teapots and santa claus we'll see how far that gets you

[chjoezen]

It is a matter of personal experience. The signs have been around you all of your lives, but you have ignored them and you just don't know it. You may not even know it until you die. You cannot prove to me that there is no God and I cannot prove to you that there is. Get over it. I know some mainstream religions beliefs' hurt society and I wish that were the main focus rather than saying, hey, there is no God. Your claim will sound just as preposterous to the believing.

[chjoezen]

That is... just as preposterous as superman and pink elephants.

[matt2e16]

"the signs" you talk about may have been around us, but we chose to account for them with reason and rationale, rather than "there must be a god".

i have seen signs of pink elephants, and you have too, but you ignored them. you will regret it when the pink one comes to judge the men and the supermen.

[hraka1962]

1st, your "About This Video" shouldn't be the entire video. Kind of defeats the whole purpose for watching the video, doncha think?

2nd, "Superman" is a fictitious character created by real people in 1932. People met Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. We know they're real.

And 3rd, attacking someone's belief with silly, superfluous arguments doesn't disprove anything, it just shows everyone else that you're petty. Try a real argument next time, like evolution or carbon dating, not pink elephants.

[FaithIsImaginary]

"And 3rd, attacking someone's belief with silly, superfluous arguments doesn't disprove anything, it just shows everyone else that you're petty. Try a real argument next time, like evolution or carbon dating, not pink elephants."

When people's religions cause deaths, because they are used as arguments for war, against medicine etc - It's inhuman to not argue against them. Especially because the arguments for gods are even sillier than his pink elephants.

[hraka1962]

I said "belief" not religion. They're distinctly different.

[KingTheist23]

I would add that while it is true that people of various religions have used it as a excuse for war, against medicine etc. that does not mean that those people actually understand the religion they cite as their excuse. No where in the Bible does it say to deny your child of medical care if they are sick, and yet for some strange reason a select group of people think that somehow it is wrong to treat the ill. This is ignorance, not faith.

[ruffomaldito]

I like your simple straightforward vid. I would like to get one thing straight. How does one prove (or disprove) that a "thought" exists. I´ve never seen one. It doesn´t occupy space.

[GreenDragon23]

A good, and deeply philosophical question.

Since thoughts are merely specific distributions of neuronal firing, the only fairly solid way to show that a particular thought itself exists is to communicate it via symbols (some kind of language).

Very interesting question...

However, disproving the existence of a thought is impossible, since one cannot logically prove a negative.

[ruffomaldito]

Thanks for replying. I can (more of less) understand physical and chemical reactions to account for sense perception. What sort of "specific distribuitions" could have happened in only one specific primate for it to develop such creativity as evidenced in a human. "I think, therefore I am" doesn´t regard sense perception. Was Descartes going nuts? Is "I see, therefore I am" more logical?

[ruffomaldito]

What I meant is that ideas (or thoughts) don´t have to become objects to be "real". The "only fairly solid way" allows for the "unspoken thought." The concept of god falls in this category. It cannot be objectified as a "pink elephant".

[ruffomaldito]

So, if the atheist insists on an objectification of god as proof, the theist has only to present a rubber duck (or golden calf) to comply, and end the argument. If the atheist won´t accept that, it´s his problem. However, there may be other ways for the theist to prove god, and let the atheist state what kind proof (if any) he wants.

[ruffomaldito]

Conclusion: Though the negative proof concept is well exposed here, it has little application, given the examples in the vid, because the theist does not necessarily think of god in those terms.

[FaithIsImaginary]

"Though the negative proof concept is well exposed here, it has little application, given the examples in the vid, because the theist does not necessarily think of god in those terms."

Point: If you want to have respect for your point of view that "God exists". You had better have a way of showing how you came to that conclusion. If you can't, rational people will dismiss you as easily as you made your baseless assertion.

[ruffomaldito]

I don´t have to worry about rational people. I´m one of them.

[FaithIsImaginary]

"if the atheist insists on an objectification of god as proof, the theist has only to present a rubber duck (or golden calf) to comply,"

And by doing that he will have proved that he is worshiping a rubber duck. He will not have convinced anyone of said rubber duck's omnipotence. A key reason for engaging in an argument is to be able to provide a good case for you position. Rubber ducks are not much help in that respect.

[ruffomaldito]

True. The rubber duck bit was to point out that equating or comparing god to a pink elephant, superman or a sentient hotdog, can only be taken as a joke, and is not inducive to engage in a serious argument. It´s these details that taint an otherwise excellent vid about negative proof.

There are many people who will take it as on offense, so care must taken if one is to expect serious responses, or if he wants to help out in moderating the fundamentalists.

[FaithIsImaginary]

'"I think, therefore I am" doesn´t regard sense perception. Was Descartes going nuts? Is "I see, therefore I am" more logical?'

You may want to read up on philosophy. The entire point of Descartes statement is that he couldn't trust his senses in his thought experiment with an infinitly deceiving demon tricking him.

We know what separates humans from animals in terms of intellectual capacity. Our neocortex has more layers and is much larger, allowing us to recognize deeper patterns.

[ruffomaldito]

"We know" is a mighty claim. Scientists are more careful and always say: "we think or believe the neocortex to account for .....!

You may want to read up on science. The neocortex theory still has holes.

[sailornaruto39]

@GreenDragon23 excuse me but what do you mean prove a negative? proof that something doesn't exist?

[darktango78]

Hypocrite. You should read your own bible:

Matthew 5:22: But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement.

Matthew 7:1: Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

[GreenDragon23]

lol

such a desperate, angry, delusional, insane fool...

I would feel sorry for you if you weren't so amusing

[GreenDragon23]

Nice assertion. Goes well with your other unsupported, unexplained ramblings.

[GreenDragon23]

lol

Your threats of an imaginary place of suffering (appeals to fear) are not going to work on anyone who enages in critical thinking; I suggest that you learn a little bit about thinking critically - you could obviously benefit from it.

[killerspud1234]

this is a pretty old argument dude. use some new logic. the negative proof fallacy was found centuries ago. u may be the only atheist naive enough to still cite it. other aheists hve much better arguments

[GreenDragon23]

lol

Tell that to the theists; I made this video because many theists engage in a negative proof fallacy.

You might be too arrogant/out-of-touch to realize this, but that is your problem.

The fact is that theists still use it (just liek they still use Pascal's wager, even though it has been torn to shreds) - and if they still use it, they still need to be refuted.

Its that simple.

[bdcarlitosway]

Im an atheist, but I cant help to ask if anyone has ever shredded the Kalam argument and the Anthropic or something like that argument??

[bdcarlitosway]

matter fact, BILLO O REILLY used it on Richard Dawkins

[animelrx12]

im athiest and I still dont believe in god but this was a good video to prove us wrong I am actually quite surprised that someone other than i has figured this out.I argue with many people and not one so far has come up with this point.

[GreenDragon23]

It actually shows that the god argument is wrong. Naturally, accepting a belief for no other reason that it can't be proven or disproven is absurd.

Non-beliefs, on the other hand, are not absurd because they do not make any claims about what exists; they merely wait for any real evidence of logic.

[icecoldpierre]

Another good vid.

[GreenDragon23]

Thanks.

I am glad that you liked it.

:)

[TranceDevotee]

i agree, a good refresher for those of us who like to argue with theists