| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Eris" |
| Date: |
23 Jul 2004 06:43:18 PM |
| Object: |
Cant' prove a negative? |
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
.
|
|
| User: "Desdinova" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
23 Jul 2004 06:52:22 PM |
|
|
"Eris" <vithant01@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3i83g0t1u196ojnl71sbucvtpsqnltpqeq@4ax.com...
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
It can't be proven that god or many thousands of other alleged supernatural
phenomena don't exist. The onus on the one making the claim, therefore they
must prove god exists. So far, all attempts have failed spectacularly.
--
Desdinova aa #2182
EAC Director of Research and Destroy, Black Helicopter Pilot
"Religion is what the common people see as true,
the wise people see as false, and the rulers see as useful."
-Seneca
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
25 Jul 2004 02:05:10 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 23:52:22 +0000, Desdinova wrote:
"Eris" <vithant01@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3i83g0t1u196ojnl71sbucvtpsqnltpqeq@4ax.com...
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
It can't be proven that god or many thousands of other alleged supernatural
phenomena don't exist. The onus on the one making the claim, therefore they
must prove god exists. So far, all attempts have failed spectacularly.
'Proof' is the province of mathematics. However, the statement 'there is
no god can easily be made and supported.
They've got to provide a coherant definition for their poxy letter string
first.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
23 Jul 2004 07:04:43 PM |
|
|
"Eris" <vithant01@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3i83g0t1u196ojnl71sbucvtpsqnltpqeq@4ax.com...
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
No.
"You can't prove a negative" is a negative.
So they can't prove "you can't prove a negative".
Think about it. :)
"There are no elephants in my refrigerator."
I just looked. There weren't any elephants
there. QED.
It is sometimes said there are no existential proofs.
But usually the thing in question is not defined
or peculiarly defined to be indetectible.
That is usually the problem with "God".
Get the claimant to define God.
You will find contradictions.
--
RB
aa#2187
.
|
|
|
| User: "Puck Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
24 Jul 2004 03:44:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:04:43 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<jose@bellsouth.net.pa> with calm deliberation, and malace
aforethought, wrote:
"Eris" <vithant01@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3i83g0t1u196ojnl71sbucvtpsqnltpqeq@4ax.com...
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
No.
"You can't prove a negative" is a negative.
So they can't prove "you can't prove a negative".
Think about it. :)
"There are no elephants in my refrigerator."
I just looked. There weren't any elephants
there. QED.
Check for footprints in the butter, just in case the elephants are
invisible.
Puck Greenman
#162
BAAWA Knight.
Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
24 Jul 2004 04:28:05 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 21:44:04 +0100, Puck Greenman <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in alt.atheism:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:04:43 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<jose@bellsouth.net.pa> with calm deliberation, and malace
aforethought, wrote:
"Eris" <vithant01@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3i83g0t1u196ojnl71sbucvtpsqnltpqeq@4ax.com...
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
No.
"You can't prove a negative" is a negative.
So they can't prove "you can't prove a negative".
Think about it. :)
"There are no elephants in my refrigerator."
I just looked. There weren't any elephants
there. QED.
Check for footprints in the butter, just in case the elephants are
invisible.
Puck Greenman
But that may just confirm the presence of invisible *massless* elephants.
Besides, isn't it obvious they'd leave their footprints, if any, in the peanut butter?
#162
BAAWA Knight.
Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
--
/Apostate
atheist #(e^7.5657933) I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; billions served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
25 Jul 2004 02:02:54 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 21:44:04 +0100, Puck Greenman wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:04:43 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<jose@bellsouth.net.pa> with calm deliberation, and malace
aforethought, wrote:
"Eris" <vithant01@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3i83g0t1u196ojnl71sbucvtpsqnltpqeq@4ax.com...
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
No.
"You can't prove a negative" is a negative.
So they can't prove "you can't prove a negative".
Think about it. :)
"There are no elephants in my refrigerator."
I just looked. There weren't any elephants
there. QED.
Check for footprints in the butter, just in case the elephants are
invisible.
Puck Greenman
They're weightless, too.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
23 Jul 2004 10:29:54 PM |
|
|
Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> said:
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
Ask them to prove it.
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clothaire" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
24 Jul 2004 03:26:50 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 03:29:54 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> said:
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
Ask them to prove it.
Jim07D4
You can easily prove a negative.
"There are not 2000 integers between 1 and 0." I can't prove that, of
course, but I don't doubt that a mathematician can do it. It is just
as obvious that there aren't any gods.
Clothaire #1392
"But I want you to know, I want you to know something, this is
sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in god -- I
really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that
there is a god who created each one of us in his own image and
likeness, loves us very much and keeps a close eye on things. I
really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you
live, the more you look around, the more you realize -- something is
FUCKED-UP. Something is WRONG here. War, disease, death,
destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption and
the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is NOT good
work. If this is the best god can do, I am NOT impressed. Results
like these do not belong on the resume of a supreme being. This is
the kind of ***** you'd expect from an office temp with a bad
attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently run
universe, this guy would have been out on his all-powerful ***** a
long time ago."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
24 Jul 2004 06:05:32 PM |
|
|
Clothaire <clothaire@ieee.org> said:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 03:29:54 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> said:
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
Ask them to prove it.
Jim07D4
You can easily prove a negative.
Can you easily prove "You can't prove a negative"?
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
25 Jul 2004 02:58:17 AM |
|
|
Jim07D4 wrote:
Clothaire <clothaire@ieee.org> said:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 03:29:54 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> said:
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
Ask them to prove it.
Jim07D4
You can easily prove a negative.
Can you easily prove "You can't prove a negative"?
Back to the issue between atheists and theists, the theist metaphysical
existential proposition, "There might be a magically invisible space
pixie anyway, even though there is no evidence of any such thing" is not
falsifiable in the human experience. Fortunately nobody ever has any
burden of proving it false, since the burden of proof cannot be shifted.
The null [meaning zero],"There is no such thing" is falsifiable. All the
proponents have to do is publicly demonstrate how it is they know there
might be a magically invisible space pixie so that anybody can check
their observations. This has the added advantage that the full burden of
proof in any case is always on the proponents of the hypothetical thing
anyway since the burden o fproof cannot be shifted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
25 Jul 2004 03:39:51 PM |
|
|
In article <tKJMc.182967$XM6.162239@attbi_s53>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Jim07D4 wrote:
Clothaire <clothaire@ieee.org> said:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 03:29:54 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> said:
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
Ask them to prove it.
Jim07D4
You can easily prove a negative.
Can you easily prove "You can't prove a negative"?
Back to the issue between atheists and theists, the theist metaphysical
existential proposition, "There might be a magically invisible space
pixie anyway, even though there is no evidence of any such thing"
This is not the issue between theists and atheists, at least if
dictionaries are to be trusted.
No dictionary definition of "theist" or "theism" is broad enough to
include those who do not believe in actual gods but still believe that
gods might be possible.
Secondly, as there are beliefs in gods who cannot be described as
"Magically Invisible Sky Pixies", atheists, according to Septic (of the
Magically Invisible Sky Pixies), are apparently allowed to believe in
gods other than.magically invisible sky pixies
The issue genuinely under discussion, between Gnostic anti-theist
Septic (of the Magically Invisible Sky Pixies) and those agnostics
whom he repeatedly and stupidly mislabels as theist, is this irrational
Gnostic anti-religious belief of Septic's (of the Magically Invisible
Sky Pixies) that he somehow KNOWS that there cannot be a god
anyway, even though there is no evidence of any such thing that he can
demonstrate so that others can check the facts for themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boggs" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
29 Jul 2004 06:21:09 PM |
|
|
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message news:<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-FD847E.14395025072004@[63.218.45.211]>...
In article <tKJMc.182967$XM6.162239@attbi_s53>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Jim07D4 wrote:
Clothaire <clothaire@ieee.org> said:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 03:29:54 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> said:
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
Ask them to prove it.
Jim07D4
You can easily prove a negative.
Can you easily prove "You can't prove a negative"?
Back to the issue between atheists and theists, the theist metaphysical
existential proposition, "There might be a magically invisible space
pixie anyway, even though there is no evidence of any such thing"
This is not the issue between theists and atheists
Yes it is, sir.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
29 Jul 2004 10:28:07 PM |
|
|
In article <22b67dcc.0407291521.1a8cb364@posting.google.com>,
(Boggs) wrote:
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-FD847E.14395025072004@[63.218.45.211]>...
In article <tKJMc.182967$XM6.162239@attbi_s53>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Jim07D4 wrote:
Clothaire <clothaire@ieee.org> said:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 03:29:54 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> said:
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
Ask them to prove it.
Jim07D4
You can easily prove a negative.
Can you easily prove "You can't prove a negative"?
Back to the issue between atheists and theists, the theist metaphysical
existential proposition, "There might be a magically invisible space
pixie anyway, even though there is no evidence of any such thing"
This is not the issue between theists and atheists
Yes it is, sir.
No it is not.
The real issuue is Septic's (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies)
Gnostic religious belief that an invisible god cannot exist anyway,
even though there is no evidence of it (Anti-theists), the reverse of
such religious belief (theists), or, to go one step further, the
outright denial and repudiation of such Gnostic religious belief as a
matter of principle (agnostics).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iacomus" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
31 Jul 2004 05:44:06 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:28:07 -0600, Virgil wrote:
The real issuue is Septic's (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies)
Gnostic religious belief that an invisible god cannot exist anyway,
even though there is no evidence of it (Anti-theists), the reverse of
such religious belief (theists), or, to go one step further, the
outright denial and repudiation of such Gnostic religious belief as a
matter of principle (agnostics).
I don't think that is correct. Agnosticism is simply not believing in any
proposition without a warrant to do so. AFAIK
Iacomus
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clothaire" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
26 Jul 2004 04:45:24 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 16:26:50 -0400, Clothaire <clothaire@ieee.org>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 03:29:54 GMT, Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> said:
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
Ask them to prove it.
Jim07D4
You can easily prove a negative.
"There are not 2000 integers between 1 and 0." I can't prove that, of
course, but I don't doubt that a mathematician can do it. It is just
as obvious that there aren't any gods.
Clothaire #1392
"But I want you to know, I want you to know something, this is
sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in god -- I
really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that
there is a god who created each one of us in his own image and
likeness, loves us very much and keeps a close eye on things. I
really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you
live, the more you look around, the more you realize -- something is
FUCKED-UP. Something is WRONG here. War, disease, death,
destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption and
the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is NOT good
work. If this is the best god can do, I am NOT impressed. Results
like these do not belong on the resume of a supreme being. This is
the kind of ***** you'd expect from an office temp with a bad
attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently run
universe, this guy would have been out on his all-powerful ***** a
long time ago."
Sorry, I left out the attribution:
--George Carlin
Clothaire #1392
"That Bowl Of Heaven called the Sky,
Whereunder crawling cooped we live and die.
Lift not your Hands to it for help;
It moves impotently on high."
(not Omar Khayyam)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MrPepper11" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
31 Jul 2004 10:39:33 AM |
|
|
Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<3i83g0t1u196ojnl71sbucvtpsqnltpqeq@4ax.com>...
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
Yep. The God-fearing truth-loving Republicans use it all the time:
Boston Globe [3/21/2004] - ... In South Carolina, Bush Republicans
were facing an opponent who was popular for his straight talk and
Vietnam war record. They knew that if McCain won in South Carolina, he
would likely win the nomination. With few substantive differences
between Bush and McCain, the campaign was bound to turn personal. The
situation was ripe for a smear. It didn't take much research to turn
up a seemingly innocuous fact about the McCains: John and his wife,
Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at
Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United
States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her.
Bridget has dark skin. Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to
suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own,
illegitimate black child. In the conservative, race-conscious South,
that's not a minor charge... Some aspects of this smear were hardly so
subtle. Bob Jones University professor Richard Hand sent an e-mail to
"fellow South Carolinians" stating that McCain had "chosen to sire
children without marriage." It didn't take long for mainstream media
to carry the charge. CNN interviewed Hand and put him on the spot:
"Professor, you say that this man had children out of wedlock. He did
not have children out of wedlock." Hand replied, "Wait a minute,
that's a universal negative. Can you prove that there aren't any?"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
24 Jul 2004 11:04:26 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:43:18 -0400, Eris <vithant01@comcast.net>
wrote:
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
Proof is kind of tough either way, anyway. Like proving an act of
crime, you must know all possible data associated, and even *that has
to be reliable. DNA only puts the odds into the one of billions or so.
When you see something happen, you know it from your own senses, and
that is proof to yourself. Convincing others is a different matter.
Proving that something isn't there or cannot happen I suppose could be
deemed impossible, like there isn't a Boeing 747 in this room. How do
you know I'm not on a computer in Boeing's hangar?
Seven plus seven isn't 16. Unless, of course, you are working on an
old AT&T #1 switch, adding octal (base 8 data).
Knowing that my lotto ticket is not going to match the drawn numbers
is a pretty safe bet, but I couldn't prove I wouldn't have won if I
didn't but a ticket then wish I did.
(If the states take of the lotto really went into education, teachers
would be the highest paid, and school buildings would be built of
platinum bricks.)
drift
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puck Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
24 Jul 2004 03:36:32 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:43:18 -0400, Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> with
calm deliberation, and malace aforethought, wrote:
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
You can prove what is, or has been, because that leaves empiric
evidence, but what is not, or was not, does not.
Proof requires evidence.
Absence, leaves no evidence.
Puck Greenman
#162
BAAWA Knight.
Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
24 Jul 2004 06:06:31 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sat, 24 Jul 2004 21:36:32 +0100, Puck Greenman
<puck@pooks.hill.fey> let us all know that:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:43:18 -0400, Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> with
calm deliberation, and malace aforethought, wrote:
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
You can prove what is, or has been, because that leaves empiric
evidence, but what is not, or was not, does not.
Proof requires evidence.
Absence, leaves no evidence.
There's always the "negative-proofs" in maths, such as proving
that there is no prime number larger than any other (i.e. the set of
primes is infinite).
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
25 Jul 2004 02:47:51 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sat, 24 Jul 2004 21:36:32 +0100, Puck Greenman
<puck@pooks.hill.fey> let us all know that:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:43:18 -0400, Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> with
calm deliberation, and malace aforethought, wrote:
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
You can prove what is, or has been, because that leaves empiric
evidence, but what is not, or was not, does not.
Proof requires evidence.
Absence, leaves no evidence.
There's always the "negative-proofs" in maths, such as proving
that there is no prime number larger than any other (i.e. the set of
primes is infinite).
That's not a negative. As you say, "The set of primes is infinite." That
is an affirmative.
As Karl Popper points out in _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, it is
the meaning of a statement, not the wording, that matters. "There are no
black swans" is not a negative, it is just a restatement of the
affirmative proposition, "All swans are white."
As to the issue between atheists and theists, it is an existential
proposition that is in question, "There might be a magically invisible
space pixie anyway, even though there is no evidence of any such thing"
is not falsifiable, but fortunately nobody ever has any burden of
proving the negative of that, since the burden of proof cannot be shifted.
The only reasonable presumption in any such case, "There is no X"
(whatever X is imagined to be) is falsifiable. All the proponents of X
have to do to falsify it is to publicly demonstrate how it is they know
that there might be an X, so that others can check their observations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
25 Jul 2004 10:30:30 AM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<HAJMc.165260$JR4.24693@attbi_s54>...
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sat, 24 Jul 2004 21:36:32 +0100, Puck Greenman
<puck@pooks.hill.fey> let us all know that:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:43:18 -0400, Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> with
calm deliberation, and malace aforethought, wrote:
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
You can prove what is, or has been, because that leaves empiric
evidence, but what is not, or was not, does not.
Proof requires evidence.
Absence, leaves no evidence.
There's always the "negative-proofs" in maths, such as proving
that there is no prime number larger than any other
Again, Don mis-states this, despite years of correction on the issue.
(Shall I look up all the past mistakes and list the links?)
Correction: "There is no prime number larger than _all_ other prime
numbers."
(i.e. the set of
primes is infinite).
That's not a negative.
Incorrect.
As you say, "The set of primes is infinite." That is an affirmative.
Incorrect. There being no "infinite", this is _necessarily_ an
informal shorthand form of speech for "A largest prime number does not
exist."
If Septic insists otherwise, then it is equally true that "There is no
god", being exactly equivalent to "The set of gods is empty", is also
an affirmative.
And once again Septic "reasoning" self-refutes, and is thus
_demonstrated_ to be invalid.
And Septic Donny AllFried remains the completely self-refuting,
fallacious, mendacious, and discredited old idiot fool lying loser of
alt.atheism and Bellingham, Washington, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
25 Jul 2004 12:10:38 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sun, 25 Jul 2004 07:47:51 GMT, Dixit
<dix@nospam.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sat, 24 Jul 2004 21:36:32 +0100, Puck Greenman
<puck@pooks.hill.fey> let us all know that:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:43:18 -0400, Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> with
calm deliberation, and malace aforethought, wrote:
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
You can prove what is, or has been, because that leaves empiric
evidence, but what is not, or was not, does not.
Proof requires evidence.
Absence, leaves no evidence.
There's always the "negative-proofs" in maths, such as proving
that there is no prime number larger than any other (i.e. the set of
primes is infinite).
That's not a negative.
Yes, it is. The set of primes is infinite = The set of primes is
NOT FINITE.
NEGATIVE.
Popper was slightly wrong.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
25 Jul 2004 07:03:38 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sun, 25 Jul 2004 07:47:51 GMT, Dixit
<dix@nospam.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sat, 24 Jul 2004 21:36:32 +0100, Puck Greenman
<puck@pooks.hill.fey> let us all know that:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:43:18 -0400, Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> with
calm deliberation, and malace aforethought, wrote:
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
You can prove what is, or has been, because that leaves empiric
evidence, but what is not, or was not, does not.
Proof requires evidence.
Absence, leaves no evidence.
There's always the "negative-proofs" in maths, such as proving
that there is no prime number larger than any other (i.e. the set of
primes is infinite).
That's not a negative.
Yes, it is. The set of primes is infinite = The set of primes is
NOT FINITE.
NEGATIVE.
Popper was slightly wrong.
Don
You are mistaken, Don. That's not a negative. As you say, "The set of
primes is infinite." That is an affirmative.
As Karl Popper points out in _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, it is
the meaning of a statement, not the wording, that matters. "There are no
black swans" is not a negative, it is just a restatement of the
affirmative proposition, "All swans are white."
As to the issue between atheists and theists, it is an existential
proposition that is in question, "There might be a magically invisible
space pixie anyway, even though there is no evidence of any such thing"
is not falsifiable, but fortunately nobody ever has any burden of
proving the negative of that, since the burden of proof cannot be shifted.
The only reasonable presumption in any such case, "There is no X"
(whatever X is imagined to be) is falsifiable. All the proponents of X
have to do to falsify it is to publicly demonstrate how it is they know
that there might be an X, so that others can check their observations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
25 Jul 2004 08:54:51 PM |
|
|
In article <uTXMc.29260$8_6.17639@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sun, 25 Jul 2004 07:47:51 GMT, Dixit
<dix@nospam.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sat, 24 Jul 2004 21:36:32 +0100, Puck Greenman
<puck@pooks.hill.fey> let us all know that:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:43:18 -0400, Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> with
calm deliberation, and malace aforethought, wrote:
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
You can prove what is, or has been, because that leaves empiric
evidence, but what is not, or was not, does not.
Proof requires evidence.
Absence, leaves no evidence.
There's always the "negative-proofs" in maths, such as proving
that there is no prime number larger than any other (i.e. the set of
primes is infinite).
That's not a negative.
Yes, it is. The set of primes is infinite = The set of primes is
NOT FINITE.
NEGATIVE.
Popper was slightly wrong.
Don
You are mistaken, Don. That's not a negative. As you say, "The set of
primes is infinite." That is an affirmative.
As the meaning of in-finite is not finite, Septic (of the Magically
Invisible Space Pixies) is WRONG! AGAIN!
As Karl Popper points out in _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, it is
the meaning of a statement, not the wording, that matters. "There are no
black swans" is not a negative, it is just a restatement of the
affirmative proposition, "All swans are white."
Then Pooper is wrong, as I have seen grey swans which are not black.
The issue genuinely under discussion, between Gnostic anti-theist
Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) and those agnostics
whom he repeatedly and stupidly mislabels as theist, is this irrational
Gnostic anti-religious belief that Septic (of the Magically Invisible
Space Pixies) has that he somehow KNOWS that there cannot be a god
anyway, even though there is no evidence of any such thing that he can
demonstrate so that others can check the facts for themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boggs" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
27 Jul 2004 01:11:00 PM |
|
|
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message news:<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-962E3A.19545125072004@[63.218.45.211]>...
In article <uTXMc.29260$8_6.17639@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sun, 25 Jul 2004 07:47:51 GMT, Dixit
<dix@nospam.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Sat, 24 Jul 2004 21:36:32 +0100, Puck Greenman
<puck@pooks.hill.fey> let us all know that:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:43:18 -0400, Eris <vithant01@comcast.net> with
calm deliberation, and malace aforethought, wrote:
I have heard the fundy rebuff "You can't prove a negative" and always
thought they were probably right. Now I am not so sure. Are they
correct?
You can prove what is, or has been, because that leaves empiric
evidence, but what is not, or was not, does not.
Proof requires evidence.
Absence, leaves no evidence.
There's always the "negative-proofs" in maths, such as proving
that there is no prime number larger than any other (i.e. the set of
primes is infinite).
That's not a negative.
Yes, it is. The set of primes is infinite = The set of primes is
NOT FINITE.
NEGATIVE.
Popper was slightly wrong.
Don
You are mistaken, Don. That's not a negative. As you say, "The set of
primes is infinite." That is an affirmative.
As the meaning of in-finite is not finite, Septic (of the Magically
Invisible Space Pixies) is WRONG! AGAIN!
As Karl Popper points out in _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, it is
the meaning of a statement, not the wording, that matters. "There are no
black swans" is not a negative, it is just a restatement of the
affirmative proposition, "All swans are white."
Then Pooper is wrong, as I have seen grey swans which are not black.
This isn't about swans, moron, it is about it is about statements.
As Popper points out, it is the meaning of a statement, not the
wording, that matters. "There are no black swans" is not a negative,
it is just a restatement of the affirmative proposition, "All swans
are white."
"There are no swans that are other than white" is a falsifiable
(scientific) statement.
"There are no ETs" is a falsifiable (scientific) statement.
"There are no magically invisible space pixies" is a falsifiable
(scientific) statement.
Your insistence that there might be a magically invisible space pixie
anyway, even though you cannot produce any logically satisfactory
evidence justifying your certainty, is not a falsifiable (scientific)
statement, it is empty metaphysical speculation with no basis in fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iacomus" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
27 Jul 2004 03:45:36 PM |
|
|
This isn't about swans, moron, it is about it is about statements.
As Popper points out, it is the meaning of a statement, not the
wording, that matters. "There are no black swans" is not a negative,
it is just a restatement of the affirmative proposition, "All swans
are white."
"There are no swans that are other than white" is a falsifiable
(scientific) statement.
"There are no ETs" is a falsifiable (scientific) statement.
"There are no magically invisible space pixies" is a falsifiable
(scientific) statement.
Your insistence that there might be a magically invisible space pixie
anyway, even though you cannot produce any logically satisfactory
evidence justifying your certainty, is not a falsifiable (scientific)
statement, it is empty metaphysical speculation with no basis in fact.
Boggs,
I have a question given what you you posted.
There is the argument that the onus of proof is upon those that make
positive existential claims, (i.e. God exists). And that there is no onus
of proof place upon those that do not make a positive existential claim
(i.e. God does not exist). Now I contend that both those claims are
positive existential claims as they are both asserting a state of
existence as true. And as such both claims have an onus of proof attached
to them.
Is my thinking incorrect here?
Iacomus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boggs" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
28 Jul 2004 10:36:52 AM |
|
|
Iacomus <somplace@outhere.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.07.27.20.48.50.694914@outhere.com>...
This isn't about swans, moron, it is about it is about statements.
As Popper points out, it is the meaning of a statement, not the
wording, that matters. "There are no black swans" is not a negative,
it is just a restatement of the affirmative proposition, "All swans
are white."
"There are no swans that are other than white" is a falsifiable
(scientific) statement.
"There are no ETs" is a falsifiable (scientific) statement.
"There are no magically invisible space pixies" is a falsifiable
(scientific) statement.
Your insistence that there might be a magically invisible space pixie
anyway, even though you cannot produce any logically satisfactory
evidence justifying your certainty, is not a falsifiable (scientific)
statement, it is empty metaphysical speculation with no basis in fact.
Boggs,
I have a question given what you you posted.
There is the argument that the onus of proof is upon those that make
positive existential claims, (i.e. God exists).
It's not an argument, sir, it is a principle, a principle of valid
argument (logic) that the full burden of proof in the matter of any
existential proposition like the one that there might be a magically
invisible space pixie of some sort anyway, even though there is no
evidence of any such thing, is entirely on the affirmative. The burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial (the negation). The
non-believers have nothing (no thing) evidence of which to produce,
only the true-believers do.
That means that the only reasonable presumption (like the presumption
of "No guilt" in criminal court) is the null, "There is no X" whatever
X is imagined to be, but is not in evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iacomus" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
28 Jul 2004 04:23:07 PM |
|
|
It's not an argument, sir, it is a principle, a principle of valid
argument (logic) that the full burden of proof in the matter of any
existential proposition like the one that there might be a magically
invisible space pixie of some sort anyway, even though there is no
evidence of any such thing, is entirely on the affirmative. The burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial (the negation). The
non-believers have nothing (no thing) evidence of which to produce,
only the true-believers do.
That means that the only reasonable presumption (like the presumption
of "No guilt" in criminal court) is the null, "There is no X" whatever
X is imagined to be, but is not in evidence.
Boggs,
Okay I think I understand. If I may, you're saying that the
"positive" part of the phrase "positive existential proposition" does not
indicate that one is taking a position on that proposition. In other
words, the proposition "God exists" is a positive existential proposition
not because the one who asserts it is "positive" in its truth value, but
it is positive because it asserts that something exists.
Is this correct?
Iacomus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boggs" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
29 Jul 2004 06:09:05 PM |
|
|
Iacomus <somplace@outhere.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.07.28.21.26.22.396131@outhere.com>...
It's not an argument, sir, it is a principle, a principle of valid
argument (logic) that the full burden of proof in the matter of any
existential proposition like the one that there might be a magically
invisible space pixie of some sort anyway, even though there is no
evidence of any such thing, is entirely on the affirmative. The burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial (the negation). The
non-believers have nothing (no thing) evidence of which to produce,
only the true-believers do.
That means that the only reasonable presumption (like the presumption
of "No guilt" in criminal court) is the null, "There is no X" whatever
X is imagined to be, but is not in evidence.
Boggs,
Okay I think I understand. If I may, you're saying that the
"positive" part of the phrase "positive existential proposition"
'Positive' means that a statement affirms the existence of some thing.
posit : affirm the existence of
www.m-w.com
Existential propositions are always positive. (They always posit the
existence of some thing.)
So "positive existential statement" is redundant. There are no
negative existential statements, only the denial (the negation) or
existential statements, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to
the non-believers. Understand?
does not
indicate that one is taking a position on that proposition. In other
words, the proposition "God exists" is a positive existential proposition
not because the one who asserts it is "positive" in its truth value, but
it is positive because it asserts that something exists.
posit : affirm the existence of
www.m-w.com
Is this correct?
Iacomus
The full burden of proof in the matter of any
existential proposition like the one that there might be a magically
invisible space pixie of some sort anyway, even though there is no
evidence of any such thing, is entirely on the affirmative. The burden
of proof cannot be shifted to the denial (the negation). The
non-believers have nothing (no thing) evidence of which to produce,
only the true-believers do.
That means that the only reasonable presumption (like the presumption
of "No guilt" in criminal court) is the null, "There is no X" whatever
X is imagined to be, but is not in evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Cant' prove a negative? |
29 Jul 2004 10:24:43 PM |
|
|
In article <22b67dcc.0407291509.3cd271fb@posting.google.com>,
(Boggs) wrote:
'Positive' means that a statement affirms the existence of some thing.
But "might exist" doesn't affirm the existence of anything, so that
'Positive' does not apply.
Thus all of the arguemnts that Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space
Pixies) has made against "a god might exist" are fatally flawed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
