| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Ron Baker" |
| Date: |
09 Nov 2003 03:50:53 PM |
| Object: |
you can't prove a negative |
You know, "you can't prove a negative" is its own disproof.
"you can't prove a negative" is a negative.
It's an oxymoron.
It's like "This statement is false."
Kind of funny when you think about. ;)
-Ron
.
|
|
| User: "Kenneth Doyle" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
09 Nov 2003 05:30:00 PM |
|
|
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:1Fyrb.3108$pE3.579@twister.socal.rr.com:
You know, "you can't prove a negative" is its own disproof.
"you can't prove a negative" is a negative.
It's an oxymoron.
It's like "This statement is false."
Kind of funny when you think about. ;)
Those two statements (the ones in quotes) are not even in the same league.
The second, a self-referential statement, points out a limitation of first
order logic.
Furthermore, you have to be very careful with the first statement. "You
can't sit on your own lap" is a negative statement. "There is no such
thing as a square triangle", is another one. "There is no life on Mars",
is a third. Which of those statements is/are impossible to prove? Many
negative statements can be recast as positive ones. "There is no life on
any other planet", can become, "Earth is the only planet where life
exists". It's not as simple as it seems.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
09 Nov 2003 07:00:21 PM |
|
|
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F6BC9965BBnobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:1Fyrb.3108$pE3.579@twister.socal.rr.com:
You know, "you can't prove a negative" is its own disproof.
"you can't prove a negative" is a negative.
It's an oxymoron.
It's like "This statement is false."
Kind of funny when you think about. ;)
Those two statements (the ones in quotes) are not even in the same league.
The second, a self-referential statement, points out a limitation of first
order logic.
Furthermore, you have to be very careful with the first statement. "You
can't sit on your own lap" is a negative statement. "There is no such
thing as a square triangle", is another one. "There is no life on Mars",
is a third. Which of those statements is/are impossible to prove? Many
negative statements can be recast as positive ones. "There is no life on
any other planet", can become, "Earth is the only planet where life
exists". It's not as simple as it seems.
I think I missed part of your point.
Were you pointing out that
"you can't prove a negative" is not specific as to
whether it refers to all negatives or at least
one particular negative.
It seems commonly to be intended to cover
all negatives.
(It is kind of a pointless statement if it is
not so intended. "you can't prove some negatives")
But it should be made clear.
"you can't prove a negative" is false as a blanket statement.
-Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenneth Doyle" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
09 Nov 2003 07:09:06 PM |
|
|
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:FqBrb.5337$pE3.3679@twister.socal.rr.com:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F6BC9965BBnobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:1Fyrb.3108$pE3.579@twister.socal.rr.com:
You know, "you can't prove a negative" is its own disproof.
"you can't prove a negative" is a negative.
It's an oxymoron.
It's like "This statement is false."
Kind of funny when you think about. ;)
Those two statements (the ones in quotes) are not even in the same
league. The second, a self-referential statement, points out a
limitation of first order logic.
Furthermore, you have to be very careful with the first statement.
"You can't sit on your own lap" is a negative statement. "There is
no such thing as a square triangle", is another one. "There is no
life on Mars", is a third. Which of those statements is/are
impossible to prove? Many negative statements can be recast as
positive ones. "There is no life on any other planet", can become,
"Earth is the only planet where life exists". It's not as simple as
it seems.
I think I missed part of your point.
Were you pointing out that
"you can't prove a negative" is not specific as to
whether it refers to all negatives or at least
one particular negative.
I'm pointing out that it's not as simple as it seems. Particularly since
many negative statements can be re-cast as positive statements.
It seems commonly to be intended to cover
all negatives.
(It is kind of a pointless statement if it is
not so intended. "you can't prove some negatives")
But it should be made clear.
"you can't prove a negative" is false as a blanket statement.
Of course it is false in general. I gave two examples of demonstrably
false, negative statements.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 11:10:32 AM |
|
|
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F7C970B051nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:FqBrb.5337$pE3.3679@twister.socal.rr.com:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F6BC9965BBnobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:1Fyrb.3108$pE3.579@twister.socal.rr.com:
You know, "you can't prove a negative" is its own disproof.
"you can't prove a negative" is a negative.
It's an oxymoron.
It's like "This statement is false."
Kind of funny when you think about. ;)
Those two statements (the ones in quotes) are not even in the same
league. The second, a self-referential statement, points out a
limitation of first order logic.
Furthermore, you have to be very careful with the first statement.
"You can't sit on your own lap" is a negative statement. "There is
no such thing as a square triangle", is another one. "There is no
life on Mars", is a third. Which of those statements is/are
impossible to prove? Many negative statements can be recast as
positive ones. "There is no life on any other planet", can become,
"Earth is the only planet where life exists". It's not as simple as
it seems.
I think I missed part of your point.
Were you pointing out that
"you can't prove a negative" is not specific as to
whether it refers to all negatives or at least
one particular negative.
I'm pointing out that it's not as simple as it seems. Particularly since
many negative statements can be re-cast as positive statements.
Can you re-cast the non-existance of god as a positive statement?
(If you can I have a use for it.)
It seems commonly to be intended to cover
all negatives.
(It is kind of a pointless statement if it is
not so intended. "you can't prove some negatives")
But it should be made clear.
"you can't prove a negative" is false as a blanket statement.
Of course it is false in general. I gave two examples of demonstrably
false, negative statements.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 11:32:23 AM |
|
|
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> said:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F7C970B051nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:FqBrb.5337$pE3.3679@twister.socal.rr.com:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F6BC9965BBnobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:1Fyrb.3108$pE3.579@twister.socal.rr.com:
You know, "you can't prove a negative" is its own disproof.
"you can't prove a negative" is a negative.
It's an oxymoron.
It's like "This statement is false."
Kind of funny when you think about. ;)
Those two statements (the ones in quotes) are not even in the same
league. The second, a self-referential statement, points out a
limitation of first order logic.
Furthermore, you have to be very careful with the first statement.
"You can't sit on your own lap" is a negative statement. "There is
no such thing as a square triangle", is another one. "There is no
life on Mars", is a third. Which of those statements is/are
impossible to prove? Many negative statements can be recast as
positive ones. "There is no life on any other planet", can become,
"Earth is the only planet where life exists". It's not as simple as
it seems.
I think I missed part of your point.
Were you pointing out that
"you can't prove a negative" is not specific as to
whether it refers to all negatives or at least
one particular negative.
I'm pointing out that it's not as simple as it seems. Particularly since
many negative statements can be re-cast as positive statements.
Can you re-cast the non-existance of god as a positive statement?
(If you can I have a use for it.)
The most superior being that ever has or ever will exist is finite in
all its attributes and properties.
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 02:00:30 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:qgivqv8etko2j02tphefqapr0huopkrj76@4ax.com...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> said:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F7C970B051nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:FqBrb.5337$pE3.3679@twister.socal.rr.com:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F6BC9965BBnobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:1Fyrb.3108$pE3.579@twister.socal.rr.com:
You know, "you can't prove a negative" is its own disproof.
"you can't prove a negative" is a negative.
It's an oxymoron.
It's like "This statement is false."
Kind of funny when you think about. ;)
Those two statements (the ones in quotes) are not even in the same
league. The second, a self-referential statement, points out a
limitation of first order logic.
Furthermore, you have to be very careful with the first statement.
"You can't sit on your own lap" is a negative statement. "There is
no such thing as a square triangle", is another one. "There is no
life on Mars", is a third. Which of those statements is/are
impossible to prove? Many negative statements can be recast as
positive ones. "There is no life on any other planet", can become,
"Earth is the only planet where life exists". It's not as simple as
it seems.
I think I missed part of your point.
Were you pointing out that
"you can't prove a negative" is not specific as to
whether it refers to all negatives or at least
one particular negative.
I'm pointing out that it's not as simple as it seems. Particularly
since
many negative statements can be re-cast as positive statements.
Can you re-cast the non-existance of god as a positive statement?
(If you can I have a use for it.)
The most superior being that ever has or ever will exist is finite in
all its attributes and properties.
Couldn't such a thing still be god?
Couldn't a god be finite, create a finite universe, and
punish sinners?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 04:51:12 PM |
|
|
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> said:
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:qgivqv8etko2j02tphefqapr0huopkrj76@4ax.com...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> said:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F7C970B051nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:FqBrb.5337$pE3.3679@twister.socal.rr.com:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F6BC9965BBnobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:1Fyrb.3108$pE3.579@twister.socal.rr.com:
You know, "you can't prove a negative" is its own disproof.
"you can't prove a negative" is a negative.
It's an oxymoron.
It's like "This statement is false."
Kind of funny when you think about. ;)
Those two statements (the ones in quotes) are not even in the same
league. The second, a self-referential statement, points out a
limitation of first order logic.
Furthermore, you have to be very careful with the first statement.
"You can't sit on your own lap" is a negative statement. "There is
no such thing as a square triangle", is another one. "There is no
life on Mars", is a third. Which of those statements is/are
impossible to prove? Many negative statements can be recast as
positive ones. "There is no life on any other planet", can become,
"Earth is the only planet where life exists". It's not as simple as
it seems.
I think I missed part of your point.
Were you pointing out that
"you can't prove a negative" is not specific as to
whether it refers to all negatives or at least
one particular negative.
I'm pointing out that it's not as simple as it seems. Particularly
since
many negative statements can be re-cast as positive statements.
Can you re-cast the non-existance of god as a positive statement?
(If you can I have a use for it.)
The most superior being that ever has or ever will exist is finite in
all its attributes and properties.
Couldn't such a thing still be god?
Couldn't a god be finite, create a finite universe, and
punish sinners?
Do those completely satisfy your criteria for a god? Sorry, didn't
know that. Wouldn't you agree that they are unconventional? Please
specify your complete criteria, and I will try again.
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 05:49:54 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:l450rv4haeqbk9urnrvk6f4q1m8r2h6gid@4ax.com...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> said:
"Jim07D3" <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:qgivqv8etko2j02tphefqapr0huopkrj76@4ax.com...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> said:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F7C970B051nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:FqBrb.5337$pE3.3679@twister.socal.rr.com:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F6BC9965BBnobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:1Fyrb.3108$pE3.579@twister.socal.rr.com:
You know, "you can't prove a negative" is its own disproof.
"you can't prove a negative" is a negative.
It's an oxymoron.
It's like "This statement is false."
Kind of funny when you think about. ;)
Those two statements (the ones in quotes) are not even in the
same
league. The second, a self-referential statement, points out a
limitation of first order logic.
Furthermore, you have to be very careful with the first
statement.
"You can't sit on your own lap" is a negative statement. "There
is
no such thing as a square triangle", is another one. "There is
no
life on Mars", is a third. Which of those statements is/are
impossible to prove? Many negative statements can be recast as
positive ones. "There is no life on any other planet", can
become,
"Earth is the only planet where life exists". It's not as simple
as
it seems.
I think I missed part of your point.
Were you pointing out that
"you can't prove a negative" is not specific as to
whether it refers to all negatives or at least
one particular negative.
I'm pointing out that it's not as simple as it seems. Particularly
since
many negative statements can be re-cast as positive statements.
Can you re-cast the non-existance of god as a positive statement?
(If you can I have a use for it.)
The most superior being that ever has or ever will exist is finite in
all its attributes and properties.
Couldn't such a thing still be god?
Couldn't a god be finite, create a finite universe, and
punish sinners?
Do those completely satisfy your criteria for a god? Sorry, didn't
know that. Wouldn't you agree that they are unconventional? Please
specify your complete criteria, and I will try again.
Don't shoot! I'm one of us! ;)
I'm an atheist. I was exploring possible arguments.
You see, it is hard to re-cast the non-existance of god as a positive
because god is not really defined.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 06:53:20 PM |
|
|
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> said:
....
Can you re-cast the non-existance of god as a positive statement?
(If you can I have a use for it.)
The most superior being that ever has or ever will exist is finite in
all its attributes and properties.
Couldn't such a thing still be god?
Couldn't a god be finite, create a finite universe, and
punish sinners?
Do those completely satisfy your criteria for a god? Sorry, didn't
know that. Wouldn't you agree that they are unconventional? Please
specify your complete criteria, and I will try again.
Don't shoot! I'm one of us! ;)
Cool, so am I;'-)
I'm an atheist. I was exploring possible arguments.
You see, it is hard to re-cast the non-existance of god as a positive
because god is not really defined.
Oh, I didn't know that was your premise. But god *is* conventionally
defined as having infinite powers and attributes.
At any rate, assertion "The most superior being that ever has or ever
will exist is finite in all its attributes and properties" is an
assertion that if true, entails that no god exists *as god is
conventionally defined.*
And it is not a negative. the "in-" in "infinite" is the negative,
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kenneth Doyle" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 04:50:10 PM |
|
|
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:cEPrb.33758$Ll5.32092@twister.socal.rr.com:
I'm pointing out that it's not as simple as it seems. Particularly
since many negative statements can be re-cast as positive statements.
Can you re-cast the non-existance of god as a positive statement?
(If you can I have a use for it.)
Easy! Everything that exists is something other than a god.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 05:52:42 PM |
|
|
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9430650C8A0EEnobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:cEPrb.33758$Ll5.32092@twister.socal.rr.com:
I'm pointing out that it's not as simple as it seems. Particularly
since many negative statements can be re-cast as positive statements.
Can you re-cast the non-existance of god as a positive statement?
(If you can I have a use for it.)
Easy! Everything that exists is something other than a god.
Which is pretty much equivalent to "Everything that exists is
not god.", isn't it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kenneth Doyle" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 06:02:48 PM |
|
|
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:exVrb.33879$Ll5.24075@twister.socal.rr.com:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9430650C8A0EEnobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:cEPrb.33758$Ll5.32092@twister.socal.rr.com:
I'm pointing out that it's not as simple as it seems.
Particularly since many negative statements can be re-cast as
positive statements.
Can you re-cast the non-existance of god as a positive statement?
(If you can I have a use for it.)
Easy! Everything that exists is something other than a god.
Which is pretty much equivalent to "Everything that exists is
not god.", isn't it?
Yes, it is. See how slippery those negative statements are? How do you
know that every positive statement is not just a negative statement in
disguise;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 08:04:07 PM |
|
|
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9430715D547B2nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:exVrb.33879$Ll5.24075@twister.socal.rr.com:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9430650C8A0EEnobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:cEPrb.33758$Ll5.32092@twister.socal.rr.com:
I'm pointing out that it's not as simple as it seems.
Particularly since many negative statements can be re-cast as
positive statements.
Can you re-cast the non-existance of god as a positive statement?
(If you can I have a use for it.)
Easy! Everything that exists is something other than a god.
Which is pretty much equivalent to "Everything that exists is
not god.", isn't it?
Yes, it is. See how slippery those negative statements are? How do you
know that every positive statement is not just a negative statement in
disguise;-)
It isn't the particular wording, it is the meaning of a statement that
matters. The universal statement, "There are no white ravens" means the same
even if it is worded as what appears to be an affirmation rather than a
denial (negation), "All ravens are black."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 07:56:29 PM |
|
|
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:exVrb.33879$Ll5.24075@twister.socal.rr.com...
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9430650C8A0EEnobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:cEPrb.33758$Ll5.32092@twister.socal.rr.com:
I'm pointing out that it's not as simple as it seems. Particularly
since many negative statements can be re-cast as positive statements.
Can you re-cast the non-existance of god as a positive statement?
(If you can I have a use for it.)
Easy! Everything that exists is something other than a god.
Which is pretty much equivalent to "Everything that exists is
not god.", isn't it?
Why are you wording your questions in the singular mode ("... the existence
of god...", "... is not god ...") as though you are presuming there is only
one god? Do you see anything that justifies such a presumption? There are
thousands of hypothetical (imaginary) gods aren't there?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 08:08:48 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hlXrb.166659$Fm2.146079@attbi_s04...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:exVrb.33879$Ll5.24075@twister.socal.rr.com...
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9430650C8A0EEnobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:cEPrb.33758$Ll5.32092@twister.socal.rr.com:
I'm pointing out that it's not as simple as it seems. Particularly
since many negative statements can be re-cast as positive
statements.
Can you re-cast the non-existance of god as a positive statement?
(If you can I have a use for it.)
Easy! Everything that exists is something other than a god.
Which is pretty much equivalent to "Everything that exists is
not god.", isn't it?
Why are you wording your questions in the singular mode ("... the
existence
of god...", "... is not god ...") as though you are presuming there is
only
one god?
It's a habit aquired from life long emersion in a predominantly
Christian culture.
Or as H. L. Mencken said:
One may no more live in the world without picking up
the moral prejudices of the world than one will be able to
go to hell without perspiring.
Ibid.: "Scientific Examination of a Popular Virtue", p.174
Do you see anything that justifies such a presumption?
Nope.
There are
thousands of hypothetical (imaginary) gods aren't there?
Yup.
-Ron
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 01:22:40 PM |
|
|
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:cEPrb.33758$Ll5.32092@twister.socal.rr.com...
...
Can you re-cast the non-existance of god as a positive statement?
(If you can I have a use for it.)
...
It is not the particular wording of a statement that matters, it is the
meaning. No matter how "There are no gods" is reworded it remains not a
claim (statement standing in need of proof), but the denial (negation in
logic) of one, and there is a basic principle of valid argument that the
burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who
denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 01:58:22 PM |
|
|
On 10 Nov 2003, "Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:cEPrb.33758$Ll5.32092@twister.socal.rr.com:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F7C970B051nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:FqBrb.5337$pE3.3679@twister.socal.rr.com:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F6BC9965BBnobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:1Fyrb.3108$pE3.579@twister.socal.rr.com:
You know, "you can't prove a negative" is its own disproof.
"you can't prove a negative" is a negative.
It's an oxymoron.
It's like "This statement is false."
Kind of funny when you think about. ;)
Those two statements (the ones in quotes) are not even in the same
league. The second, a self-referential statement, points out a
limitation of first order logic.
Furthermore, you have to be very careful with the first statement.
"You can't sit on your own lap" is a negative statement. "There
is no such thing as a square triangle", is another one. "There is
no life on Mars", is a third. Which of those statements is/are
impossible to prove? Many negative statements can be recast as
positive ones. "There is no life on any other planet", can
become, "Earth is the only planet where life exists". It's not as
simple as it seems.
I think I missed part of your point.
Were you pointing out that
"you can't prove a negative" is not specific as to
whether it refers to all negatives or at least
one particular negative.
I'm pointing out that it's not as simple as it seems. Particularly
since many negative statements can be re-cast as positive statements.
Can you re-cast the non-existance of god as a positive statement?
(If you can I have a use for it.)
Well, I can say:
"The universe is purely materialistic."
That's not the same as "there is no God" but *if* the universe is purely
materialistic, there is no God.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 02:12:04 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F8E247BDA4Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
On 10 Nov 2003, "Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:cEPrb.33758$Ll5.32092@twister.socal.rr.com:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F7C970B051nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:FqBrb.5337$pE3.3679@twister.socal.rr.com:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F6BC9965BBnobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:1Fyrb.3108$pE3.579@twister.socal.rr.com:
You know, "you can't prove a negative" is its own disproof.
"you can't prove a negative" is a negative.
It's an oxymoron.
It's like "This statement is false."
Kind of funny when you think about. ;)
Those two statements (the ones in quotes) are not even in the same
league. The second, a self-referential statement, points out a
limitation of first order logic.
Furthermore, you have to be very careful with the first statement.
"You can't sit on your own lap" is a negative statement. "There
is no such thing as a square triangle", is another one. "There is
no life on Mars", is a third. Which of those statements is/are
impossible to prove? Many negative statements can be recast as
positive ones. "There is no life on any other planet", can
become, "Earth is the only planet where life exists". It's not as
simple as it seems.
I think I missed part of your point.
Were you pointing out that
"you can't prove a negative" is not specific as to
whether it refers to all negatives or at least
one particular negative.
I'm pointing out that it's not as simple as it seems. Particularly
since many negative statements can be re-cast as positive statements.
Can you re-cast the non-existance of god as a positive statement?
(If you can I have a use for it.)
Well, I can say:
"The universe is purely materialistic."
That's not the same as "there is no God" but *if* the universe is purely
materialistic, there is no God.
That's not bad. I could try that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 02:15:52 PM |
|
|
On 10 Nov 2003, "Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:oiSrb.33771$Ll5.10312@twister.socal.rr.com:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F8E247BDA4Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
On 10 Nov 2003, "Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:cEPrb.33758$Ll5.32092@twister.socal.rr.com:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F7C970B051nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:FqBrb.5337$pE3.3679@twister.socal.rr.com:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F6BC9965BBnobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:1Fyrb.3108$pE3.579@twister.socal.rr.com:
You know, "you can't prove a negative" is its own disproof.
"you can't prove a negative" is a negative.
It's an oxymoron.
It's like "This statement is false."
Kind of funny when you think about. ;)
Those two statements (the ones in quotes) are not even in the
same
league. The second, a self-referential statement, points out a
limitation of first order logic.
Furthermore, you have to be very careful with the first
statement.
"You can't sit on your own lap" is a negative statement.
"There
is no such thing as a square triangle", is another one. "There
is
no life on Mars", is a third. Which of those statements is/are
impossible to prove? Many negative statements can be recast as
positive ones. "There is no life on any other planet", can
become, "Earth is the only planet where life exists". It's not
as
simple as it seems.
I think I missed part of your point.
Were you pointing out that
"you can't prove a negative" is not specific as to
whether it refers to all negatives or at least
one particular negative.
I'm pointing out that it's not as simple as it seems.
Particularly
since many negative statements can be re-cast as positive
statements.
Can you re-cast the non-existance of god as a positive statement?
(If you can I have a use for it.)
Well, I can say:
"The universe is purely materialistic."
That's not the same as "there is no God" but *if* the universe is
purely
materialistic, there is no God.
That's not bad. I could try that.
Not only so, but I could imagine that with more knowledge of science,
we'd eventually have enough basic laws from which to construct a solid
proof that the universe is purely materialistic -- which would in turn
prove that there is no God. I can't say for sure that this would ever
be possible, but perhaps...
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 02:25:04 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F8E247BDA4Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
On 10 Nov 2003, "Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:cEPrb.33758$Ll5.32092@twister.socal.rr.com:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F7C970B051nobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:FqBrb.5337$pE3.3679@twister.socal.rr.com:
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F6BC9965BBnobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:1Fyrb.3108$pE3.579@twister.socal.rr.com:
You know, "you can't prove a negative" is its own disproof.
"you can't prove a negative" is a negative.
It's an oxymoron.
It's like "This statement is false."
Kind of funny when you think about. ;)
Those two statements (the ones in quotes) are not even in the same
league. The second, a self-referential statement, points out a
limitation of first order logic.
Furthermore, you have to be very careful with the first statement.
"You can't sit on your own lap" is a negative statement. "There
is no such thing as a square triangle", is another one. "There is
no life on Mars", is a third. Which of those statements is/are
impossible to prove? Many negative statements can be recast as
positive ones. "There is no life on any other planet", can
become, "Earth is the only planet where life exists". It's not as
simple as it seems.
I think I missed part of your point.
Were you pointing out that
"you can't prove a negative" is not specific as to
whether it refers to all negatives or at least
one particular negative.
I'm pointing out that it's not as simple as it seems. Particularly
since many negative statements can be re-cast as positive statements.
Can you re-cast the non-existance of god as a positive statement?
(If you can I have a use for it.)
Well, I can say:
"The universe is purely materialistic."
You mean purely matter? The term, 'materialistic' is a pejorative term in
the theist straw man argument that science is is dogma like the religions
are, which is not true. Scientists are not dogmatic about it at all, if
anyone can demonstrate something in the universe that is supernatural, then
there will be no denying it.
That's not the same as "there is no God" but *if* the universe is purely
materialistic [I take it you mean 'matter' here], there is no God.
You've got it backwards. Nobody has to prove that there are no gods. The
burden of proof cannot be shifted.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
09 Nov 2003 09:40:05 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 01:00:21 GMT, "Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
"you can't prove a negative" is false as a blanket statement.
Which is why only theists use it, when arguing with atheists who claim
that a certain class of negatives can't be proved.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
09 Nov 2003 05:53:31 PM |
|
|
"Kenneth Doyle" <nobody@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942F6BC9965BBnobodynotmailcom@61.9.191.5...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in
news:1Fyrb.3108$pE3.579@twister.socal.rr.com:
You know, "you can't prove a negative" is its own disproof.
"you can't prove a negative" is a negative.
It's an oxymoron.
It's like "This statement is false."
Kind of funny when you think about. ;)
Those two statements (the ones in quotes) are not even in the same league.
The second, a self-referential statement, points out a limitation of first
order logic.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to substitute
the first statement itself in as the 'negative' to which
it refers.
Then it becomes self-referential and paradoxical.
Furthermore, you have to be very careful with the first statement.
Yes, you have to be careful to disallow the first statement because
it is not true. It dispoves itself as I think I have shown and there
are disproving example which you cite.
"You
can't sit on your own lap" is a negative statement. "There is no such
thing as a square triangle", is another one. "There is no life on Mars",
is a third. Which of those statements is/are impossible to prove? Many
negative statements can be recast as positive ones. "There is no life on
any other planet", can become, "Earth is the only planet where life
exists". It's not as simple as it seems.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
09 Nov 2003 10:16:04 PM |
|
|
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message news:<1Fyrb.3108$pE3.579@twister.socal.rr.com>...
You know, "you can't prove a negative" is its own disproof.
"you can't prove a negative" is a negative.
It's an oxymoron.
It's like "This statement is false."
Kind of funny when you think about. ;)
-Ron
Hi Ron
I don't think the statement *does* disprove itself. Given that the
statement "you can't disprove a negative" is itself a negative, still
it doesn't prove or disprove anything. Suppose the (negative)
statement is true; that just you can't *prove* it to be true, but it
doesn't mean the statement *isn't* true.
The statement "this sentence is false" doesn't say anything (I'd say)
so it cannot be true *or* false. You can see this by looking at the
opposite statement "this sentence is true". The latter is content
free, it conveys no information, so there's nothing in it to be false.
Or so it seems to me.
keith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
09 Nov 2003 11:57:28 PM |
|
|
"keith" <keithj43@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba696799.0311092016.18f86982@posting.google.com...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:<1Fyrb.3108$pE3.579@twister.socal.rr.com>...
You know, "you can't prove a negative" is its own disproof.
"you can't prove a negative" is a negative.
It's an oxymoron.
It's like "This statement is false."
Kind of funny when you think about. ;)
-Ron
Hi Ron
Hi Keith
I don't think the statement *does* disprove itself. Given that the
statement "you can't disprove a negative" is itself a negative, still
it doesn't prove or disprove anything. Suppose the (negative)
statement is true; that just you can't *prove* it to be true,
How do you mean 'prove'?
Reasonable proof? Absolute proof?
If you believe it to be true you have what you
consider reasonable proof.
but it
doesn't mean the statement *isn't* true.
The statement "this sentence is false" doesn't say anything (I'd say)
I don't quite see that.
It does seem like an assertion.
It does seem like it tries to say something (however
paradoxical that thing might be).
so it cannot be true *or* false. You can see this by looking at the
opposite statement "this sentence is true". The latter is content
free, it conveys no information, so there's nothing in it to be false.
Or so it seems to me.
Interesting. Certainly there is nothing in it to be false.
I'd agree that it essentially conveys no information.
However, it is an assertion. That implies someone making
the assertion. It is subject to logic and is not contrary
to logic. It is kind of like a logical zero.
Zero is a useful concept.
-Ron
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 01:08:24 AM |
|
|
(keith) said:
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message news:<1Fyrb.3108$pE3.579@twister.socal.rr.com>...
You know, "you can't prove a negative" is its own disproof.
"you can't prove a negative" is a negative.
It's an oxymoron.
It's like "This statement is false."
Kind of funny when you think about. ;)
-Ron
Hi Ron
I don't think the statement *does* disprove itself. Given that the
statement "you can't disprove a negative" is itself a negative, still
it doesn't prove or disprove anything. Suppose the (negative)
statement is true; that just you can't *prove* it to be true, but it
doesn't mean the statement *isn't* true.
The statement "this sentence is false" doesn't say anything (I'd say)
so it cannot be true *or* false. You can see this by looking at the
opposite statement "this sentence is true". The latter is content
free, it conveys no information, so there's nothing in it to be false.
Or so it seems to me.
Hi keith, maybe the statement should be "You can't prove false to
keith what (he'd say) seems true to him." ;-)
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
| User: "keith" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 12:19:10 PM |
|
|
Jim07D3 <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<l0euqvcec79ggf23pm5kia54s9njihfcd7@4ax.com>...
keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) said:
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message news:<1Fyrb.3108$pE3.579@twister.socal.rr.com>...
You know, "you can't prove a negative" is its own disproof.
"you can't prove a negative" is a negative.
It's an oxymoron.
It's like "This statement is false."
Kind of funny when you think about. ;)
-Ron
Hi Ron
I don't think the statement *does* disprove itself. Given that the
statement "you can't disprove a negative" is itself a negative, still
it doesn't prove or disprove anything. Suppose the (negative)
statement is true; that just you can't *prove* it to be true, but it
doesn't mean the statement *isn't* true.
The statement "this sentence is false" doesn't say anything (I'd say)
so it cannot be true *or* false. You can see this by looking at the
opposite statement "this sentence is true". The latter is content
free, it conveys no information, so there's nothing in it to be false.
Or so it seems to me.
Hi keith, maybe the statement should be "You can't prove false to
keith what (he'd say) seems true to him." ;-)
He he he:-)
But seriously, just the other day something that seemed true to me was
proved false. It seemed true to me that the union of the exterior of a
subset of a toplogical space X and the subset's interior was dense in
X, regardless of the topology on X. That didn't turn out to be the
case.
keith
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D3" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 12:29:20 PM |
|
|
(keith) said:
Jim07D3 <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<l0euqvcec79ggf23pm5kia54s9njihfcd7@4ax.com>...
....
Hi keith, maybe the statement should be "You can't prove false to
keith what (he'd say) seems true to him." ;-)
He he he:-)
But seriously, just the other day something that seemed true to me was
proved false. It seemed true to me that the union of the exterior of a
subset of a toplogical space X and the subset's interior was dense in
X, regardless of the topology on X. That didn't turn out to be the
case.
Well, then maybe not... ;-)
But at least it isn't just going over old ground. Or space. Whatever.
Jim07D3
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 02:02:13 PM |
|
|
On 10 Nov 2003, (keith) screwed up his face, groaned,
pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:ba696799.0311101019.52e37fb4@posting.google.com:
Jim07D3 <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<l0euqvcec79ggf23pm5kia54s9njihfcd7@4ax.com>...
(keith) said:
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:<1Fyrb.3108$pE3.579@twister.socal.rr.com>...
You know, "you can't prove a negative" is its own disproof.
"you can't prove a negative" is a negative.
It's an oxymoron.
It's like "This statement is false."
Kind of funny when you think about. ;)
-Ron
Hi Ron
I don't think the statement *does* disprove itself. Given that the
statement "you can't disprove a negative" is itself a negative,
still it doesn't prove or disprove anything. Suppose the (negative)
statement is true; that just you can't *prove* it to be true, but it
doesn't mean the statement *isn't* true.
The statement "this sentence is false" doesn't say anything (I'd
say) so it cannot be true *or* false. You can see this by looking at
the opposite statement "this sentence is true". The latter is
content free, it conveys no information, so there's nothing in it to
be false. Or so it seems to me.
Hi keith, maybe the statement should be "You can't prove false to
keith what (he'd say) seems true to him." ;-)
He he he:-)
But seriously, just the other day something that seemed true to me was
proved false. It seemed true to me that the union of the exterior of a
subset of a toplogical space X and the subset's interior was dense in
X, regardless of the topology on X. That didn't turn out to be the
case.
I have no idea what you just said.
*wanders off in blissful ignorance*
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maky m." |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 10:45:52 AM |
|
|
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message news:<1Fyrb.3108$pE3.579@twister.socal.rr.com>...
You know, "you can't prove a negative" is its own disproof.
"you can't prove a negative" is a negative.
It's an oxymoron.
It's like "This statement is false."
the issue it's a bit richer, as martin thomas has already exemplified.
more examples...
1. fermat's last theorem
there is no integer n greater than 2 such that
x^n + y^n = z^n,
where x, y, and z are integers, none of which is zero.
status: proved to be true about 300 years after pierre de fermat
conjectured it to be true.
2. riemann hypothesis (original version)
there is no infinite set whose cardinality ("size") is less than the
cardinality of the real numbers and whose cardinality is greater than
the cardinality of the integers.
status: an undecidable statement in the context of zermelo-fraenkel
set theory. a question under research is whether it is possible to
expand zermelo-fraenkel set theory in a way that the continuum
hypothesis becomes false.
3. existence of gods
there is no god.
status: some atheists in this ng assume this statement is true,
despite examples 1 and 2 above.
Kind of funny when you think about. ;)
yep :)
-Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: you can't prove a negative |
10 Nov 2003 01:48:32 PM |
|
|
"maky m." <mmanch01@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:188f56bf.0311100845.33de6a7b@posting.google.com...
...
3. existence of gods
there is no god.
status: some atheists in this ng assume this statement is true ...
I don't believe this assertion you just made is true. You are just turning
the actual situation bass-ackwards, knucklehead. We non-believers are simply
pointing out that your existential proposition is not known to be true, and
you cannot shift the burden of proof to us under any pretext like this
current one here, that the non-believers are making an assertion that some
statement is true.
"There are no gods" is simply a statement based on examination of the facts
in evidence, the denial (negation in logic) of your existential proposition
that it is true that a magic invisible something you refer to as "god" might
in reality exist because (you argue _ad ignorantiam_) there is no proof your
hypothesis is false.
The issue genuinely under discussion here is how many gods are there that
you can define in any kind of meaningful, verifiable way, and publicly
demonstrate by your count, knucklehead? The count still stands at zero,
right?
All the rest of this smokescreen junk that you, Jeffy Wrong, et al,
continually post here is simply fallacy of diversion away from the issue
that is genuinely under discussion, your glaring inability to publicly
demonstrate any gods.
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
