Can one prove a negative?

  • Thread starter superwolf
  • Start date
  • #1
176
0
It's often claimed that you cannot prove a negative. On the surface, it seems to be true: if Person A says “I think Unicorns exist” and Person B says “I don’t think unicorns exist”, it’s pretty clear that Person B is going to have a hard time proving that there isn’t a God. However, if you look a little closer, it actually depends on the nature of the negative statement being made. Here are some negative statements that can be proven very easily:

Five is not equal to four

The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld

The tsetse fly is not native to North America

Clearly, it’s possible to prove a negative statement. The real problem here is clearly the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that X exists, and he does not specify the nature of X – that is, is X small, large, blue, red? And where is he? Of course it is not possible to prove that X does not exist, if X is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of – except for (surprise!) the non-existence of mystical beings. When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”

Logical statements have to abide by certain rules and restrictions. In order for a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be presented in such a way that it could be proven incorrect. A statement is not logical if it cannot be tested to make sure it is true. The statement "X" exists is therefore absurd and nonsensical. No one even knows what X is supposed to be.
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Wow. Is this a scientific way of proving that God does not exist?
Or did you made up this thought in a conversation about God? :P
Regardless, good thinking.
Seems to be a nice way to prove wrong statements that I wouldn't normally mess with.
 
  • #3
176
0
No, it's not proof that God does not exist. First we'll have to define God scientifically. My real point here is that what scientists use to claim - that you cannot prove a negative - is not necessarily true.
 
  • #4
Ok, sorry. I was just joking.:P
By the way, I don't think anyone could "define God scientifically." It wouldn't be God if he could...
I didn't also knew that scientists claim that you cannot prove a negative so sorry again.
And I agree with you, you can prove a negative with simple examples (like the given ones).
 
  • #5
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,260
301
You can't prove a general negative [I forget the proper terminology here].

One can prove that there is no fly in the jar [for example], but one cannot prove that there are no flies. And it doesn't apply only to mystical ideas. For example, prove that there is no intelligent life in the universe beyond that here on earth.
 
  • #6
176
0
That's why scientists should not waste their time trying to disprove the existence of God. One can argue philosophically against the existence of such a being, but there's no way of testing it scientifically, even if we had all the technology and instruments we could dream of.
 
  • #7
176
0
one cannot prove that there are no flies.
Isn't that just because of technological limitations? God on the other hand, is not disprovable, because you have no way of knowing what it would look/hear/smell/feel like if you observed it.
 
  • #8
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,260
301
That's why scientists should not waste their time trying to disprove the existence of God. One can argue philosophically against the existence of such a being, but there's no way of testing it scientifically, even if we had all the technology and instruments we could dream of.
That is, unless God showed up for a test.
 
  • #10
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,260
301
How would you know it was God?
You could show evidence that a being meets the definition of God.
 
  • #11
176
0
But what is that definition?
 
  • #12
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,260
301
It depends on who you ask. Generally, omniscient and omnipotent are considered to be part of the definition, so you could show evidence for this.
 
  • #13
f95toli
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,091
584
Five is not equal to four

The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld

The tsetse fly is not native to North America
Statement 1 can possibly be proven IF the person you are trying to persuade accepts the fundamental axioms of math.

Statement 2 is impossible to prove. We can't know with 100% certainty that the ancient Egyptians did not have access to time-traveling technology that allowed them to receive broadcasts from the future. It is obviously not very likely:wink:, but the point is that you can't prove it.

And I have no idea how one would prove statement 3. Granted, discovering that the tsetse fly IS native to NA would be a sensation; but as far as I know it wouldn't violate any known laws or nature, or even change the way we think of biology and/or the migration of species in any fundamental way. I am not even sure it would be more surprising than e.g. the discovery that Coelacanth is still around (to take just one example).
 
  • #14
6,265
1,280
Statement 2 is impossible to prove. We can't know with 100% certainty that the ancient Egyptians did not have access to time-traveling technology that allowed them to receive broadcasts from the future. It is obviously not very likely:wink:, but the point is that you can't prove it.
The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld because he is Jewish. For comedy they liked Malcom In The Middle of all things.
 
  • #15
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
You could show evidence that a being meets the definition of God.
It depends on who you ask. Generally, omniscient and omnipotent are considered to be part of the definition, so you could show evidence for this.
How would a test-God demonstrate that it is omniscient or omnipotent? (Besides, is there even a definition of these terms that is logically consistent within some axiomatic framework?)
 
  • #17
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,260
301
It's not possible to find evidence for these.
Well, how about if he made the heavens cease to exist?

Any number of tests could be done to test for knowledge that couldn't possibly be had. For starters, it could be as simple as "what's in my hand?" From there, predict the time and location of the next nova or solar flare.

I don't understand your objection.
 
  • #18
176
0
Omnipotence is impossible. Can God create a stone that is so heavy that he can't lift it himself?
 
  • #19
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,260
301
Omnipotence is impossible.
True or not, that has nothing to do with the discussion. All that you are doing here is arguing that God doesn't exist, which is a violation of the posting guidelines. You asked about proof of a negative.

Can God create a stone that is so heavy that he can't lift it himself?
For a moment he could make himself not a God. :tongue:

Religious discussions [debates] are not allowed.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
490
2
Omnipotence is impossible. Can God create a stone that is so heavy that he can't lift it himself?
That argument does not disprove omnipotence...the usual reply is:

when talking about omnipotence, referencing "a rock so heavy that a deity cannot lift it" is nonsense just as much as referencing "a square circle." So asking "Can a deity create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can a deity draw a square circle?" Therefore the question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless.
 
  • #21
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,260
301
How would a test-God demonstrate that it is omniscient or omnipotent? (Besides, is there even a definition of these terms that is logically consistent within some axiomatic framework?)
If we really had a God to test, you would not be able to falsify the claim based on the definition. Isn't that that the limit of science no matter what the subject may be?
 
  • #22
The way I have always understood it is that you can not prove a negative but you can prove a positive which refutes the negative. That is you can show evidence of what is but you can not show evidence of what is not.
 
  • #23
176
0
Omnipotence leads to paradoxes, therefore it's not possible.

Anyway, why do so many scientists claim that I cannot prove a negative? Is it because of technological limitations, or will it never be possible to prove that pink elephants of measurable size don't exist in the universe?
 
  • #24
176
0
If we really had a God to test, you would not be able to falsify the claim based on the definition. Isn't that that the limit of science no matter what the subject may be?
That's my opinion too. We'll never be able to falsify the existence of such beings, unless we give them a scientific definition.
 
  • #25
664
3
You can't prove a general negative [I forget the proper terminology here].

One can prove that there is no fly in the jar [for example], but one cannot prove that there are no flies. And it doesn't apply only to mystical ideas. For example, prove that there is no intelligent life in the universe beyond that here on earth.
The lack of rigorous understanding of logic in this statement is appalling. It is entirely possible to prove a universal negative.

~P -> Q
~Q
~(~P)

or

P -> Q
~Q
~P

or

P -> ~Q
P
~Q

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-05.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html
 

Related Threads on Can one prove a negative?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
86
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Top