-Let It Be Known What Atheism Truly Is-

If you want to insist a negative cannot be proven in the same sense that a positive can be...nothing I can do. Insist for your limitations...and they are yours.

If you want to prove a negative...do it. If you are smart enough to write the paragraph you just did...you can easily devise a negative and prove.

Try...there are no live African elephants in my desk drawer...

...and then open the drawer.

 

Somehow I think you're thinking opposite is negative.
All I did is ask you for 1 example. Why do you not want to show us all?
Never mind, everyone knows why you CAN'T show us all.

 

Dairy...a negative statement is one that says something is not true...or does not exist.

I suspect you are confusing "proving a negative" with the concept of "burden of proof."

I've given you two examples so far.

How many do I have to furnish before you acknowledge that I have?

As for showing you "all"..."all" what?

 

Most evil deeds are committed by religious people.

 

NEGATIVE PROOF- definition

A negative proof (known classically as appeal to ignorance) is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.

 

nope
....

 

That was my point in my last post.

One can easily prove a negative...but that does not change the burden of proof...nor does a lack of a proof of a negative indicate that the positive is true.

One cannot claim "at least one god exists"...and then demand that unless someone who disagrees proves the negative of that...then it is proven to be so.

First we have to understand what a negative statement is. A negative statement is one that states something is not true...or not so...or does not exist. (Mostly, negative statements are statements in opposition to positive ones.)

Essentially...ALL assertions are positive assertions for the purposes of burden of proof, even those assertions with negative words in them.

At least one god exists...is a positive assertion...stated positively. It bears a burden of proof or substantiation.

There are no gods...also is a positive assertion...stated negatively. It bears as great a burden of proof or substantiation.

"There are no live, African elephants in that desk drawer"...is a positive assertion. But it is a negative to "there is a live, African elephant in that desk drawer." One can easily PROVE the negative by opening the drawer.

"There is a ruler in that desk drawer" is a positive assertion. It can be proved (if it is correct) by opening the drawer and observing the ruler.

As long as the scope of the negative is fairly limited...OFTEN IT CAN BE PROVED.

The assertion "one cannot prove a negative" is a myth...and if one were able to prove it correct, since it is a negative, one would, at the same time, be proving it incorrect.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, it can...as I have shown.

 

Was napoleon religious, if so what religion? Was Hitler religious, if so what religion? Was Caeser religious if so, what religion? I know most pharaohs were religious, they worshipped the sun, and they hated Israelites (God's people).

Your claim is absurd.

 

So "There are no Gods" is a negative but "There is no African elephant in my desk drawer" is not... because Rahl says so. Great "logic" there.

 

Why are you "correcting" Frank Apisa for some sillyness that jrr777 said?

How is that not a negative?

 

a negative can't be proven.

..

you haven't shown. You've proven a positive. A negative can not be proven.

- - - Updated - - -

stating there is no African elephant in the desk drawer is a negative. Opening the drawer is proving what is in the drawer, which is a positive. You can't prove a negative.

 

Yes...a negative can be proven.
..

As I said...a negative can be proven.

 

Negative Claim: There are no married bachelors.

<points to definition of bachelors>

Negative Claim: There are no African Elephants in this drawers
<opens drawer to reveal absence of African Elephants>

Negative Claim: This solution does not contain 10 pbm or more of chemical x
<dips in a test strip for chemical x and it does not change color>

Negative Claim: There are no invisible pink unicorns
<points out the contradiction of something being both invisible and a color on the visible spectrum>

 

Agreed.

You are trolling me.

 

Thank you, Help.

This sidebar has, as usual, become one of those contests that should not be held on the windward side of a ship!

It is going nowhere...and has little to do with the topic of the thread.

 

1+1 /= 3, is not a negative. It is a false equivalence.

And the negative being discussed is, can one prove something that doesn't exist, does not exist.
Can you prove there is no Santa, easter bunny, bigfoot, loch ness?

 

Epic irony. The claim that you cannot prove a negative is in itself a negative claim. Therefore when you claim that you have proven that you cannot prove a negative, you are at the same time claiming that you have proven a negative. This is hilarious!

 

nope
..

a negative can not be proven

 

I doubt that...but let's let that rest for a bit.

That simply is NOT CORRECT.

The matter being discussed is someone asserting, "One cannot prove a negative."

One can.

That is what is being discussed.

I cannot prove anything of that sort.

But that does not mean "one cannot prove a negative."

- - - Updated - - -

I mentioned that to him.

Rahl keeps insisting that one cannot prove a negative.

If he were able to prove that assertion...he would essentially be proving that he is wrong.

I expect the wiggling "there is no such thing as a negative statement" to come along soon.

- - - Updated - - -

It most assuredly can.

Yeah, it can.

And if you were able to "prove" your assertion that a "negative cannot be proven"...you would be proving a negative.

 

I am correcting you

- - - Updated - - -

nope.

nope

nope

 

I think I have had more productive arguments when I was in kindergarten.

 

Oh well, the topic of this thread is the most boneheaded sort of atheist bashing, so no big loss.

 

Yes I can...and have.

Yes, it really can.

Yeah...you would be proving that you cannot prove what you claim you are proving.

It is a hopeless argument you are championing. Best you stick with the "nope" answers.

 

Just be careful with what you say, Help...and how you say it.

There are people in this forum with the intention of trolling and upsetting others to the point where they say something over the line...then they report that post...and it causes an infraction.

Don't play their game!

 

OK. We'll call it a negative claim.
And those claims can be verified or proven false.

For those that can't be proven one way or the other.

Proving a negative[edit]
A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. There are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem.

A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim.[10][11]

Example[edit]
Internet personality Matt Dillahunty gives the example of a large jar full of gumballs to illustrate the burden of proof.[12][13] The number of whole gumballs in the jar is either even or odd, but the degree of personal acceptance or rejection of claims about that characteristic may vary. We can choose to consider two claims about the situation, given as:

The number of gumballs is even.
The number of gumballs is odd.
Either claim could be explored separately; however, both claims tautologically take bearing on the same question. Odd in this case means "not even" and could be described as a negative claim. Before we have any information about the number of gumballs, we have no means of checking either of the two claims. When we have no evidence to resolve the proposition, we may suspend judgment. From a cognitive sense, when no personal preference toward opposing claims exists, one may be either skeptical of both claims or ambivalent of both claims.[14][15][16] If there is a dispute, the burden of proof falls onto the challenger of the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative.[17] If there is no agreeable and adequate proof of evidence to support a claim, the claim is considered an argument from ignorance.[18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

So we'll call the discussion an argument from ignorance.