Why is it impossible to prove a negative?

Originally posted by black beetle
You can claim that In Your Opinion such a God truly does not exist, however you cannot prove by means of scientific facts and evidence that such a God does not truly exist😵

Only because you claim that scientific facts and evidence unreliable when looking for a God capable of manipulating them to his own ends.
But most people would still accept scientific facts and evidence as proof, regardless of your claims.
Take this scenario:
I claim that the empire state building does not exist, that there is really a little Green man who sits there and makes everyone think it exists, and is capable of deluding everyone and modifying any evidence. You cannot prove me wrong (according to your claims), yet most people would consider me proven wrong and consider me delusional.

Originally posted by finnegan
Excellent reference and many thanks for that. I recommend it. I think the "debate" about God does illustrate the point well. Quoting your source,
You can’t prove that there are no alien abductions! Meaning: your argument against aliens is inductive, therefore not incontrovertible, and since I want to believe in aliens, I’m going to dismiss the argument no alileo got into trouble by trying to warn the Church of this risk but messed up the politics.

I think the point is that there is no argument - however valid - that cannot be rejected by an extreme sceptic.

I agree, that's definitely part of it. The interesting aspect is how this type of skepticism is often employed only very selectively. Generally, persons do not have any gripe with inductive or abductive reasoning, and this is evidenced by the fact that we employ such reasoning virtually all the time and in the most mundane of circumstances -- which is something the paper I linked points out well. But, suddenly, if the topic is God or some other arousing thing, skeptics come out of the woodwork.

As you say, there is a place for skepticism. I think it should work something like "I understand your argument, but I remain unconvinced for this, that, and the other [evidential] reason". This I think is a very interesting, worthwhile response. But if they say something that boils down to dismissal of an argument on the basis that it is not incontrovertible (because it is inductive for example), I do not find that interesting at all. It is not interesting at all in my opinion because it gives one no good reason to think any differently or any deeper about the argument. A reasonable response to such dismissal might be "Yeah, I already know the conclusion is not incontrovertible because that is the nature of inductive argument. How about addressing the remaining fact that the argument purports to make the conclusion probably true?"

Originally posted by vistesd
And I too, madly—
with violins in the blooms,
and bees without strings,
and oxen unsung
under spring moons—
wander and dance
wander and dance
wander madly
wander and dance!

________________________________________


I think there ought to be a cue for Robbie and the bagpipes here somewhere…

😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
Only because you claim that scientific facts and evidence unreliable when looking for a God capable of manipulating them to his own ends.
But most people would still accept scientific facts and evidence as proof, regardless of your claims.
Take this scenario:
I claim that the empire state building does not exist, that there is really a little Green man ...[text shortened]... ding to your claims), yet most people would consider me proven wrong and consider me delusional.

Not only because of that, but also because even if empiricism could work efficiently herenow there is no way for you to prove that God was not observable in the past or that He will not be observable in the future. So the sole thing you can do is to claim that "God does not exist HereNow", however this claim is not a proof of the non-existence of God.
In addition, the theist will point you out that many scientific facts and evidence of the past are not considered anymore elements of the reality because they are falsified. And then he will ask you to prove that it will be impossible for the future science to monitor the existence of God. Mission impossible...

Furthermore, it seems to me that your scenario fails because it is given that the ESB exists (say 0), whilst it is not given at all the fact that God does not exist (say 1). Methinks you are forced to prove that the dissonance between the existence and the non-existence of an observer trancends both the supposed configuration "0 or 1" and the superposition "0/1" in every given SpaceTime...
Here I wait😵

Originally posted by Badwater
A violin, with or without strings, cannot play music!

The use of objects for the transmission of Zen is very common in the Zennist tradition. "Buddha" is the pure nature of the ground of the reality, and this nature cannot be grasped by a mind that is fed with greed, hatred and delusion. In the Zennist tradition "guitar/ violin without strings", "horses/ oxen made of clay" is a way to describe the human mind, whilst "music" and "playing/ roaming/ trotting all day long/ all night long" are used in order to describe the thoughts that they arise non-stop.

However methinks Kazoe already knows this thing I just reminded you😵

Originally posted by josephw
Ye-haw! Let's have a hoedown. 😕

How can you prove that you know what you 're talking about?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Not only because of that, but also because even if empiricism could work efficiently herenow there is no way for you to prove that God was not observable in the past or that He will not be observable in the future. So the sole thing you can do is to claim that "God does not exist HereNow", however this claim is not a proof of the non-existence of God.

I fail to see how past and future come into it at all.
1. the past is no less observable than the present. I have already had this discussion countless times with Kelly.
If anything, the past is more observable as all observations are strictly past (due to the speed of light limitation).
2. If the future is truly unknowable, then all talk of 'existence' in the future is futile. If I cannot know that God won't exist, then you cannot know that he will, and worse cannot even guess at it.

In addition, the theist will point you out that many scientific facts and evidence of the past are not considered anymore elements of the reality because they are falsified. And then he will ask you to prove that it will be impossible for the future science to monitor the existence of God. Mission impossible...
Again you are resorting to the claim that no proof of any kind is absolute. Again, the assumption of the thread is that proofs can exist, or that non-absolute proofs are what are under discussion.

Furthermore, it seems to me that your scenario fails because it is given that the ESB exists (say 0), whilst it is not given at all the fact that God does not exist (say 1) Methinks you are forced to prove that the dissonance between the existence and the non-existence of an observer trancends both the supposed configuration "0 or 1" and the superposition "0/1" in every given SpaceTime...
Here I wait😵
I am sorry, I don't understand that at all. Can you translate it into something I might understand?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I fail to see how past and future come into it at all.
1. the past is no less observable than the present. I have already had this discussion countless times with Kelly.
If anything, the past is more observable as all observations are strictly past (due to the speed of light limitation).
2. If the future is truly unknowable, then all talk of 'existence ...[text shortened]... I don't understand that at all. Can you translate it into something I might understand?

1. The past and the future are parts of the SpaceTime in which our observation takes place.
2. We agree, and this means exactly what I claim from the beginning of our conversation: it means that neither the theist can prove with scientific facts and evidence that God exists, nor the atheist can prove with scientific facts and evidence that God does not exist.

Secondly, the scientific proofs are accepted until the time that they are becoming falsified. For the time being we know that solely an aprox. 4% of the universe consists of matter -the rest is "emptiness", "energy", "mind-only", you name it. All that a common theist has to do is to point you towards this great unknown that covers like a blanket the so called "God", which instantly took the shape of that wee dwarf in yer fridge etc. etc.

Finally, I will try to rephrase it my third thesis: the reality that you (we) are aware of, it is striclty made up from elements of reality that are known to you (us). Whatever is not a known element of reality is undefined, but this does not mean that a specific undefined element of reality (in our case: God) does not exist. Therefore, according to the Epiontic Principle regarding whatever is not a known element of reality, anything could be possible -so you cannot prove that God does not exist.
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
2. We agree, and this means exactly what I claim from the beginning of our conversation: it means that neither the theist can prove with scientific facts and evidence that God exists, nor the atheist can prove with scientific facts and evidence that God does not exist.

But this applies to anything, so surely the proofs we are talking of are not some sort of rock solid proof that cannot exist, but rather convincing proofs (like we may have for the the existence of my fridge for example). I believe that if I can prove my fridge exists, then I can equally prove that there is no little green man inside it.

All that a common theist has to do is to point you towards this great unknown that covers like a blanket the so called "God", which instantly took the shape of that wee dwarf in yer fridge etc. etc.
And once again, you try to avoid my original condition - that the entity in question is well defined and not changing definition every time you look at it.

Finally, I will try to rephrase it my third thesis: the reality that you (we) are aware of, it is striclty made up from elements of reality that are known to you (us). Whatever is not a known element of reality is undefined, but this does not mean that a specific undefined element of reality (in our case: God) does not exist. Therefore, according to the Epiontic Principle regarding whatever is not a known element of reality, anything could be possible -so you cannot prove that God does not exist.
😵
Again, you try to avoid the condition. You deliberately place God in an unknown location with unknown attributes.
Or am I misunderstanding you?
Maybe it would help if you explained it in terms of the little green man in my fridge.
Until I open the fridge door, anything is possible, but you appear to be claiming that even after I open the door and look inside, I cannot determine his non-existence. This is where you loose me.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But this applies to anything, so surely the proofs we are talking of are not some sort of rock solid proof that cannot exist, but rather convincing proofs (like we may have for the the existence of my fridge for example). I believe that if I can prove my fridge exists, then I can equally prove that there is no little green man inside it.

[b] All that a ...[text shortened]... en the door and look inside, I cannot determine his non-existence. This is where you loose me.

Methinks your original condition means nothing for a theist. I ‘m sure that any theist would happily accept that, “…if God wanted to appear as a visible by you green dwarf in your fridge then He would be able to do His will just fine. All in all, you cannot see God in that specific shape because He does not want you to see Him or because He intends to appear to you as a dwarf at another given time in the future -therefore your inability to see Him means not that He does not exist even if you wait for his appearance for a trillion years”…

Now I will try again with my example:
Before you open the door of your fridge God can be Inside (0) or Not Inside (1), so we are in front of the potentiality “0 and 1 at the same time” (superposition 0/1). This means that each time you open the door it occurs solely one configuration (0 or 1), however when the door is closed the configuration remains 0/1 and therefore this state is indefinite (quantum superposition).
When you open the door at a given SpaceTime, God can be either Inside Visible as a dwarf (00) or Inside Invisible to you (01), or Not Inside and Non-Existent (11), or Not Inside and Existent at another SpaceTime in our universe (101), or Not-Inside and Existent at another SpaceTime in another universe (100). All I say is that I see no way to prove by means of scientific facts and evidence that the conditions 01 and 11 are identical (as you claim), and not a subunit of the condition 0/1 (as the theist claims bringing up the possible conditions 101 and 100, which they both can potentially be promoted to the condition 00 sometime in the future).
On the other hand, the theist cannot prove with scientific finds and evidence that the conditions 101 and 100 are not identical to the condition 11
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
All I say is that I see no way to prove by means of scientific facts and evidence that the conditions 01 and 11 are identical (as you claim), and not a subunit of the condition 0/1 (as the theist claims bringing up the possible conditions 101 and 100, which they both can potentially be promoted to the condition 00 sometime in the future).

Once again, your argument relies on changing the definition of God until it becomes too vague to pin down. The definition starts out as "a green dwarf in my fridge" but then quickly dissolves into "a green, or not so green dwarf that could be anywhere at any time, possibly in my fridge at some future date".

It is of course obvious that one can never prove the non-existence of an entity that might be anywhere, or may only exist at unknown times in the future. But once certain properties are specified, it is sometimes possible to prove the entities non-existence. In the case of the green dwarf in my fridge, proving it is there and proving it isn't there are identical in difficulty. It is simply a matter of opening the door and having a look.
Similarly, proving that the earth is or isn't entirely covered with a blanket of cheese is equally easy regardless of the cheeses existence.
The same applies to some theists descriptions of God. They either match reality or they don't and it is possible to prove one or the other with equal success and ease.
For this very reason, theists often play the changing definition game, or resort to the 'supernatural' claim which is essentially a claim that God does not follow rules and any definition given doesn't have to match reality.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Once again, your argument relies on changing the definition of God until it becomes too vague to pin down. The definition starts out as "a green dwarf in my fridge" but then quickly dissolves into "a green, or not so green dwarf that could be anywhere at any time, possibly in my fridge at some future date".

It is of course obvious that one can never pr ...[text shortened]... that God does not follow rules and any definition given doesn't have to match reality.

Your claim fails simply because the Time of Our Observance is infinite. Even if we exclude the condition 01, you have nothing on the theist because you cannot prove that the condition 11 is not a subunit of the conditions 101 and 100
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Your claim fails simply because the Time of Our Observance is infinite. Even if we exclude the condition 01, you have nothing on the theist because you cannot prove that the condition 11 is not a subunit of the conditions 101 and 100
😵

I disagree. If the definition of God includes an effect that is defined as being true throughout time, then the Time of Our Observance becomes irrelevant.
If the little green man is defined as always being in my fridge then it matters not when I look inside. Only when you say he is in my fridge at in-determinate times does it become impossible to prove his non-existence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. If the definition of God includes an effect that is defined as being true throughout time, then the Time of Our Observance becomes irrelevant.
If the little green man is defined as always being in my fridge then it matters not when I look inside. Only when you say he is in my fridge at in-determinate times does it become impossible to prove his non-existence.

But the dwarf will never be defined by the theist "as always being in your fridge". The common theist definitions of God cannot be falsified (and this is the reason why the refutation of the existence of God is validated by means of turning the disadvantage -for the atheist- of the infinity of Time into a disadvantage for the theist).

I will now offer you the most common theist definition that is claimed by individuals of many different religions: "God is the ground of all beings". Methinks you cannot bring up a falsification by means of scientific facts and evidence😵

Originally posted by black beetle
But the dwarf will never be defined by the theist "as always being in your fridge". The common theist definitions of God cannot be falsified (and this is the reason why the refutation of the existence of God is validated by means of turning the disadvantage -for the atheist- of the infinity of Time into a disadvantage for the theist).

I disagree. I believe most theists include somewhere in their definition of God, specific properties that can be either confirmed or disproved.
For example, a fairly large percentage of Christians claim that Jesus died and was resurrected. This claim is potentially provable or disprovable. We may lack the tools or the necessary evidence, but there is no scientific reason why it would be impossible to prove either way.
I believe the claim that Jesus was resurrected is essentially a part of their definition of God.

I will now offer you the most common theist definition that is claimed by individuals of many different religions: "God is the ground of all beings". Methinks you cannot bring up a falsification by means of scientific facts and evidence😵
Of course not, because I don't understand what you mean by 'ground of all beings'. You may be right that it is the most common property of God specified by theists, but it is most definitely not the complete definition given by most theists.