Why is it impossible to prove a negative?

Originally posted by LemonJello
The claim "It is impossible to prove a negative" is, depending on how it is meant, either (1) blatantly false or (2) not interesting.

Here is an informal article on the subject:

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

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 matter how overwhelming the evidence against aliens, and no matter how vanishingly small the chance of extraterrestrial abduction.

I think the point is that there is no argument - however valid - that cannot be rejected by an extreme sceptic. There is a place for scepticism in the world and so it is a matter of judgement how far to take their doubts into account. However, in certain situations (notably a court of law) it is surely reasonable to protest that one cannot prove a negative - meaning, one cannot reasonably be asked to prove it beyond doubt in the face of a sceptical audience. The article also makes clear that extreme scepticism would make life intolerable. Eventually we have to accept some level of evidence as sufficient for our needs.

In the case of belief in God, it is worth recalling that Christians (also Jews and Muslims) never did rely on logic or reasoning to prove there is a God. The work of the Greeks was quite separate. Rather, in the case of Western Christians anyway, the proposal of Thomas Aquinas and others was that, in so far as we accept the concept of reason, then it ought not to conflict with our belief. Proofs of God's existence were welcomed as showing that we do not have to become atheist in order to employ reason. And because there was no conflict between Faith and Reason, the Western Church not only tolerated but promoted training in logic and the natural sciences through universities which had a great deal of autonomy but were largely supported and funded by the Church. Countless early scientists could only enjoy education and academic work by joining orders like the Dominicans or the Jesuits. However it is the case that, increasingly, the Church made the error of protecting some views about nature which became unsustainable and in the resulting conflict, arguably lost the battle not only through the emergence of atheism, a modern phenomenon, but also in the fragmentation of Christianity itself. Galileo got into trouble by trying to warn the Church of this risk but messed up the politics.

Originally posted by Agerg
I see your point, but Twitehead's hypothetical god wasn't defined to be a "timeshifting/shapeshifting/placeshifting little green man for which there exists at least one time where it's location was or will be inside his fridge"; it was defined as nothing more than
"a little green man in [his] fridge".

I still argue, assuming the definition remains constant ...[text shortened]... in it's lack of presence I suppose...agh! why am I arguing about little green men??? 🙂

Twhiteheads's definition, which is included in my definition, a part of the superposition remins. God yesterday was my goldfish because I was been told so by God in person, who in my dream had the shape of a bush (not the Ameican, the other) on fire. That very same God is twhiteheads' dwarf although nobody spotted him there at his fridge. That very same God is the ground of all beings in every dimension. Etc etc etc.

You argue about little green men for a coupla minutes, however through time we are counting non-stop entire generations that they are talking about their nonsensical gods who appear here and there and everywhere. So worry not! From animism to paganism to monotheism we came a long way, and due time we will pass to more advanced projections of our mind overcoming Spinoza and the necessity to attribute holiness to our epiontic universe. Methinks it's only Us, the shapes that the human mind can adopt are infinite and empty.
Nothing Holy😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Twhiteheads's definition, which is included in my definition, a part of the superposition remins. God yesterday was my goldfish because I was been told so by God in person, who in my dream had the shape of a bush (not the Ameican, the other) on fire. That very same God is twhiteheads' dwarf although nobody spotted him there at his fridge. That very same God is the ground of all beings in every dimension. Etc etc etc.

As you have demonstrated, when a definition is made vague, it is practically impossible to prove the non existence of a matching entity.
But you seem to conclude that my point is false even though you do not address the case of precise or reasonably precise definitions.

Let us compare the non-existence of God with the non-existence of a gravity-like force emanated by thought waves.
If we are told that whenever we pray to God for a sick persons health, then the sick persons health is likely to improve, then we can study that claim scientifically and if there the statistics do not support the claim, we can conclude that such a God does not exist.
Similarly, we can measure the forces on peoples heads when they are thinking, or when they are not thinking, and if no measurable difference exists, we can conclude that no such 'thought gravity' exists (at least of a measurable quantity).
In both cases one might say "well, my God / thought gravity, doesn't act precisely that way, or the effect is so slight that you failed to measure it" etc, but that is, in effect, changing the definition and the proof for the original definition still holds.

I have always conceded that we have no way of knowing whether a God that has no effect on the universe exists or not, but who cares? Nobody is claiming such a God exists. As long as an effect is claimed, the effect can be investigated and potentially determined to exist or not exist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As you have demonstrated, when a definition is made vague, it is practically impossible to prove the non existence of a matching entity.
But you seem to conclude that my point is false even though you do not address the case of precise or reasonably precise definitions.

Let us compare the non-existence of God with the non-existence of a gravity-like f s claimed, the effect can be investigated and potentially determined to exist or not exist.

Let me pose another question, from a gestaltic point of view—figure/ground. One never really observes the ground; one can only observe the figures (whether such a figure is singular—as in a tree, or collective—as in a forest; one can potentially expand that to the level of the ultimate Whole—e.g., the universe—which by definition has no ground and cannot be perceived as such). The ground is strictly implicate, and yet seems necessary for any empirical observation at all—and not just conceptually necessary.

And yet, I am having a hard time defining the implicate ground in any less vague terms than “that which is necessary to observe/identify any figures/existents”.

In Taoism (which I am recently revisiting), this ground is called the Tao. Taoists, such as Lao Tzu, seem to go further and treat the ground as that which is necessary for any existents to exist as such, though the ground (the Tao) is fully instantiated in and as all existents (and their inter-relationships)—there is no un-instantiated “leftover” and the Tao (ground) and the existents (figures) are as inseparable as the ocean and the gulfstream. Lao Tzu goes so far as to say that the Tao is vague and indistinct, being itself unobservable (and he prefers to use allusive and metaphorical language, generally).

So, here it seems as if we have something for which it is difficult (if not impossible) to give a precise definition, and yet its necessary existence seems implied by the very fact that we can observe/identify any figures/existents. That would seem to be a kind of “counter-case” to the question being discussed in this thread.

—Okay, there are no question marks there, but think of that all as a (perhaps clumsy) question asking for comment…

_________________________________________________

I am just re-reading The Tao is Silent by Raymond Smullyan, a mathematical logician of some note, and a Taoist. He addresses the difficulty in precisely defining the Tao, but does not seem to see that as problematic. (The gestalt stuff is part of my own spin on it.)

Originally posted by twhitehead
As you have demonstrated, when a definition is made vague, it is practically impossible to prove the non existence of a matching entity.
But you seem to conclude that my point is false even though you do not address the case of precise or reasonably precise definitions.

Let us compare the non-existence of God with the non-existence of a gravity-like f ...[text shortened]... s claimed, the effect can be investigated and potentially determined to exist or not exist.

I said that your logical point works not, but I said not that your way of thinking is illogical.

Methinks the definition, say, "God is the ground of all beings" is not vague but, on the contrary, precise to the hilt.

On the other hand it seems to me that no theist would ever had the problem to tease you:
-- "Yes, I assure you that God is indeed a wee green man in yer fridge but, as he told me yesterday in my dream, He does not intend to reveal Himself neither to you nor to any other person. I am the sole blessed person with the ability to see Him because I am His prophet. Weep and repent!"
Now, would you really weep and repent just because you cannot falsify the above "reasonably precise" definition?
😵

Originally posted by vistesd
Let me pose another question, from a gestaltic point of view—figure/ground. One never really observes the ground; one can only observe the figures (whether such a figure is singular—as in a tree, or collective—as in a forest; one can potentially expand that to the level of the ultimate Whole—e.g., the universe—which by definition has no ground and cannot ...[text shortened]... but does not seem to see that as problematic. (The gestalt stuff is part of my own spin on it.)

Oh it's being a long time my friend, I hope that you and yours are fit and happy!











I had the feeling that the ground of the universe is mind-only😵

Originally posted by black beetle
On the other hand it seems to me that no theist would ever had the problem to tease you:
-- "Yes, I assure you that God is indeed a wee green man in yer fridge but, as he told me yesterday in my dream, He does not intend to reveal Himself neither to you nor to any other person. I am the sole blessed person with the ability to see Him because I am His p ...[text shortened]... ep and repent just because you cannot falsify the above "reasonably precise" definition?
😵

But you are wrong, I can potentially falsify it.
I can potentially identify whether or not you can or cannot see Him.
As I said previously, the only way you can guarantee to avoid my inquiry, is to define Him as having no observable effect on the universe. In this case, an observable effect exists (you seeing him).

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you are wrong, I can potentially falsify it.
I can potentially identify whether or not you can or cannot see Him.
As I said previously, the only way you can guarantee to avoid my inquiry, is to define Him as having no observable effect on the universe. In this case, an observable effect exists (you seeing him).

You cannot potentially identify whether or not I see Him. You can solely claim that according to your empiricism and to your lab gear you monitored that you have "indications beyond any doubt" that I cannot/ have not see Him, however the reply is that your empiricism and your lab gear are constantly failing because God, who is visible solely to me right now, does not intend to be visible or traceable by any other person and by any kind of scientific gear. The sole way for you to see God is solely His desire to become visible to you. How can you falsify me?

And which way can you falsify the Biblical claim regarding, say, Enoch's rapture?
😵

Originally posted by amolv06
I have often heard the claim that it is impossible to prove a negative. While I've heard many examples of where it is impossible to prove a negative (i.e. "we can't disprove God", " a ball will never 'fall' up"😉, the examples make me lean towards the idea that it's impossible to prove a negative, but I'm not entirely convinced. Could someone explain this to me from a more philosophical standpoint?

What's a negative?

If a negative is "nothing", then it doesn't exist.

How can one prove that something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist?

On the other hand, if a thing exists, proving it doesn't exist is meaningless.

For example; how can I prove that I know what I'm talking about? 😵

Originally posted by black beetle
You cannot potentially identify whether or not I see Him. You can solely claim that according to your empiricism and to your lab gear you monitored that you have "indications beyond any doubt" that I cannot/ have not see Him, however the reply is that your empiricism and your lab gear are constantly failing because God, who is visible solely to me right ...[text shortened]... way for you to see God is solely His desire to become visible to you. How can you falsify me?

Of course lab gear may be faulty, but that applies to both positive an negative claims equally.
Even if you have caught the little green man by the leg, you can't prove his existence if you doubt your eyes and hands.
But in case you have not realized, you have essentially had to define your God as having no observable effect on the universe. In addition, you are at risk of being illogical. ie you claim he has an effect on you but that effect is not observable by me. That could lead to all sorts of paradox's and would almost certainly require your God to be capable of modifying the past in order to hide his traces.

And which way can you falsify the Biblical claim regarding, say, Enoch's rapture?
😵
As I said, potentially identifiable, I didn't say it was always possible in practice. If God is a little green man on a planet in another galaxy, I have no real hope of determining his existence even if you gave me his precise locations and characteristics.
If Enoch's rapture had an effect on the universe, then it is theoretically possible to study it. In practice we can only go so far.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course lab gear may be faulty, but that applies to both positive an negative claims equally.
Even if you have caught the little green man by the leg, you can't prove his existence if you doubt your eyes and hands.
But in case you have not realized, you have essentially had to define your God as having no observable effect on the universe. In addition ...[text shortened]... universe, then it is theoretically possible to study it. In practice we can only go so far.

-- "Yes" replied the theist, "that applies to both positive and negative claims. "And no", he went on, "I don't doubt your eyes and hands but your faith: if you were a true believer, hopefully you could see Him when he would choose to reveal His Holy Presence to you. I know I appear illogical to you, however I truly prefer to abide in Him, letting my Lord transforming me with His grace, than to please a wicked person"...
A standard theist claim is that God has indirect observable effects on the universe (ie by means of tranfsorming the believer thanks to His grace, and such a thing is not observable per se; we merely see the individual theist acting on his own whilst s/he claims that s/he acts "as if" on her/ his own.


Enoch's rapture really has an effect on the universe: it has the power to transform specific observers related to the observer universe (methinks jaywill amongst else will be glad to ease this Gentile of yours to spot that ole stairway to Heaven)
😵

Gee, if we 'll keep up talking about this matter a wee longer I 'll soon end up converted😵

Originally posted by black beetle
A standard theist claim is that God has indirect observable effects on the universe (ie by means of tranfsorming the believer thanks to His grace, and such a thing is not observable per se; we merely see the individual theist acting on his own whilst s/he claims that s/he acts "as if" on her/ his own.

In other words the effect on the universe is only observable by the theist, but essentially non-existent to the atheist. Can one therefore conclude that such a God only exists for the theist and that we essentially exist in a different universe from the theist?

Or are we talking about observable effects that could have multiple explanations?
If this is the case then either the source of the effects are truly unidentifiable or potentially one of us could convince the other of the source of the effects. If the source is truly unidentifiable, then again, we should potentially be able to convince the theist of this and leave the rest to Occam's razor.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In other words the effect on the universe is only observable by the theist, but essentially non-existent to the atheist. Can one therefore conclude that such a God only exists for the theist and that we essentially exist in a different universe from the theist?

Or are we talking about observable effects that could have multiple explanations?
If this ...[text shortened]... should potentially be able to convince the theist of this and leave the rest to Occam's razor.

Nope; the effect on the universe is not observable solely by the theist because it is a fruit of enlightenment thanks to the phainomenon of the grace of God. And it is God the agent that will choose whether or not a person will become, if ever, enlightened. Furthermore, this effect is existent although it is not observable by the wicked. Therefore such a God exists for both the theist and the wicked atheist, and both of them exist in the same universe
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Gee, if we 'll keep up talking about this matter a wee longer I 'll soon end up converted😵

i wish 🙂