If your truly can't prove a negative then....

[quatona]

I suggest you study it so when someone on a philosophy forum uses the term you can know what they are talking about.

That is just some advice.

Unfortunately your advice was given instead of adressing the point it was made in response to.

While we are at side-tracking advices: I recommend the movie "Searching For Sugarman".

 

[quatona]

Who are these self-professed Christians?

Do you have any names?

Oh, the Spanish Inquisition again...

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

I would infer that his god concept involves what in your hypothetical he has already explained to me it involves:
- The father of "Jesus Christ of Nazareth"
- Revealed to the Old Testament prophets as The Almighty God, Creator of heaven and earth
- the entity whose words are the OT and NT
- the entity the son of which he has faith will salavate his sould.

Whereas I wouldn´t assume any of those things about a person of whom I merely know that he calls himself "Christians" and has started to talk about "God" when I talked about the weather.

Now, what was your point in asking what I would think what his god concept includes from what a person has already told me about the god of his concept?

My point was that it should not be a mystery as to what the word "God" means when a Christian (a person who believes Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the Son of God (God as revealed to the Old Testament prophets as The Almighty God, Creator of heaven and earth), a person who views the Old and New Testaments to be God's Word to mankind, and a person who has placed their faith in Christ for the salvation of their soul) uses it in a sentence whose context tells you what he is referring to.

That was my point. From now on I will include the above to explain what I mean by "Christian" and "God" when I post here because you have demonstrated to me that it is not so self-evident what a Christian is referring to when they use the word "God" in a sentence.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

Oh, the Spanish Inquisition again...

You said quite a few self professed Christians understand "God" to be "the universe" and some "unspecified natural force".

I was curious if you knew any of these people by name.

I do not think those in the Spanish Inquisition have anything to do with what we are talking about.

​

 

[quatona]

My point was that it should not be a mystery as to what the word "God" means when a Christian (a person who believes Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the Son of God (God as revealed to the Old Testament prophets as The Almighty God, Creator of heaven and earth), a person who views the Old and New Testaments to be God's Word to mankind, and a person who has placed their faith in Christ for the salvation of their soul) uses it in a sentence whose context tells you what he is referring to.

That was my point. From now on I will include the above to explain what I mean by "Christian" and "God" when I post here because you have demonstrated to me that it is not so self-evident what a Christian is referring to when they use the word "God" in a sentence.

Yes, sure. When a person has told me what it means for him to be a Christian I know what it means for him to be a Christian.
Great point!

 

[quatona]

You said quite a few self professed Christians understand "God" to be "the universe" and some "unspecified natural force".

I was curious if you knew any of these people by name.​

[
Yes, I know some of them by name or - since I have met them on the internet - by their username.

I do not think those in the Spanish Inquisition have anything to do with what we are talking about.

Monty Python - Spanish Inquisition Torture Scene - YouTube

​

 

[GrowingSmaller]

ignorance about negative ~g implies same about positive g.

 

[quatona]

I still don´t understand how "you can´t prove a negative" can have become such a widely accepted rule. It doesn´t seem to be hard to prove that it is not true.

 

[KCfromNC]

I would recommend studying Anselmian Perfect Being Theology.

It will help you understood what all is entailed in "The Greatest Conceivable Being" descriptor.

Here's a perfect example of a Christian referring to a god other than the one in the Bible and worshiped in church on Sunday. Here, it's a philosopher's version of god of some sort - the prime mover, necessary creator or whatever nonsense the argument assumes to reach its conclusions rather than the God who sent his son to save us from himself.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

Here's a perfect example of a Christian referring to a god other than the one in the Bible and worshiped in church on Sunday.

Anselm was a Christian as I am and like myself, he did not think "The Greatest Conceivable Being" was different than the God of the Bible who is worshiped in church on Sunday.

Since I am of the view that "The Greatest Conceivable Being" is simply another descriptor of the God of the Bible, the two are one and the same to me.

Here, it's a philosopher's version of god of some sort - the prime mover, necessary creator

This has been the classical definition for "God" in western philosophy, you are correct.

or whatever nonsense the argument assumes to reach its conclusions rather than the God who sent his son to save us from himself.

The descriptor is not an argument but can be used in an argument, namely, the Ontological Argument Anselm formulated and which is defended by contemporaries like Plantinga.

 

[Ken-1122]

I still don´t understand how "you can´t prove a negative" can have become such a widely accepted rule. It doesn´t seem to be hard to prove that it is not true.

Really??? Can you prove that Santa Clause does not exist? IF not, does that mean you believe in Santa Clause?

Ken

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

In our day to day lives, we do not require that propositions be proven to us with absolute certainty before accepting them as true.

If we did indeed live that way, we would never get anything done. We would not even be able to get out of bed, for before we moved to get out of bed, we would require some sort of empirical proof that when our feet hit the floor that we would actually be able to stand.

We would not be able to brush our teeth, for before we put the toothpaste in our mouth we would require some sort of absolute proof that the toothpaste was in fact toothpaste and not some sort of white toxic poison.

We would not be able to have our morning coffee because before we did, we would require some sort of absolute proof that it was in fact coffee and not some poisonous black liquid that smelled and looked and tasted just like coffee.

We would not be able to drive to work because we would require some sort of empirical, testable proof that when we turned the key in the ignition switch that the car would not malfunction and blow up but would rather simply start the engine to running.

We would not be able to commute, because we would not be absolutely certain that the drivers in on-coming traffic would stay in their lane and not come crashing head on into us.

All of these things we take for granted for various reasons. In other words, we trust that the coffee is coffee, that the toothpaste is toothpaste and that drivers will for the most part not kill us in head on collisions even though we can not be absolutely certain about these things.

It is evident by the way we live our lives that we take much more for granted than what we maintain we do in philosophy forums.

Over time, we recognize certain patterns in reality. We take these patterns for granted i.e that these patterns will continue to hold as they have in the past. This is how our reasoning is carried out in our everyday lives. For the past 10 years I have put keys into the ignition switches of cars and turn them causing the engine to crank. For the past 10 years I drink coffee every morning and it has been coffee for the past 10 years so I assume, take for granted, infer that it will be coffee tomorrow. This does not necessarily mean that it will be coffee tomorrow, but I can be pretty sure beyond a reasonable doubt. That is all I need.

We observe cause and effect without fail in our everyday lives. This is how we reason.

So when it comes to Santa Claus, I simply do not need empirical proof that Santa Claus does not exist to maintain that he probably does not exist.

Of course, he may actually exist somewhere, but the mere logical possibility that he exists in no way can be used to argue that he does indeed actually exist when we have good reason to think he does not.

We have no evidence that a fat old white man who wears a red suit can actually fit down people's chimney's. We have no evidence that he has a special type of craft that can be pulled by special reindeer who can fly that can traverse the entire globe and visit the billions of children in the world in one night.

So, it seems to me, that just because we cannot empirically prove that santa does not exist, that in no way prohibits me from making the statement: "Santa Claus does not exist" and that statement be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since none of us live as complete and total skeptics about reality, but take many things in our everyday lives for granted and feel justified in doing so, we should not pretend to be complete skeptics when it comes to certain philosophical subjects and topics.

We can debate all day and argue back and forth on whether the non-existence of something can or cannot be proven, but the question is:

"How do we live our lives?"

If we all live as if Santa Claus does not actually exist (I hope no grown adult who posts on these forums when it comes Christmas eve is actually out on their rooftop in the cold winter with a video camera hoping to catch a clip of an actual man riding in a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer), then why do we discuss his existence or non-existence so much in philosophy forums? It seems that our actions speak louder than our words.

 

[quatona]

Really??? Can you prove that Santa Clause does not exist?

No. Note how I didn´t claim that every negative claim can be proven.
I said the general claim "A negative can not be proven" is incorrect.

 

[Ken-1122]

In our day to day lives, we do not require that propositions be proven to us with absolute certainty before accepting them as true.

If we did indeed live that way, we would never get anything done. We would not even be able to get out of bed, for before we moved to get out of bed, we would require some sort of empirical proof that when our feet hit the floor that we would actually be able to stand.

We would not be able to brush our teeth, for before we put the toothpaste in our mouth we would require some sort of absolute proof that the toothpaste was in fact toothpaste and not some sort of white toxic poison.

We would not be able to have our morning coffee because before we did, we would require some sort of absolute proof that it was in fact coffee and not some poisonous black liquid that smelled and looked and tasted just like coffee.

We would not be able to drive to work because we would require some sort of empirical, testable proof that when we turned the key in the ignition switch that the car would not malfunction and blow up but would rather simply start the engine to running.

We would not be able to commute, because we would not be absolutely certain that the drivers in on-coming traffic would stay in their lane and not come crashing head on into us.

All of these things we take for granted for various reasons. In other words, we trust that the coffee is coffee, that the toothpaste is toothpaste and that drivers will for the most part not kill us in head on collisions even though we can not be absolutely certain about these things.

It is evident by the way we live our lives that we take much more for granted than what we maintain we do in philosophy forums.

Over time, we recognize certain patterns in reality. We take these patterns for granted i.e that these patterns will continue to hold as they have in the past. This is how our reasoning is carried out in our everyday lives. For the past 10 years I have put keys into the ignition switches of cars and turn them causing the engine to crank. For the past 10 years I drink coffee every morning and it has been coffee for the past 10 years so I assume, take for granted, infer that it will be coffee tomorrow. This does not necessarily mean that it will be coffee tomorrow, but I can be pretty sure beyond a reasonable doubt. That is all I need.

We observe cause and effect without fail in our everyday lives. This is how we reason.

So when it comes to Santa Claus, I simply do not need empirical proof that Santa Claus does not exist to maintain that he probably does not exist.

Of course, he may actually exist somewhere, but the mere logical possibility that he exists in no way can be used to argue that he does indeed actually exist when we have good reason to think he does not.

We have no evidence that a fat old white man who wears a red suit can actually fit down people's chimney's. We have no evidence that he has a special type of craft that can be pulled by special reindeer who can fly that can traverse the entire globe and visit the billions of children in the world in one night.

So, it seems to me, that just because we cannot empirically prove that santa does not exist, that in no way prohibits me from making the statement: "Santa Claus does not exist" and that statement be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since none of us live as complete and total skeptics about reality, but take many things in our everyday lives for granted and feel justified in doing so, we should not pretend to be complete skeptics when it comes to certain philosophical subjects and topics.

We can debate all day and argue back and forth on whether the non-existence of something can or cannot be proven, but the question is:

"How do we live our lives?"

If we all live as if Santa Claus does not actually exist (I hope no grown adult who posts on these forums when it comes Christmas eve is actually out on their rooftop in the cold winter with a video camera hoping to catch a clip of an actual man riding in a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer), then why do we discuss his existence or non-existence so much in philosophy forums? It seems that our actions speak louder than our words.

The person I was responding to said he didn't understand how "You can't prove a negative" has become such a widely accepted rule. He claims the ability to prove a negative should be simple. that is why I used the Santa Clause analogy.

Ken

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

The person I was responding to said he didn't understand how "You can't prove a negative" has become such a widely accepted rule. He claims the ability to prove a negative should be simple. that is why I used the Santa Clause analogy.

Ken

Of course Ken, and that is why I did not direct my reply to you or anyone in specific, but to all here.

My point is this:

When someone says: "You can't prove a negative" they usually say that as if it is really meaningful. They forget that in reality, there is very little, if anything at all that can be "proven" and by "proven" I mean shown to be certain beyond all doubt.

It is the theist that usually challenges the atheist with the assertion: "You can't prove a negative, and for the various reasons I have stated, I simply do not think this is a good line of reasoning."

 

[Tinker Grey]

Really??? Can you prove that Santa Clause does not exist? IF not, does that mean you believe in Santa Clause?

Ken

There are some negative propositions which cannot be proven true, but there are some that can.

For example, I cannot prove the non-existence of Santa Claus, however I can prove there is no elephant in my living room.

Similarly, if the god is question is omnipresent then I don't need to leave my couch to be justified in declaring that that god doesn't exist.

While my last example might be arguable, it is nevertheless not universal principle that one cannot prove a negative.

Formally, if A -> G, then ~G -> ~A. Modus tollens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So,
A. If the Christian God exists, then prayer will be answered in a statistically meaningful way.
B. Prayer is not answered in a statistically meaningful way.
C. Therefore, the Christian God doesn't exist.

(Obviously, one can object the premises.)

 

[Tinker Grey]

Hmm. I should have refreshed the page before I posted.

 

[Ken-1122]

No. Note how I didn´t claim that every negative claim can be proven.
I said the general claim "A negative can not be proven" is incorrect.

The reason it is an accepted rule is because when people use it they are refering to the type of negative that cannot be proven.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Of course Ken, and that is why I did not direct my reply to you or anyone in specific, but to all here.

My point is this:

When someone says: "You can't prove a negative" they usually say that as if it is really meaningful. They forget that in reality, there is very little, if anything at all that can be "proven" and by "proven" I mean shown to be certain beyond all doubt.

I disagree! I believe most positives can be proven by testing.

It is the theist that usually challenges the atheist with the assertion: "You can't prove a negative, and for the various reasons I have stated, I simply do not think this is a good line of reasoning."

I think you've gotten it backwards. I've never heard a theist telling an atheist "you can't prove a negative" but I've heard atheists tell theists this all the time.

K

 

[quatona]

The reason it is an accepted rule is because when people use it they are refering to the type of negative that cannot be proven.

Ah, so in full length the statement means "A negative cannot be proven when it cannot be proven"? Ok, then...