If negative cannot be proved

[paarsurrey]

then why get into such an irrational position in the first place?
Regards

____________
Isn’t Atheism a world view without reasons and arguments?
Atheism people have a belief "God does not exist "
Is Atheism a claim to the nature of reality and the universe?
"There is nothing that atheism (on its own) claims is 'right.' "?
"Atheist can't be an Anti-theist & Anti-theist can't be an atheist"?
With new observations comes a new belief
It is very natural to believe

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Into what position?

 

[james blunt]

then why get into such a position in the first place?
Regards

Perhaps it can be proved , but proof is experiment .

 

[ImmortalFlame]

then why get into such an irrational position in the first place?
Regards

Firstly, what irrational position are you referring to?

Secondly, negatives can be proven.

 

[exchemist]

then why get into such an irrational position in the first place?
Regards

____________
Isn’t Atheism a world view without reasons and arguments?
Atheism people have a belief "God does not exist "
Is Atheism a claim to the nature of reality and the universe?
"There is nothing that atheism (on its own) claims is 'right.' "?
"Atheist can't be an Anti-theist & Anti-theist can't be an atheist"?
With new observations comes a new belief
It is very natural to believe

Negatives often can be proved. For example "2 + 2 is not equal to 5" can be proved. Or, for a physical example, "the Earth is not made of cheese".

But many cannot, just like plenty of positive statements.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Firstly, what irrational position are you referring to?

Secondly, negatives can be proven.

But if it can't

 

[Sunstone]

It's commonplace to believe negatives cannot be proved. But as any logician will tell you, they can indeed be "proved". Both properly proved in deductive logic and mathematics, and "proved" in the less rigorous sense of being supported by an overwhelming weight of reasoning and evidence in inductive logic.

See this article for the details.

 

[exchemist]

It's commonplace to believe negatives cannot be proved. But as any logician will tell you, they can indeed be "proved". Both properly proved in deductive logic and mathematics, and "proved" in the less rigorous sense of being supported by an overwhelming weight of reasoning and evidence in inductive logic.

See this article for the details.

I must admit I had no idea there was a popular notion that you can't prove a negative. I am a bit shocked to discover some people have this misapprehension.

 

[PureX]

then why get into such an irrational position in the first place?

Because it's a safe place to hide while you attack the positive.

 

[james blunt]

It's commonplace to believe negatives cannot be proved. But as any logician will tell you, they can indeed be "proved". Both properly proved in deductive logic and mathematics, and "proved" in the less rigorous sense of being supported by an overwhelming weight of reasoning and evidence in inductive logic.

See this article for the details.

See this maths for details

-0.5 + 0.5 = 0

When a negative energy combines with a positive energy the result is nullified.

This process and simple piece of maths, applies to everything in the observable Universe . The summation of total energy of the Universe equates to 0 in a steady state .

The fundamental transfer of energy and thermodynamics can be expressed

0+1-1=0

 

[columbus]

then why get into such an irrational position in the first place?
Regards

What's irrational?

I observe a Creation that looks like the Creator is so far beyond human understanding that claims made by humans on the subject don't have any credibility. I also know that humans regularly invent fiction, and often mistake it for truth. Ancient people were even more prone to this than modern people, because their understanding of reality was so much more primitive.

One thing that has been demonstrated to me, without a shadow of doubt, is that there is no omnimax deity that chooses to communicate with me.

So, far and away, the most plausible explanation for all that is that religion is fiction. So, while I find prophets and Scripture and theology interesting, I don't think they are objectively true. I strongly doubt that any of them accurately reflect reality.
I am very certain that the reality is far grander and stranger than any mere human is capable of describing.

Tom

 

[Curious George]

I must admit I had no idea there was a popular notion that you can't prove a negative. I am a bit shocked to discover some people have this misapprehension.

It is actually quite amusing. Sunstone has to post a thread on it every couple of months.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I must admit I had no idea there was a popular notion that you can't prove a negative. I am a bit shocked to discover some people have this misapprehension.

The comment refers to the fact that the nonexistence of something might be impossible to prove.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I must admit I had no idea there was a popular notion that you can't prove a negative. I am a bit shocked to discover some people have this misapprehension.

I find it especially funny when the same people talk about "extinct" species without realizing the irony.

 

[PureX]

See this maths for details

-0.5 + 0.5 = 0

When a negative energy combines with a positive energy the result is nullified.

This process and simple piece of maths, applies to everything in the observable Universe . The summation of total energy of the Universe equates to 0 in a steady state .

The fundamental transfer of energy and thermodynamics can be expressed

0+1-1=0

If the parameters are clearly defined, and quantifiable, then a negative proposition can indeed be proven. Good point.

 

[PureX]

What's irrational?

It's irrational to presume there we could prove something that is not so. This is what is meant by the axiom that it's impossible to prove a negative.

I observe a Creation that looks like the Creator is so far beyond human understanding that claims made by humans on the subject don't have any credibility. I also know that humans regularly invent fiction, and often mistake it for truth. Ancient people were even more prone to this than modern people, because their understanding of reality was so much more primitive.

One thing that has been demonstrated to me, without a shadow of doubt, is that there is no omnimax deity that chooses to communicate with me.

So, far and away, the most plausible explanation for all that is that religion is fiction.

Well, religions certainly use fiction to help conceptualize their ideology. And it's also true that a lot of people are "art blind"; meaning they are unable to differentiate between the metaphor and the ideal that the metaphor is meant to represent. But I'm not sure this invalidates religion and it's use of metaphorical fiction so much as it exemplifies our human bias and ignorance toward it.

So, while I find prophets and Scripture and theology interesting, I don't think they are objectively true. I strongly doubt that any of them accurately reflect reality.

I don't think they were intended to accurately reflect "objective reality". Do you? I think they were intended to reflect our subjective experience and understanding of reality.

I am very certain that the reality is far grander and stranger than any mere human is capable of describing.

Or understanding.

 

[exchemist]

The comment refers to the fact that the nonexistence of something might be impossible to prove.

Ah well, yes, that's what I also suspected might be behind this. But that of course is a special class of assertion.

Proof of the non-existence of pink unicorns would seem to be impossible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the parameters are clearly defined, and quantifiable, then a negative proposition can indeed be proven. Good point.

Also if the existence of a thing has implications that can be tested:
- if there was an opaque dome over my town, I wouldn't be able to see the Sun.
- I can see the Sun.
- therefore, an opaque dome over my town does not exist.

And there's also induction: while it can never yield perfect certainty, we can infer a lack of existence from a lack of evidence if we've done a search that ought to have found it:

- we haven't seen a live dodo - or nests, scat, or other signs of a live dodo since the 1600s.
- humans have been active throughout what was the dodo's natural range, and would have been likely to see at least some of them if a population still remained.
- therefore, it's much more likely that dodos no longer exist than that they continue to exist.

 

[Sunstone]

I must admit I had no idea there was a popular notion that you can't prove a negative. I am a bit shocked to discover some people have this misapprehension.

I've actually heard it frequently here in America. But then, what nonsense to informed people have I not actually heard frequently here in America.

 

[PureX]

Also if the existence of a thing has implications that can be tested:
- if there was an opaque dome over my town, I wouldn't be able to see the Sun.
- I can see the Sun.
- therefore, an opaque dome over my town does not exist.

How opaque? The parameters need to be set, and quantifiable, or else we're just speculating, not proving.