Very little causes an atheist to slam his head against the wall more than this one! No one can prove a negative! I can't prove that Batman, Isis or Leprechauns don't exist but they clearly do not!
Chris may have used his usual strong language, but he does make a good point. The statement "no one can prove a negative" is itself a negative statement and thus self-contradictory. This is mostly owing to the fact that it is poorly phrased. He provided a link to a useful resource on proving negatives and how they fit into logical reasoning: http://www2.canisius.edu/~moleski/proof/provenegs.htm
So technically it is possible to prove a negative. A good example was given (in another thread) as to whether you can prove the statement "pink unicorns do not exist."
1) Find all the unicorns in existence and show that none of them are pink. 2) Find all the pink things in existence and show that none of them are unicorns.
Logically you could apply the same test to God. How would you go about proving that "God does not exist"?
1) Find all the deities in existence and show that none of them are Jehovah. 2) Find all the existent things and show that none of them are gods.
This might seem a bit daunting, but let's go back to your definition of a god. Any being that is so inaccessible that we must search the entire universe for it could not be a god; it is not receiving prayers or sacrifices, it is not being worshipped, and therefore it is not a god. An elusive being like this is certainly no deity worth concerning ourselves with, and it can't have any effect on our lives whatsoever. Therefore we can narrow down the search area to our world. Since a god without worshippers is not a god by definition, we can narrow that down even further to the human realm, or the part of the world that we know.
With that in mind the proof reduces to this:
1) Find all the deities that exist in the human realm and show that none of them are Jehovah. 2) Find all the existent things in the human realm and show that none of them are gods.
Needless to say we can automatically rule out any gods with internally inconsistent definitions.
"Humanity's deepest desire for knowledge is justification enough for our continued quest. And our goal is nothing less than a complete description of the world we live in." S. Hawking
"I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazzard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorance." F. Douglass
Last modified September 3rd, 2005, 9:17pm by Unbeliever
Chris and I disagree on many things - for example: Hitler was NOT a Christian.
Now - proving a negative...
I would contend that proving a negative is only possible with proof of a contradicting positive. Thereby you are still proving a positive.
In a case where it is impossible to present a contradicting positive - the negative cannot be proven.
I can falsify the Bible and make my case that Jehovah only exists as a character in the Old Testament, therefore Jehovah doesn't exist. I have proven a positive: The Bible is inaccurate because it conflicts with these positive facts.
Now the Christian says "I believe that the people at the time didn't understand what Jehovah was doing and the Old Testament is wrong but Jehovah does still exist. Prove that Jehovah doesn't exist." Now this negative has no contradicting positive that I can prove. This is a negative that is impossible to prove.
"Prove there are no Leprechauns" is another example of a negative that is impossible to prove because there is no contradicting positive that can be proven.
These are just my opinions but let's get to the heart of the matter. When a Christian says "Prove there is no (undefined) god." you have to be able to say; "That is the logical fallacy of x" or "You can't prove an x" correlating the challenge with proving that Leprechauns and Batman don't exist.
If that's the case though then the statement should really be rephrased. It is possible to prove some negatives but not others. In cases where contradicting positives are nigh impossible to come up with then the corresponding negative is probably nothing worth concerning oneself with due to the implicit fallacies. Special pleading comes to mind-- if any positive alternatives are unprovable by default then the negative is likely on the same shaky ground.
By the same standard, every positive statement has any number of implied negatives. For example to say that I ate a strawberry is to say that what I ate was not a blueberry, a blackberry, a raspberry, etc. To say that I reside in the US is to say that I don't reside in Canada or Mexico (which is different from owning a home in those places just to be clear). To say that I am an atheist is to say that I am not a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, etc.
In any event, the fact that every negative implies the ability to prove a positive actually works against the theist who says, "Well prove that Yaldabaoth doesn't exist!" For this to be possible, it must first be possible to prove that a god exists in the first place! It is up to the theist to define this god, and to provide existent qualities that are not self-annihilating. Those who turn the argument onto the atheist by saying, "Prove otherwise," are committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Why? Because like you said, proving a negative entails proving a positive. They must first show that it is indeed possible to prove the existence of a god, otherwise their request is utterly meaningless.
If at that point Christians are still unwilling to give you a definition of the god they are asking you to disprove, out of fear that you'll kick a logical hole in said definition, that actually works to your advantage. You can provide your own definition for God, and either show how it is self contradictory or how it serves as a contradicting positive.
My usual tactic is to assert that God is simply an idea or a strong expression of emotion. A person's belief that he exists is entirely contingent on his/her perceptions, thoughts, experiences, and internal conditioning. All the input we get from the world is processed and filtered internally. Without those factors, God would cease to exist as far as the individual is concerned. It is rather easy to support this definition of God or any other deity out there. Then I ask the theist to prove that God is anything more than that.
Debunking Apologetics! › Anti-Apologetics › Skeptic Mistakes › Is it possible to prove a negative?
Author
Is it possible to prove a negative? (currently 53 views)
Logged
Administrator
