How Do You Prove Something Doesn't Exist?

[The Rockerfly]

Google it, if you get no results it doesn't exist.

You can google God

ZING

OT: Personally if it doesn't apply to my senses and isn't provably by science then it doesn't exist

 

[viranimus]

That is a ridiculous assumption, the burden of proof always falls to the one making a substantiated claim regarding a existence or phenomenon. Regardless if something has always been accepted or not, it falls upon those who actively believe it to provide evidence of their claims.

You just disagreed with me by agreeing with me?

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim

This argument almost always comes up for one reason, God. The concept of a unseen reality and a creator image has been with humanity for arguably 50k years. God and the spiritual realm have been an accepted part of human existence for almost as long as humanity has existed in its current form.

If Scientific man makes the claim God does not exist, so does the burden of proof fall to scientific man to prove God does not exist because it is the scientific man who is making the claim that goes against the accepted notion of the general consensus. It absolutely does NOT fall to the religious man to prove God exists, because he was not making the claim as what he believes in has long been widely accepted, even before the claim against it was made.

No the ridiculous assumption is that because those who hold faith in science are blocked by the fact that the notion cannot be disproven, it was justifiable to craft a defense mechanism to validate dismissing a factor that stood inconveniently in the way.

The funny thing about this is if you change the word God with Aliens how much more accepting and tolerant to this notion the scientific community becomes even in the absence of any sort of tangible evidence..

 

[Avistew]

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Basically, you can't prove something isn't there, just because there is no evidence, which means you can't disprove something, EVER.

I disagree.

It depends what you're supposed to disprove. If you're supposed to disprove something like God, it's impossible, because the definition of God makes it so that anything could just be God wanting things to be that way.

However, you can prove there isn't a table somewhere by putting a glass and watching it fall. Unless the person tries to argue the table is intangible, in which case you cannot prove it.

Similarly, you may not be able to prove you don't have something in your house if it's small enough that it could reasonably just be hidden well enough, but you can prove you're not wearing a bra by lifting up your shirt.

So it sincerely depends.
- Some things can be proven right but not wrong ("You know the name of my first pet". Try proving that wrong. As many times as you say a wrong name could just be you pretending you don't know. But you just need to say my first pet's name to prove you did know it. Same for pretty much every piece of knowledge, really. That's one thing raised about torture, that the person might actually not know, or might pretend they don't. You can never be sure.)
- Some things can be proven wrong but not right (science for instance works with these a lot. You can repeat an experience over and over again, but you can't prove it will ALWAYS have these results. Yet if just once the results are different, it disproves the idea that the result will always be the same). Or take the example of "This person is mute". If they speak once, it's proven wrong. If they never speak, they could still be able to talk but just deciding not to. Of course, this last example is the same as the previous one, backwards. If you phrase it as "This person can speak" it can be proven right but not wrong (or not easily at the very least).
- Some things can be proven either way. "I am Caucasian". If you can see, it can be proven one way or another. Basically, things where either case can be easily observed.

In your example, you can prove Avo and Skorm exist if you meet them, but can never prove they don't exist. Even if the person who made them up told you so, they could be lying. Even if you prove nothing they're told to have been done has been done, they could have existed and done none of it. So in that case, no you cannot prove it.

 

[Popadoo]

Do you really NEED to disprove something if there isn't solid proof? Surely people wouldn't believe something if there was little to no evidence?
...
Oh.

 

[Redingold]

Using maths?

E.g. I know that there does not exist a real value of x for which x[sup]2[/sup] = -1

 

[kickyourass]

Sadly that isn't how it works, you can prove that it is very, very, VERY, unlikely for a given thing to exist, but you can never positively prove that it doesn't exist altogether.

The good thing however is that in the real world the burden of proof is not on the person who says something does NOT exist, it is one the person who says it DOES.

 

[Canid117]

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Basically, you can't prove something isn't there, just because there is no evidence, which means you can't disprove something, EVER.

Pretty sure we have disproved a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation] few [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism] things. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacism]

 

[icaritos]

That is a ridiculous assumption, the burden of proof always falls to the one making a substantiated claim regarding a existence or phenomenon. Regardless if something has always been accepted or not, it falls upon those who actively believe it to provide evidence of their claims.

You just disagreed with me by agreeing with me?

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim

This argument almost always comes up for one reason, God. The concept of a unseen reality and a creator image has been with humanity for arguably 50k years. God and the spiritual realm have been an accepted part of human existence for almost as long as humanity has existed in its current form.

If Scientific man makes the claim God does not exist, so does the burden of proof fall to scientific man to prove God does not exist because it is the scientific man who is making the claim that goes against the accepted notion of the general consensus. It absolutely does NOT fall to the religious man to prove God exists, because he was not making the claim as what he believes in has long been widely accepted, even before the claim against it was made.

No the ridiculous assumption is that because those who hold faith in science are blocked by the fact that the notion cannot be disproven, it was justifiable to craft a defense mechanism to validate dismissing a factor that stood inconveniently in the way.

The funny thing about this is if you change the word God with Aliens how much more accepting and tolerant to this notion the scientific community becomes even in the absence of any sort of tangible evidence..

What I meant is that no matter how long the gag has been running, if no solid argument has been made in favor of it, the burden still falls on the believers. Even though religion is the longest running gag in human history what it boils down to is someone saying "this invisible entity exists", don't expect others to take you for your word, prove it does.

 

[viranimus]

What I meant is that no matter how long the gag has been running, if no solid argument has been made in favor of it, the burden still falls on the believers. Even though religion is the longest running gag in human history what it boils down to is someone saying "this invisible entity exists", don't expect others to take you for your word, prove it does.

Now how is that? Its not the believers who are making the claim It doesnt exist. They are not the ones who need or are begging to be convinced. So why should the burden of proof fall to those who didnt make the claim? That is arbitrarily interpreting the condition of "there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim" to your own will so that the argument doesnt fall against your favor. It is twisting the intention around because the same scientific principle used to rail on religion fails to give you ironclad ammunition to continue that assault.

The principle of " there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim" Its no different than challenging an established scientific theory. The scientific community has agreed upon a conclusion resulting in an established theory. Some guy comes along and says "No, that cant be" its not up to the scientific community to prove their theory for what ever reason the theory was established and accepted it. They have established reasons why their accepted theory is accepted. It is up to the guy who claims it must be wrong to prove its wrong. That is the very nature of science. It not only is commonplace, but it is expected. So how is it you get to ignore that because it extends beyond the reach of what science entails? Is it because that same logical scientific nature inadvertently defends something you may not want to consider?

Its not even asking for proof. Its more like telling someone they are wrong and expecting them to give you the reasons they are wrong. You dont get to cry foul when science validates the possibility of God and the existence of unseen levels of existence just because it does not fit the set of assumptions you may have subscribed to. How good is scientific inquiry that ignores its own terms and conditions in order to fit the ideal one may desire it to be?

 

[icaritos]

What I meant is that no matter how long the gag has been running, if no solid argument has been made in favor of it, the burden still falls on the believers. Even though religion is the longest running gag in human history what it boils down to is someone saying "this invisible entity exists", don't expect others to take you for your word, prove it does.

Now how is that? Its not the believers who are making the claim It doesnt exist. They are not the ones who need or are begging to be convinced. So why should the burden of proof fall to those who didnt make the claim? That is arbitrarily interpreting the condition of "there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim" to your own will so that the argument doesnt fall against your favor. It is twisting the intention around because the same scientific principle used to rail on religion fails to give you ironclad ammunition to continue that assault.

The principle of " there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim" Its no different than challenging an established scientific theory. The scientific community has agreed upon a conclusion resulting in an established theory. Some guy comes along and says "No, that cant be" its not up to the scientific community to prove their theory for what ever reason the theory was established and accepted it. They have established reasons why their accepted theory is accepted. It is up to the guy who claims it must be wrong to prove its wrong. That is the very nature of science. It not only is commonplace, but it is expected. So how is it you get to ignore that because it extends beyond the reach of what science entails? Is it because that same logical scientific nature inadvertently defends something you may not want to consider?

Its not even asking for proof. Its more like telling someone they are wrong and expecting them to give you the reasons they are wrong. You dont get to cry foul when science validates the possibility of God and the existence of unseen levels of existence just because it does not fit the set of assumptions you may have subscribed to. How good is scientific inquiry that ignores its own terms and conditions in order to fit the ideal one may desire it to be?

It is asking for proof. There is no established truth in religion to be challenged, nothing even remotely close to that. Science exists to understand the world and the universe, it is not out of its grounds to question a belief that actively claims how said universe came to be.

What you fail to realize (or refuse to) is that the claim your imaginary person is refuting has already been proven. Look at a high school physics book and you will see how the scientific community has laid down explanations for all the concepts they hold. The reason why the scientific community wouldn't need to refute your hypothetical person is because a convincing case for their theories already exists, and is readily available for anyone interested in learning about such concepts, so it falls on hims to prove his theory.

Please stop being ridiculous, you are trying to claim that because religion has existed for so long it does not need explanation. To this day there is no convincing evidence for the existence of god, nothing that can be easily analyzed or reproduced. The burden of proof always falls to those who make an exceptional claim, saying there is a supernatural being who created everything and sees everything all the time is far more outlandish them saying "but there is no evidence of such".

In a perfect world frankly, I wouldn't give a shit. People can believe what they want. But in this world and society, religion tends to bleed into everything. Classrooms, conflicts, wars or skyscrapers, nothing is out of reach for religious fanatics.

 

[viranimus]

EDIT: Sorry about the mix up... took some time to piece this all together properly. Look after this Ive said all I can say, I dont think its feasible to prove something does not exist in the context of what the OP intended.

Snip

Spoiler: Spoiler'd because this is turning into a doctoral thesis.

But as it has been established your not in the right to ask for proof in this case. Burden of proof falls to they who make the claim. A commonly held notion that has existed within humanity practically as long as we have had sentience is accepted. If your going to make the claim, It invariably has to fall to you to provide the proof.


So Its not being ridiculous. What is being ridiculous is playing by one set of rules and then trying to ignore them when they contradict your preconceived assumptions. There is no other definition for that. If you make a claim that goes against established understanding, you have to be able to prove it. Your making the claim that God does not exist. That goes against what the human majority subscribes to. So because your making the claim God does not exist, the burden falls on you to prove it, which you cannot because you cannot prove something does not exist in this context and that is the only reason to try to shrug off the burden of proof.

You dismiss the Longstanding historical acceptance of the possibility of the existence of God and an unseen reality that exists beyond human perception. I can only assume your doing so based on the modern increase of atheism, but your completely ignoring what made the acceptance of God a given. Scientific and rational minds from Kant to Nietzche, Aristotle to Edison, Muhammad al-Khwārizmī, to Zhuge Liang. M.Nowak to L. Hurwicz. Tesla to Twain. Out of the 100 greatest minds that shaped history only 6% are atheist and 5% unknown. 89% subscribe to some sort of religious denomination. Hell Even Bill Nye the Science guy at least is open to the possibility. So how exactly can you ignore well over 2000-5000years of recorded history where widespread and common openness and acceptance to the possibility that God and an realm beyond human perception might well exist? Choosing to view it as antiquated, ignorant superstition And dismiss it by calling it an "unconvincing case" and "no convincing evidence" yet minds infinitely greater than both yours or mine combined have accepted these notions as plausible. What exactly do you require to be at least consider it might be possible?

Is religion beyond being questioned? Absolutely not. However, I did not say that. Those are your words. Your misinterpreting the fact that history has long been open to the concepts of religion and the existence of God to the point that they are a given and because they are a given, the perspective that makes up the estimated 11% that is the outside the common view and It is the claim that is being made that goes outside the norm. As such, Its not the responsibility of the 89% to prove something that 11% is making the exceptional claim of.

But, you want compelling reasons. There in lies the problem. If you refuse to open your mind, expand your view, it does not matter if you are presented with ten thousand reasons, your not going to consider ANY reason valid. Thats why you look at high school physics and see no compelling argument. your missing the facts before you because it IS high school level physics of which validates the possibility of the existence of an unseen realm beyond human perception, and thus if there is a form of existence that is beyond human perception it validates the possibility that God can in fact exist. But the question is will you be open to this notion, or be more resolute in the lack of evidence?

If your unwilling to consider something might be possible for something to exist beyond human perception, your relying on science to be your answer. However even science knows it does not have all the answers. So relying on science becomes best educated guesses, speculation and really little more than faith itself..

But look, I do get it. Hell I am not even that religious of a person myself. Science and religion are not things to be set at odds. They are two parts of a greater whole that at times work independent of each other, and other times work in unison. However it is easy to become close minded. When you see the worst case examples in humanity that embody extremely specific beliefs that end up being misinformed, ignorant beliefs it makes it easy to disregard the underlying system of faith as irrelevant, out of touch and just plain wrong. But is it right to condemn religion because an incompetent nitwit who cant keep two separate facts straight like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann promote "Christian Values?" But you have to remember, for every bad example like Palin or Bachmann, there are perfect examples of how faith is done right such as Mother Teresa, or Ghandi.

Look I admit, I would like to sway you, as well as everyone who can only see what is bad about religion to if nothing else keep an open mind to the possibility and to have humility for just how little we truly know in this gigantic cosmos.

 

[Booze Zombie]

If something doesn't exist, it is never contested. Which is why blind belief always hits me the wrong way.

 

[icaritos]

Fixed i hope.

 

[noxymoron19]

You can't. As much as it pains me to say it, it isn't possible. Just a you can't lick you elbow, or think of a new colour, or get off the escapist at 2 in the morning, these things just aren't humanly possible

 

[ArchangelLBC]

Warning: The following is very long. Feel free to read only parts of it. For those who care, my qualifications for speaking on the math that follows are a Master's Degree in Mathematics which will be conferred in August as part of a pursuit of a Ph.D in the same subject. Unless you actually come to the graduation ceremony I obviously can't prove it to you though =P

Nothing is provable.
As long as we base our knowledge on epistemological evidence and allow society's prejudices to cloud our judgement, truth is nonexistant. However, we have no other realistic, objective way of seeing the world. Therefore, this argument is meaningless. In fact, all arguments are meaningless. Nothing can ever be proven for sure.

Hi thanks for playing. You are now no longer part of any rational discussion so long as you hold this axiom because if I assume you are right then I have absolutely no reason to believe any of your arguments. The proof that there are no proofs is self-contradictory on its face.


As a few have said it is in fact quite possible, and for mathematicians is a somewhat mundane affair, to prove a negative. Impossibility theorems are rife throughout mathematics and since all science is based on math at the end of the day, the only reason they don't like that is because it can't be done experimentally(as pointed out so humorously in the posted video).

A prime example is one of the so called "problems of antiquity" and it deals with the problem of trisecting a given angle. As commonly formulated the idea is that given ONLY the tools of an unmarked straight edge and a collapsible compass, it is impossible to construct an algorithm to trisect a given arbitrary angle. This is not to say that some angles can't be so trisected, but rather the impossibility of doing it in general. And the impossibility of doing so is in fact provable. With such a proof in hand I know ahead of time that if anyone claims to be able to trisect an arbitrary angle with just an unmarked straight edge and collapsible compass, that they are either mistaken or lying. I don't even have to look at their algorithm. I know it isn't possible, and unlike scientific "impossibilities" which historically have often proven to be wrong, this one is iron clad. It simply is not possible.

In general this is how the Reducio Ad Absurdum (i.e. proof by contradiction but with fancy foreign words) works. As others have mentioned you assume that it is in fact possible and derive a contradiction. Like I said, mathematicians do it all the time.

What you fail to realize (or refuse to) is that the claim your imaginary person is refuting has already been proven. Look at a high school physics book and you will see how the scientific community has laid down explanations for all the concepts they hold. The reason why the scientific community wouldn't need to refute your hypothetical person is because a convincing case for their theories already exists, and is readily available for anyone interested in learning about such concepts, so it falls on hims to prove his theory.

Please stop being ridiculous, you are trying to claim that because religion has existed for so long it does not need explanation. To this day there is no convincing evidence for the existence of god, nothing that can be easily analyzed or reproduced. The burden of proof always falls to those who make an exceptional claim, saying there is a supernatural being who created everything and sees everything all the time is far more outlandish them saying "but there is no evidence of such".

Actually what you fail to realize is that his point is that at one point the existence of God was the established belief. The general falling away from that belief was not one of scientific inquiry at all and now you have two camps with firmly established beliefs and the fact is that whichever one you march into, if you make the claim that they are wrong (i.e. walking into a church and claiming God doesn't exist or walking into a skeptics conference and claiming that He does) then the onus IS in fact on you to support your claim.

Again, while the posted video was wrong about being able to prove a negative, though he was quite right about the inability to do it experimentally, he was absolutely right that the burden wasn't on him because he wasn't a debunker. If he WAS a debunker than the burden of proof would be on him. Since he knows he can't prove a negative experimentally, and since he is loathe to dabble into any other methods of proof, that is a profession which he has declined, but that doesn't change the fact that he knows full well that if he was a debunker, e.g. if he was going into a church and making the claim that God didn't exist then the burden of proof would be his, not the church's.

Personally if it doesn't apply to my senses and isn't provably by science then it doesn't exist

In a lot of ways this is pure and utter nonsense, but its an attitude that I see on this thread a lot. From the probability argument all of human history, having only happened once, is immensely improbable. Probability itself cannot be upheld by any type of scientific experimentation, and the entire idea of a Universe which conforms to some sort of uniformity, under which alone probability has any meaning, is itself accepted on pure faith by the entire scientific community.

To wit: The Battle of Waterloo, like all historical truths, is one which is impossible to test by experimentation. And yet we feel reasonably certain that it happened. Believe it or not, the many Christians, and other religious folk around the world, who DO believe in a personal God do not do so because we believe He was just dreamed up. We believe it on what we feel, rightly or wrongly, to be good historical evidence, combined with our own transcendental experiences whose consistency with the reports of fellow believers makes us confident that they are not mere illusions.

I feel I have sound logical proof that this interlocking system of nature cannot be all there is (read Miracles by C.S. Lewis for a good treatment on the subject if you want. I don't feel like getting into it here), and that something outside nature (and so supernatural by definition) exists. But I can no more scientifically, or rigorously prove that God exists than I can prove any other historical fact, or fact about something which is literally outside the observable universe, and the thing is I accept already that such a proof will never be possible. That is even if science were ever able to attain all knowledge which lies within its ability to obtain, assuming such a thing is possible, I know science will never be able to prove positively or negatively that God exists. It simply lies outside science's ability.

All that to say that you do your fellow man a great disservice by assuming that because he believes something on faith that he has no reasons whatever to support it. The Judeo-Christian faiths of the west (I confess to being too ignorant of eastern traditions to comment accurately about them) do not claim to have simply thought up God but claim that He revealed Himself to them. If you believe a priori that there is no God then all such claims are automatically ludicrous on their face, but in such a case you need to have proof that no such God exists, just as I need a proof that it is impossible to trisect an angle with collapsible compass and unmarked straightedge before I dismiss all claims to the contrary out of hand. Otherwise you must be willing to evaluate the historical evidence on its face, or, much more likely, come to a conclusion about the possibility of such claims, and if possible, the probability of such claims, before they can be so evaluated. Looked at with either a mind open enough to accept other historical facts, or a mind which has settled positively on both the possibility and probability of such a fact, I do believe the historical evidence holds up, but both the possibility and probability are things which must be handled completely logically and outside the realm of experimentation because I tell you now that no such experimentation is possible.


Ok at this point I know I'm getting way too long and wordy and lets face it these are pretty weighty matters to be discussing on what, at the end of the day, is a video game forum, and I won't blame anyone who goes "TL;DR". But for those who do read I appreciate any thoughts on the matter.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Using maths?

E.g. I know that there does not exist a real value of x for which x[sup]2[/sup] = -1

Bad example... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number


But yeah. Math and logic are the only two which can prove the non-existence of something.

 

[Trull]

I remember this raging topic years ago, on another forum in a different galaxy about gods existence. I shut both sides up with "You cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a intangible, invisible, invincible being."

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

There are many strategies, but a proof by contradiction is often the easiest route.

 

[Pinkamena]

You can't prove a negative.
/thread

 

[4li3n]

Assume it in fact does exist.
Logically derive what would happen.

If it leads to impossibilities then you've proven that it does not exist.

You've got event A which you wish to argue does not exist.
You assume event A does in fact exist. Logically event A would cause event B to happen.
Yet in reality event B does not occur, as such event A does not exist.
Or maybe event A would prevent event B from happening yet in reality event B does occur.
Again you've proven that event A does not exist.

Or in formal language:
A -> B
~B
-------
~A

or

A -> ~B
B
-------
~A

Or in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

Pretty sure that's also reductio ad absurdum...