How Do You Prove Something Doesn't Exist?

[Jinx_Dragon]

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.

To test for the absence of something you carry out multiple tests designed to prove the positive. These tests should be varied and definitive, and often carried out in redundancy to ensure the results are accurate. If the result is negative to these tests then you have reasonable proof to the absence of something.

The real question in these cases is: How do we carry out definitive tests for the positive?

My best example for testing a negative is proof I do not carry a child inside of me. By undertake out multiple medical tests, all designed to find the presence of a spawn, and they are negative results then I can clearly say I am NOT pregnant. The fact I am male means the negative results are a very good thing, cause apparently many of the tests in males would find prostate cancer if positive....

Proving the negative, twice over as I don't have spawn or cancer!

Yay.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing" - Socrates

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.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing" - Socrates

Nothing is provable.

Damn, now I do need to revive my thoughts on the matter. It is true, nothing can be definitively proved as everything we believe is going to be "proven" false in the future. I would try and argue this point, but all arguments ARE meaningless.

 

[Geekmaster]

Actually, it's the other way around. You need to prove things actually do exist.

If you're really ambitious, you'll also refrain from redunant metaphysical considerations such as if the food you're eating is actually real.

Edit: On the topic of gods, this is especially important. We don't need to disprove them because the theories have no indicators in the first place. It's just speculation to explain unknowns.

 

[dyre]

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing" -Socrates

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.

I exist, and I am conscious.

 

[dfphetteplace]

i've often thought of this and the only possible way i can think of is to meet the person who made said thing up, like in Fable when the Oracle tells you Avo and Skorm don't exist because they were invented by a trader, anyone think of any other way?

The burden of proof lies upon the accuser. If someone states something is real, they need to prove it is real. It is not the responsibility of those that do not believe something to prove it does not exist. Usually when this becomes an argument, those that are stated something exist, but has no proof, will try to do the whole "Well prove it doesn't exist"; or "Well then how can you know anything is real". I just tell them I do not have time for arguments of solipsism.

 

[Genericjim101]

Pretty much this. Empiricism is at odds with the idea over simplified idea of that which cannot be proved cannot be disproved. Edit: Whoops I meant to quote BottleOfAwesome posting the clip of The Boondocks

 

[ImperialSunlight]

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing" -Socrates

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.

I exist, and I am conscious.

The only evidence you can put forth of that is your belief in it. Also, define conscious.

 

[i7omahawki]

i've often thought of this and the only possible way i can think of is to meet the person who made said thing up, like in Fable when the Oracle tells you Avo and Skorm don't exist because they were invented by a trader, anyone think of any other way?

Ah, but the guy who invented them might not know that it is in fact true! So it can't even be proved that way either.

That said, scientifically, if something is unfalsifiable it is incoherant as a scientific theory (see: Freud, God, and metaphysics).

Otherwise, you'll just have to travel the entire universe, for every second of its existence, and observe that the thing is absent...short of that, you can only rationally conclude that it is improbable that such a thing exists, and move on with your life .

 

[let's rock]

Find a video or quote of a lawer or politicion saying it does

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Well you can't really prove that it doesn't exist, but you can eliminate any evidence that it does. While a lack of evidence may not disprove it's existence perfectly, it does a good job of putting others in doubt about it.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

You can't.

The closest you can get to doing so would be to logically excluding it, like how since dogs are mammels, it's logically impossible that there is a dog that is a fish.

The issue is that even in those cases it's not 100%. (One could argue that a dog IS a fish, as there is no clear line that seperates a fish from a tetrapod, or a teterapod from a amphibian, or a a amphibian from a reptilomorph, etc)

Even saying that a triangle must always have internal angles equaling 180 degress isn't necessarily true.

 

[dyre]

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing" -Socrates

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.

I exist, and I am conscious.

The only evidence you can put forth of that is your belief in it. Also, define conscious.

nah, it's self-evident. If I did not exist, I could not believe I existed. If I were not conscious, I could not believe I were conscious. It's the ever-popular cogito ergo sum

Conscious meaning aware, so I'm not a thoughtless rock.

 

[DracoSuave]

Things can be disproved. All it takes to prove something does not exist is to disprove the possibility of its existance.

Proving the existance of something is actually much harder.

But then, not everything can be proven, nor disproven, and in some cases, it's impossible to know if something is unprovable or undisprovable. Godol's Law.

 

[Grand_Arcana]

You can't.

The closest you can get to doing so would be to logically excluding it, like how since dogs are mammels, it's logically impossible that there is a dog that is a fish.

The issue is that even in those cases it's not 100%. (One could argue that a dog IS a fish, as there is no clear line that seperates a fish from a tetrapod, or a teterapod from a amphibian, or a a amphibian from a reptilomorph, etc)

That's not how it works. Yes, dogs and fish have a Common Ancestor, but their lineages diverged long ago to yield two creatures with very distinctive genomes and phenotypes. To say a dog is a fish is like saying a human is a bird, or that you and your distant cousin are the same person.

Even saying that a triangle must always have internal angles equaling 180 degress isn't necessarily true.

Yes it is. If there is a triangle that doesn't, please don't keep it to yourself. It would make you a rich man.

 

[guntotingtomcat]

There is no way. ANYTHING could be true. ANYTHING you can think of could exist.

It's a question of probability.

 

[Kilo24]

You can prove that something does not exist if it contradicts some essential laws of logic.

By the laws of aerodynamics, bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly.

Which are not essential laws of logic. Math is rife with such laws (axioms is a better term, but still probably not the proper one), but science is usually much further from them - especially as it moves towards the softer sciences. These scientific theories are validated by evidence, and a single exception to the law invalidates that version of the law entirely.

And, also, that quote is bunk.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing" -Socrates

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.

I exist, and I am conscious.

The only evidence you can put forth of that is your belief in it. Also, define conscious.

nah, it's self-evident. If I did not exist, I could not believe I existed. If I were not conscious, I could not believe I were conscious. It's the ever-popular cogito ergo sum

Conscious meaning aware, so I'm not a thoughtless rock.

Consiousness is a quality that implies an awareness of the outside world, which, by no other way than empirical evidence, cannot be proven to exist. Therefore, you have no proof of your consciousness.

Also, simply because you believe that you exist means nothing to me when you say it. There is simply a lack of evidence besides your word.

 

[conmag9]

For the most part, you can't. There are some cases in formal logic where you can do so though, but that requires assumptions (axioms) to work.

 

[dyre]

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing" -Socrates

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.

I exist, and I am conscious.

The only evidence you can put forth of that is your belief in it. Also, define conscious.

nah, it's self-evident. If I did not exist, I could not believe I existed. If I were not conscious, I could not believe I were conscious. It's the ever-popular cogito ergo sum

Conscious meaning aware, so I'm not a thoughtless rock.

Consiousness is a quality that implies an awareness of the outside world, which, by no other way than empirical evidence, cannot be proven to exist. Therefore, you have no proof of your consciousness.

Also, simply because you believe that you exist means nothing to me when you say it. There is simply a lack of evidence besides your word.

Nope. Consciousness can also mean any level of awareness. And being aware is a prerequisite to believing things.

And of course it means nothing to you. It's a proof that only applies to the self.

So basically, you have proof that you exist (assuming you're not a figment of my imagination, a false perception or w/e), and I have proof that I exist.