How Do You Prove Something Doesn't Exist?
- Thread starter interspark
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think the infinities are mixed up here. The universe is infinite, as in: there an infinite amount of space through which a finite amount of matter is moving through. Because this matter is finite, it is impossible to be in all possible configurations, and therefore not everything that can exist, must exist somewhere.flamingjimmy said:
Q.E.D. (forgot what this means exactly but you put it at the end of your proof if you feel like being pretentious)
Counterexample.
Ie, if I claim that: x=4, but it's known 2x-2=9, then you can prove x doesn't equal 4, as 2(4)-2=6.
Though, in most cases, it's normal for the advocator of a theory to provide proof, rather than expecting others to disprove it. People who do that are usually the sort who "don't believe in science"...
Ie, if I claim that: x=4, but it's known 2x-2=9, then you can prove x doesn't equal 4, as 2(4)-2=6.
Though, in most cases, it's normal for the advocator of a theory to provide proof, rather than expecting others to disprove it. People who do that are usually the sort who "don't believe in science"...
Everyone who said you can't and used logic in their argument is WRONG
How to prove things do not exsist:
1. Bad Photoshop picture
If you have to do bad Photoshop to back up your argument it doesn?t exist.
2. Just know it
You don't have a reason, but you just know peanut butter is going to kill all humans.
3. Edit Wikipedia
If Wikipedia says it doesn't exist who are they to argue?
It is their duty to prove their flesh eating peanut butter exists your duty to test their info.
How to prove things do not exsist:
1. Bad Photoshop picture
If you have to do bad Photoshop to back up your argument it doesn?t exist.
2. Just know it
You don't have a reason, but you just know peanut butter is going to kill all humans.
3. Edit Wikipedia
If Wikipedia says it doesn't exist who are they to argue?
It is their duty to prove their flesh eating peanut butter exists your duty to test their info.
You can't prove god doesn't exist, but you can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either. You also can't prove X doesn't exist...
A refrigerator ruling over a tribe of pygmies powered by mushrooms.
A factory making exactly one half of a cup of coffee.
A soup sandwich.
A planet in the exact shape of goatse.
A parallel universe that coughed up this universe in a sneeze
A starving tribe of kittens on a planet made of fire
I vote rather than collect donations for the church, we arrange a space shuttle mission to save that starving tribe of kittens.
A refrigerator ruling over a tribe of pygmies powered by mushrooms.
A factory making exactly one half of a cup of coffee.
A soup sandwich.
A planet in the exact shape of goatse.
A parallel universe that coughed up this universe in a sneeze
A starving tribe of kittens on a planet made of fire
I vote rather than collect donations for the church, we arrange a space shuttle mission to save that starving tribe of kittens.
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.viranimus said:
*Sigh*
I hate this. My dad always tries saying you can't prove a negative, but he's an idiot. Negative is a condition that is accepted as true in human understanding, ergo negative can be proven. Shaking your head "No no no" at essentially half of the universe is pointless. You have to accept the reality that there is up and down, right and left, matter and anti-matter, and those that exist and do not exist. Everything else has its opposites, so this would do. Let me give an example.
In times of old, people believed in the existence of many strange monsters and roving tales of haunting stuff. Creatures of mythology. Dragons, harpies, chimeras, minotaurs, centaurs, etc. and so on. Evidence of anything like those creatures living at that time? Zero. No bones, no nothing. We can trace human ancestry, dig up dinosaurs, and even reconstruct ancient DNA, yet the unicorn, the hydra, the cyclops, and so on fail to leave us so much as a hint of ever having been. You can't tell me there's a vast conspiracy started by the Roman Empire to clean all that up. Some things were really just the imagination of sailors.
I hate this. My dad always tries saying you can't prove a negative, but he's an idiot. Negative is a condition that is accepted as true in human understanding, ergo negative can be proven. Shaking your head "No no no" at essentially half of the universe is pointless. You have to accept the reality that there is up and down, right and left, matter and anti-matter, and those that exist and do not exist. Everything else has its opposites, so this would do. Let me give an example.
In times of old, people believed in the existence of many strange monsters and roving tales of haunting stuff. Creatures of mythology. Dragons, harpies, chimeras, minotaurs, centaurs, etc. and so on. Evidence of anything like those creatures living at that time? Zero. No bones, no nothing. We can trace human ancestry, dig up dinosaurs, and even reconstruct ancient DNA, yet the unicorn, the hydra, the cyclops, and so on fail to leave us so much as a hint of ever having been. You can't tell me there's a vast conspiracy started by the Roman Empire to clean all that up. Some things were really just the imagination of sailors.
You can google GodBlackdoom said:
ZING
OT: Personally if it doesn't apply to my senses and isn't provably by science then it doesn't exist
You just disagreed with me by agreeing with me?icaritos said:
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.Alex Michalos said:
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..
I disagree.blakfayt said:
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.
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.
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.
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 said: