How Do You Prove Something Doesn't Exist?

[Craorach]

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.

Furthermore, the burden of proof should be on those claiming that it exists. If something exists, there is proof to be found.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

Around 2,000 years ago, there lived a man who was hugely influential on Western thought throughout the ages, and remains so to this day. His ideas, speeches, dialogues, actions etc, as transcribed by those closest to him, have been a part of the founding principles of the United States of America and the modern nations of Europe. People have been constantly re-interpreting his words to fit them to the paradigms of their age, sometimes with great success, sometimes with catastrophic results. His ideas, while by themselves not actually original, condensed much of the philosophical thought which had occurred before him, and became the cornerstone of an IDEA that reverberates through Western societies. And being the greatest living symbol of those ideas, when the winds of power shifted, he was killed for them, because his ideas were considered dangerous.

His name was Marcus Tullius Cicero, by the way. And if faith as an idea isn't real, then neither is democracy.

Very well played, sir.


But nobody said faith isn't "real". Just that the subject of any form of faith is inherently impossible to support logically.

However, what I'd point out is that all logic is based on faith. Scientists have faith in the fundamental principle that the universe is ordered and governed by rules and logic which can be discerned through observation. This is a belief equivalent to the belief in God, because there is absolutely NO WAY to prove that the universe is ordered, and no solid evidence to even indicate that modern science has done any better at scratching the surface than religion.

 

[viking97]

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.

well unless, you know there IS evidence of absence.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Proof by contradiction.

I can disprove the existence of things inside a certain area, I mean I can prove that there are no australians in my living room.

You can't disprove anything completely though, except in maths. You can disprove that 2+2=7 by proving that 2+2=4

Not necessarily. There's still an infinite amount of ways you could be wrong about that.

Produce one. Please.

Fine but i'm in a bad mood so you get a shitty one.

This is all just a fucking game made by an omnipotent deity who likes to mess with people and all the laws of the universe and math are false. There, use your own imagination next time.

 

[Hawgh]

Proof by contradiction.

I can disprove the existence of things inside a certain area, I mean I can prove that there are no australians in my living room.

You can't disprove anything completely though, except in maths. You can disprove that 2+2=7 by proving that 2+2=4

Not necessarily. There's still an infinite amount of ways you could be wrong about that.

Produce one. Please.

Fine but i'm in a bad mood so you get a shitty one.

This is all just a fucking game made by an omnipotent deity who likes to mess with people and all the laws of the universe and math are false. There, use your own imagination next time.

So 2+2 = 4 and 7 under a different(true in this example) system of math.
This doesn't change the fact that it's never the case under the existing system of math, which was created by humans.

There are philosophical arguments (looking at you, Descartes) for why the universe and any physical laws might not exist at all, in which case, all knowledge would not be true knowledge. However, one generally assumes some boundaries on all inquiries.
Such as assuming that you're talking about human-made math, the validity of physics, the ruleset of an RPG.

Even assuming the absolutely worst-case endgame scenario resulting from Descartes' meditations, you could prove with absolute certainty that the self exists.

 

[Kathinka]

reminds me of this one comic..where is it..ah yes^^

in all seriousnes though: yes you can prove the nonexistence of something by evidence. how hard this evidence is to find might be another story.

Ugh, where to start.

First off, religion - at least the kind practised by people with degrees - has moved beyond the whole notion of the Gottesbeweis, or proof of the existence of a god. Benedict XVI doesn't believe in a bearded man in the sky any more than you do - the idea of a personal god actually got knocked into a cocked hat as early as the mid-14th century.

What's left are ideas. And you cannot prove the absence of an idea, because the second you think it, it comes into existence. So, at the most basic level, the views of religious folk are governed by the idea that there is a Will behind the universe. The Will itself may or may not be real - good luck disproving that - but the idea manifestly exists.

Around 2,000 years ago, there lived a man who was hugely influential on Western thought throughout the ages, and remains so to this day. His ideas, speeches, dialogues, actions etc, as transcribed by those closest to him, have been a part of the founding principles of the United States of America and the modern nations of Europe. People have been constantly re-interpreting his words to fit them to the paradigms of their age, sometimes with great success, sometimes with catastrophic results. His ideas, while by themselves not actually original, condensed much of the philosophical thought which had occurred before him, and became the cornerstone of an IDEA that reverberates through Western societies. And being the greatest living symbol of those ideas, when the winds of power shifted, he was killed for them, because his ideas were considered dangerous.

His name was Marcus Tullius Cicero, by the way. And if faith as an idea isn't real, then neither is democracy.

aaaaaand you helt that lecture out of the desire to sound smart or what now?^^ sorry i don't get the point youre trying to make. besides showing everyone that you know cicero. as do i and everyone who did latin in school.
you're either overthinking the whole thing, or bragging, with this story only ever so slightly touching the subject at hand. i really can't tell. it's just a humorous display an oddity in the argument over the existence of a higher being. of course the idea of an omnipotent god is real. but the actual existence of such a being and the idea of him existing are something completely different.

 

[JochemDude]

You can't, sometimes all it takes is common sense to see the difference between reality and imagination.

 

[Yopaz]

The only way you can prove something in science is to prove that a hypothesis is wrong. Say we believe that dropped objects will get pulled towards the earth. We test it out, write down the results, test it on a different location, have others test it. If everyone comes up with the same answer that's a theory, and it will be so unless someone can prove it wrong. Proving that god doesn't exist is pretty much impossible since no-one was there to witness the creation of the universe. We got proof that the bible is wrong, but all that tells us is that the bible, which is based on a collection of fairy tales, is wrong, there's still a possibility that god is real. However we can prove that Santa is not real because it's impossible to visit every house in the world in one single night. If there actually was a question if he was real or not this would be a theory since no-one has been able to prove the theory to be wrong.

Short and most correct answer, you can't prove something doesn't exist unless you can run tests that give a definite answer.

 

[Kilo24]

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

For example, a person cannot exist who is simultaneously alive and not alive.

This assumes that you keep the same meaning of "alive" for both statements, which requires an operational definition because they prevent equivocation. That's essential when working with logic, and is often at the root of debates.

 

[rutger5000]

It is impossible and not required. The one who claims it exist needs to prove it, or it needs to be consistant with current theory. Search for the flying teapot or Russels teapot and you'll have your answer.

 

[Kierkes]

I didn't get a chance to really read the thread, but may the Lord above guide you on your quest to disprove whatever it is you wish to disprove.

 

[Enkidu88]

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.

That's not true. Sure, if you apply the rules that Planes are subject to, it obviously won't make sense. But the bumblebee operates more like a helicopter, creating vortex of air beneath it that allows it to float through the air.

 

[Kathinka]

snip

the cartoon painted a certain and annoying type of religious people. that doesn't mean that all religious people are that way, but some most certainly are.

what you described in the second part is actually much closer to an agnostic. confront most people who consider themselves religious with this analogy and you will almost exclusively get the answer that they believe that there is a baseball.

last paragraph: so by your logic me having the idea that i could walk on lava is the same as me actually having the ability to walk on lava.

oh, and on a semi-related note: the story of bumblebees that are not able to fly by aerodynamic law is an urban myth. bumblebees fly fine, and it's all within the laws of physics

 

[ShaqLevick]

You can never prove something doesn't exist or can't be. You can only prove things to be true. You can merely convince people that things definitively do or do not exist.

 

[w1ndscar]

You cant. Just like you cant honestly disprove the lochness monster or bigfoot. You would have to have an army of people searching every square foot of every forest that bigfoots been claimed to be in. Otherwise if he did really exist he could be in that one section no ones at.

 

[[.redacted]]

You can't.

But...

Nigh everything we know about the universe is only a model, a way we explain it which is close to but not entirely the ultimate truth (in the same way as Newton's laws work for nearly everything nearly exactly).

This is relevant because it essentially means that while we can't prove anything, we can deduce the next best thing, and assume that to be true in the meantime.

If we take god, for instance, one can say that due to the lack of solid evidence for it - and the fact that the initial state of the rational mind should be disbelief that is open to conversion

(in any and all situations: it's the same way as you would have to convince someone that your theory for why black holes can evaporate without the outer rim being subject to faster than speed of light travel as the radius decreases is true: the natural standpoint would be to say bullshit.)

as such, the question should not be "how do you prove something does not exist", but instead "shouldn't the burden of proof lie with those who suggest something without evidence".

To wrap this all up and make the start make sense: it is logical that the best model we currently have for explaining the universe is the one we must assume to be correct when it comes to basing decisions off it - for using it as a model to predict outcomes. The natural standpoint is having no theory, we don't come preprogrammed with ideas about the nature of the universe, so if we can prove something we take another step - if we can't, we don't.

[sub]It's been a while since I bothered to post, nice topic.[/sub]

 

[Grand_Arcana]

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

This riddle has already been solved. IIRC, the rapid beating of their wings create a small pocket of high and low pressure providing lift.

The cartoon painted all religious people and their way of thinking in a false and denigrating manner. We're not all Sarah Palin, was what I was trying to say. The direct reply to your post was the part above the Cicero bit, namely regarding the obsolete nature of the idea of a personal god. The analogy is fallacious because religious people (at least the smart ones) don't say that we have a baseball, we say that there might be a baseball around here somewhere, and that looking for it, we might actually tidy up this room a little bit, even if we don't end up actually finding it.

As for your last sentence: is it? Is it really? OF COURSE "God" is a human construct. That's the beautiful thing about Him. The existence of a higher being is contingent upon the notion of a personal god; what literate and educated person actually believes that crap anymore? As said in the other posts, ideas are real because of their consequences. If their belief in God made Michelangelo, Dante, Milton, Francis, Giotto etc do what they did, then that's all I bloody need to worship at His altar.

I can approve of this, but I think most religious people do believe God actually exists, even if they aren't Sarah Palin or the Phelps. I think most religious people are literate but uneducated, or at the very least unwilling to explore the nature of their faith in the same manner that you have. That's the problem with being smart, you think other people are smart as well; they aren't.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

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.

unless it's in an established world of fiction or just a hard fact. such as in... say... Inception, throughout the film's screen time there is a moment on screen where Cobb kicks a puppy. That is entirely possible to disprove.

In BioShock you can swim in the ocean, walk to the surface, and drag people back to the ocean. Again, can be disproven.

Things that are "supernatural" cannot be disproved, such as the existence of a God or ghosts, but definitely things in established works can be disproved if people try to deviate from the hard facts.

EDIT: ninja'd

 

[Slanzinger]

Technically if the Universe if infinite then everything that can exist must exist somewhere = P

Except, perhaps, a finite universe.

 

[ThreeWords]

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.

Proof by contradiction does work.
You can prove that if something did exist (say an immovable object) then it would violate a bunch of established physical rules.
Thereby, something can be proved to be physically impossible.