You cant prove a negative!

[The Grand Nudger]

I've seen this statement repeated by theists as though it were a logical weapon of mass destruction, capable of ending any argument proposing the non-existence of god. I've also seen "polite atheists"? repeat this sentiment when attempting to explain their position. The statement is actually incomplete, it should be stated (if you wish to make this statement) that "you can't prove a universal negative."

The problem with this statement, in both forms, is that it is inherently false. consider the following:

"There are no planets between Venus and Earth"
This is a singular negative, and it can be proven.

"There are no prime numbers whose square root is a rational number"
This is a universal negative, and it can be proven.

The method one employs to prove this particular universal negative is proof by contradiction, itself a form of reductio ad absurdum. Strong Atheists sometimes employ this argument to show that a god with any set of contradictory characteristics cannot exist in the known world. If one wished to wholly avoid this argument being applied against their proposition, one could formulate an argument such as

God cannot be defined
That which cannot be defined cannot be dis-proven
God cannot be dis-proven.

We do in fact see this argument[/i] in debate after debate. Completely ignoring the issue that this statement is factually meaningless, there is still a problem with this argument. Stating that god cannot be defined is in at least one respect defining god; as a concept belonging to a set of concepts which cannot be defined, which is subject to proof by contradiction.

This is one of the reasons that apologetics continue to be refined. That people attempt to prove the existence of god with logic is unsurprising to me, that people continue to assert that a negative (singular or universal) cannot be proven is.

As a side note. I'm a high-school drop out, and I can wrap my head around these concepts. This leads me to believe that anyone can do the same, some are simply unwilling.

Late edit: Claiming that logic can support the god proposition and yet is simultaneously powerless to defeat it is dishonest.

[leo-rcc]

Actually, if you look at certain topics on this forum it has been repeated quite a lot not to use "you can't prove a negative" as it is obviously false. It is more difficult to prove a negative in some cases while in other cases it is even quite easy.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh I've definitely seen it touched upon. Nothing wrong with giving the subject its very own (recent) thread, besides, up to this point I've mostly been posting myself up on the rooftop of other posters threads. Don't want to make it a habit of hijacking other posters threads without posting anything myself.

[Minimalist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them.* This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[1]

*I can think of a couple of shitwits on this forum who employ such idiocy on an almost daily basis.

[The Grand Nudger]

You know, you can find t-shirts and messenger bags, but I don't think there's an actual teapot that gets marketed.

(if anyone runs with this please remember me when you're reimbursing your investors...lol)

[fr0d0]

God cannot be defined
That which cannot be defined cannot be dis-proven
God cannot be dis-proven

What an absurd argument. Can you show me an example?

Speaking about the Christian God: God can be and is defined; God can be known; All of God can't be known: these are important distinctions often toyed around with for weak effect.

The attributes of God are logically defensible, as past discussions on this forum have proven.

God doesn't exist just 'in the known world', so we shouldn't be surprised that descriptions of him include the metaphysical.

[The Grand Nudger]

I agree, its an absurd argument.

I am absolutely okay, by the way, with any argument for the existence or definition of god that circumvents any proof by contradiction. Statements or definitions formulated for the purpose of playing a game of logic erode the idea of what it means, exactly, to be a god. I would even argue in favor of a proposition that isn't internally inconsistent. I'm just practical like that. If you have some definition or list of gods attributes that doesn't pose a logical contradiction let's hear it.

Happen to have links for the threads that prove the descriptions of gods attributes are logically defensible btw? I'm a compulsive reader.

[Rayaan]

Happen to have links for the threads that prove the descriptions of gods attributes are logically defensible btw? I'm a compulsive reader.

[ARCHIVED] - The attributes of the Christian God exhibit logical contradictions.

Obviously, proving a negative is impossible except for statements like "The sun doesn't exist" or "The moon is not made of cheese" because those are facts which do not enter into the realm of the metaphysical.

Logic alone cannot prove God because from the perspective of mathematics, as demonstrated by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, there are inherent limitations in essentially all mathematical systems, with the exception of a few trivial ones, because they are contingent upon certain axioms within a system that have to be assumed to be true in the first place without any proof (which may or may not be true). Hence logic is "incomplete" when you get to it's deepest level.

It would be more helpful to mention what constitutes as a "proof" of anything. The word can mean either "persuasive (though not necessarily infallible) evidence" or "absolute verification of something, impossible to deny". Either way, the idea relies more on our own subjective acceptance or agreement with something instead of objective fact and ignores the fact that there is quite literally nothing whatsoever a human mind cannot deny while still thinking it's only the mind itself being rational about the subject.

[The Grand Nudger]

Thanks for that Rayaan. The gentleman in favor of the position was very eloquent. Not sure I would have taken the same route in forming the argument against the proposition. Nevertheless a good show. I would have to respond to you Frodo, that the attributes argued for in that position could definitely be said to be logical, thankfully for the opposition the god of the bible is given so many more attributes.

[Rev. Rye]

Well, I actually went into further detail about this argument not too long ago.