The negative proof fallacy is a fallacy when someone says "Prove this doesn't exist".
That's a fallacy because you cannot prove that ANYTHING doesn't exist. Including Jesus. Not 100%.
That's a fallacy.
There could be very many logical contradictions showing Jesus never existed. But we cannot prove he never existed because he could be the 1 exception where ALL the laws of the universe were violated if need be, even. Or whatever! However unlikely!
Even then, Jesus is still not 100% disproved.
Just as you cannot 100% disprove the FSM or the IPU.
You cannot prove 100% the non-existence of anything. That would be negative proof. Claiming negative proof is a logical fallacy.
Put simply: The furthest we can go is that Jesus is about as unlikely as the FSM and the IPU, etc.
And remember they are not disproved. That's the whole point of their analogy (along with the Teapot
). Its not about whether something is disprovable, its about whether its probable.
EvF
That's a fallacy because you cannot prove that ANYTHING doesn't exist. Including Jesus. Not 100%.
That's a fallacy.
There could be very many logical contradictions showing Jesus never existed. But we cannot prove he never existed because he could be the 1 exception where ALL the laws of the universe were violated if need be, even. Or whatever! However unlikely!
Even then, Jesus is still not 100% disproved.
Just as you cannot 100% disprove the FSM or the IPU.
You cannot prove 100% the non-existence of anything. That would be negative proof. Claiming negative proof is a logical fallacy.
Put simply: The furthest we can go is that Jesus is about as unlikely as the FSM and the IPU, etc.
And remember they are not disproved. That's the whole point of their analogy (along with the Teapot
). Its not about whether something is disprovable, its about whether its probable.EvF
