WLC: "You can't prove the negative"

[Pat Mustard]

There is some video that youtube algorithm has been recommending to me LINK and that is how William Lane Craig is supposedly "owning" some atheist student who told him how god can't be disproved because "you can't prove the negative". To which WLC says it's not true and that you can prove the negative.

And then WLC gives examples, like:

"We can prove there are no living T-Rexes"

Not really. One (scientists) can give great odds that there are no living T-Rexes but no one can prove 100% that some T-Rex is not hiding somewhere, the probability is extremely small, but it still exists. And indeed, there are some people who believe that dinosaurs still exist, or at least that they could exist.


"We can prove there are no Muslims in the US Senate"

And how can he prove that someone is not a secret Muslim in the senate? Not to mention that many Christians believe that Obama is (secretly) a Muslim because you can't prove with 100% certainty that Obama is not a secret Muslim.


"You can show that if something is self-contradicting that it can't exist"

In that case, God doesn't exist because as an omnipotent being he would have to be able to create a rock that he can't lift. But I guess you could always say "have you looked everywhere?" Even if something doesn't make sense it doesn't mean that it is 100% sure it doesn't exist.

And as a "self-contradicting" thing/ example he goes with:
"There are no married bachelors"

Well, I guess I could say "have you looked everywhere?" but this is wrong because it doesn't mean that if someone is married that he is not a bachelor. Take polygamists men - some guy has two wives, but is still looking for the third one and fourth wife - so he is in a way a bachelor.   Or men who are in gay marriage - an institution that Craig certainly doesn't acknowledge, so to him a gay man married to some other man is a bachelor.

So what do you think, is WLC right? Can one prove the negative, as he says, or does it go so far that one can only give good probabilities that something doesn't exist?

Of course Craig the idiot loves using the exact same argument when he tries to prove god.

---

We had a recent thread about how the burden of proof works.

Some people seem to think it's a law, as if it was handed down by Moses, or is some kind of law of nature. Others disagree. It may not be as self-evident as it seems.

I gave a bit of reasoning to why the burden of proof is where I said it was. Not sure you if think I'm using it as you mentioned. Then again you did post "some people" use it that way, maybe you're shading someone who you don't like in hopes they are reading.

Anyway, same thing applies to proof of gods/relgion. We shouldn't try to prove "there is no god" because that's impossible, and leaves the imagination to insert any number of gods, monsters, mythical creatures. If a god is proposed, whether it be by viking pagan seers or a monotheistic prophet, the burden of proof would be on the one claiming there is a god.

You're new here so I'll explain belaqua's modus operandi for you. He starts every argument from the premise that every single time he's right and you're wrong. He then "logically" deduces from that assumption that for him no amount of evidence is necessary and that from you no amount of evidence is sufficient. You'd sooner get blood out of a turnip than you'd get an admission of error from belaqua.