Do you think that without religion the crusades would have never happened?

[LukeMC]

@EVF

Can't prove a negative?


Is that correct? I'm not being a smartarse, I'm really confused here.

Would some one please explain the difference between "falsifying a claim" and "proving a negative"

I'll give this a shot.

You're right, they're essentially the same thing (correct me if I'm wrong anyone). On a small scale, proving a negative is the equivalent to falsifying a claim. However, on a universal scale, proving a negative/falsifying a claim goes from difficult to impossible. The real phrase should be "you can't prove universal negatives" or "absolute negatives".

Here's why:

---

We can prove a negative insofar as we can say "there are no lions in my hand" and offer suitable proof that our hands do indeed contain no traces of a lion (we must agree that we mean a real lion, full sized male for example). We could also say "there are no pink lions in Chester Zoo", which we could prove by examining the entirety of Chester Zoo and seeing no trace of pink lions in the vicinity after extensive searching of all areas of the zoo, including the air space and back rooms. There aren't any pink lions there. However, the absolute claim "there are no pink lions anywhere" cannot be proven unless we search the entire universe to confirm this claim. As far as I can tell, they're only impossible to prove because they are out of our ability to prove them. Proving a negative is especially difficult when dealing in metaphysics as you would have to search and investigate all possible realms of reality and parrallel dimensions and other such madness.

So, to falsify the claim "I have a pink lion in my hand" would only take a simple observation. To prove the negative claim that "I have no pink lion in my hand" would also only take a simple observation. However, to falsify the claim "pink lions exist" one would effectively be forced to prove a negative and search the entire universe extensively and find no pink lions. This is certainly difficult to do, and so we lay the burden of proof on the those making the claim. It is much easier to prove the existence of something than to disprove it.

As far as God is concerned, you can imagine why that's such a nightmare. To prove that he doesn't exist would require omniscience. To prove that he does exist would only require a 5 minute demonstration. Hence, the burden of proof is placed on the believer, while the rest of us rationalists accept the null hypothesis that this God creature probably doesn't exist.

[/waffle]

---