WLC: "You can't prove the negative"

[Fake Messiah]

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?

[The Valkyrie]

I really want to add that clown to my list for a high-calibre lobotomy...

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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?

Much as I hate to admit it, Craig is right on the self-contradiction thing. Definitionally, there are no married bachelors. A polygamist looking for additional wives is not a bachelor, in any way shape or form ('bachelor' doesn't mean 'man who is looking for additional wives', it means 'unmarried man').

Also, your point regarding same sex marriage doesn't work, since Craig does acknowledge the legality of gay marriage (he objects to it on moral grounds). But even if that weren't the case, your point still wouldn't work, since Craig not acknowledging gay marriage wouldn't alter the fact that a married gay man is not a bachelor.

The principle of non-contradiction (that a thing cannot be itself and its opposite at the same time) is pretty well established. 'Married bachelor' is a contradiction in terms.

Not of this, of course, alters the fact that Craig is a hate-filled sack of villainy who isn't nearly as clever as he thinks he is.

Boru

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Or, as others might point out, the Faith Believer's "Shifting of the burden of proof."


As a 'Non-theist' it's not up to me to do anything regarding ghosts, ghoulies and dietys that supposedly go bump in the night.

It's to those of belief in the supernatural to sort out which is what and then present to ms what they've sorted out. Even showing their work, for good measure.

[GrandizerII]

No, he's generally correct. You can often prove the negative.

The issue is that you're referring to the strict deductive sense of the word "proof" when that isn't necessary here.

Also, atheists need to let go of this delusion that WLC is a dummy when it comes to logic. This guy is more trained in logic and critical thinking than most of us here.

[Fake Messiah]

Much as I hate to admit it, Craig is right on the self-contradiction thing.

Doesn't that prove then that omnipotent God doesn't exist because he is a contradiction because he would have to be able to create a rock that he can't lift?

Definitionally, there are no married bachelors. A polygamist looking for additional wives is not a bachelor, in any way shape or form ('bachelor' doesn't mean 'man who is looking for additional wives', it means 'unmarried man').

Also, your point regarding same sex marriage doesn't work, since Craig does acknowledge the legality of gay marriage (he objects to it on moral grounds). But even if that weren't the case, your point still wouldn't work, since Craig not acknowledging gay marriage wouldn't alter the fact that a married gay man is not a bachelor.

The principle of non-contradiction (that a thing cannot be itself and its opposite at the same time) is pretty well established. 'Married bachelor' is a contradiction in terms.

I don't know. You could always say that maybe in some Galaxy on some planet.

Or take the case that some people don't acknowledge marriage that is not in the church. For instance, when Roger Vadim married Brigitte Bardot they first had a civil marriage, and the Church one was supposed to be the next day, and therefore Bardot's father did not allow them to have sex on their "wedding" night (they were staying at his place) because he only considered Church marriage to be the real one. So you could say that Roger Vadim was married and a bachelor at the same time.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Much as I hate to admit it, Craig is right on the self-contradiction thing.

Doesn't that prove then that omnipotent God doesn't exist because he is a contradiction because he would have to be able to create a rock that he can't lift?

Definitionally, there are no married bachelors. A polygamist looking for additional wives is not a bachelor, in any way shape or form ('bachelor' doesn't mean 'man who is looking for additional wives', it means 'unmarried man').

Also, your point regarding same sex marriage doesn't work, since Craig does acknowledge the legality of gay marriage (he objects to it on moral grounds). But even if that weren't the case, your point still wouldn't work, since Craig not acknowledging gay marriage wouldn't alter the fact that a married gay man is not a bachelor.

The principle of non-contradiction (that a thing cannot be itself and its opposite at the same time) is pretty well established. 'Married bachelor' is a contradiction in terms.

I don't know. You could always say that maybe in some Galaxy on some planet.

Or take the case that some people don't acknowledge marriage that is not in the church. For instance, when Roger Vadim married Brigitte Bardot they first had a civil marriage, and the Church one was supposed to be the next day, and therefore Bardot's father did not allow them to have sex on their "wedding" night (they were staying at his place) because he only considered Church marriage to be the real one. So you could say that Roger Vadim was married and a bachelor at the same time.

No, you couldn’t say that. Ms. Bardot’s father’s opinion on the matter is immaterial.

There are only two marital states in which a man can exist: A) married or B) unmarried. There is no other option. The term we use for an unmarried human male is ‘bachelor’. Saying that a man can be a married bachelor is the same as saying that cheese is also not-cheese.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No, he's generally correct. You can often prove the negative.

The issue is that you're referring to the strict deductive sense of the word "proof" when that isn't necessary here.

Also, atheists need to let go of this delusion that WLC is a dummy when it comes to logic. This guy is more trained in logic and critical thinking than most of us here.

And there are physicians more trained in medicine than I am who I wouldn’t trust to treat a hangnail.

Boru

[Jehanne]

Craig is an opportunistic moron; I saw the video years ago.  Mathematicians have this statement, "In general..."; and, in general, one cannot prove a negative.

[Ranjr]

"A bachelor is an unmarried male," is not a proof.  It's the definition of a word.

If we're allowed to say there are no T-Rexes because we've never seen one, then okay.  Where's your god now?