Can you prove a negative, part 2

[Fake Messiah]

Yes, you can prove a negative. Formally and properly prove. All you have to do is disprove the opposite and let the Law of the Excluded Middle do the rest. It's called Reduction to Absurdity:

The square root of a prime number can never be rational

You can prove a negative to a rational person, but can you prove a negative to Craig when he is using his "logic"? Although he states that you can prove the negative, he does not believe his own words. As a hypocrite, he is only making these claims here to win an argument against a person he loathes (in this case, an atheist).

For example, archaeology, history, and geology have proven that most events described in the Bible have never happened; yet, Craig and his ilk still do not behave as if the negative has been proven. Instead, they believe that, for example, the Garden of Eden and Noah's flood really happened. In the case of Craig, he makes excuses, claiming that it's "mytho-history" or that it happened but in a different way that is spiritually true, which then ends up being "materially true". Thus, he believes that a historical Adam and a historical talking snake really existed. Let alone the convoluted logic he uses to "prove" that god (of the Bible) has not been disproven.

So, if there were two rational persons in the room and one says, "Scissors are in the drawer," and the other person opens the drawer and sees that it's empty, he would say that the scissors are not there and thus prove the negative, and the other person would agree that he made a false claim. But, in the case of Craig and his ilk, who want there to be scissors no matter what, they would still claim that scissors are there and make up excuses like: "The scissors are too small to be seen," or "The scissors are invisible."
And in the case of invisible scissors, you could check with your hand if they are there, and when they are not, Craig would further claim that "There are small insects that are holding the scissors and moving them away from your hand so that you can never catch them;" or that "The scissors are there but in many-worlds theory;" or that "The scissors are there but metaphorically or spiritually, and you have to have faith and a soul clean of all sins to find them. But no matter how much faith you have, it's never enough."

And indeed, while these are all highly improbable claims, they are not 100% impossible, so you can never really prove a negative to someone who is not rational, or as Craig would say: "In the cult of rationality."

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

^This very much in line with the objections to ‘There are no married bachelors’ in the previous thread. Sure, you can stipulate that there are married bachelors, but only by twisting the meaning of ‘married’ and ‘bachelor’ out of all recognizable shape.

Craig also misses the whole point of proving a negative: if atheists can’t prove there is no god, why does he keep asking us to do it?

Boru

[Alan V]

Craig also misses the whole point of proving a negative: if atheists can’t prove there is no god, why does he keep asking us to do it?

People believe what they want to, and one strategy they employ is to set higher standards for their opponents than they themselves embrace.

That strategy is both very deliberate and very hypocritical.

[Paleophyte]

You can prove a negative to a rational person, but can you prove a negative to Craig when he is using his "logic"? Although he states that you can prove the negative, he does not believe his own words. As a hypocrite, he is only making these claims here to win an argument against a person he loathes (in this case, an atheist).

I can hardly speak to the motives or abilities of a person who isn't here. That said, if you find somebody with a sufficiently closed mind you could hammer their thumbs flat on an anvil to no effect, so there's little point in anything as civil as a conversation.

For example, archaeology, history, and geology have proven that most events described in the Bible have never happened; yet, Craig and his ilk still do not behave as if the negative has been proven. Instead, they believe that, for example, the Garden of Eden and Noah's flood really happened. In the case of Craig, he makes excuses, claiming that it's "mytho-history" or that it happened but in a different way that is spiritually true, which then ends up being "materially true". Thus, he believes that a historical Adam and a historical talking snake really existed. Let alone the convoluted logic he uses to "prove" that god (of the Bible) has not been disproven.

You're playing the game of the presuppositional apologist here. None of us checks for proof when we cross the street. Look for evidence of cars and press the walk button. Anything else is just the usual burden-shifting games.

[Ravenshire]

^This very much in line with the objections to ‘There are no married bachelors’ in the previous thread. Sure, you can stipulate that there are married bachelors, but only by twisting the meaning of ‘married’ and ‘bachelor’ out of all recognizable shape.

Craig also misses the whole point of proving a negative: if atheists can’t prove there is no god, why does he keep asking us to do it?

Boru

(my bold)

Because he can't prove it does!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

^This very much in line with the objections to ‘There are no married bachelors’ in the previous thread. Sure, you can stipulate that there are married bachelors, but only by twisting the meaning of ‘married’ and ‘bachelor’ out of all recognizable shape.

Craig also misses the whole point of proving a negative: if atheists can’t prove there is no god, why does he keep asking us to do it?

Boru

(my bold)

Because he can't prove it does!

Exactly. If we can’t prove god doesn’t exist, we must therefore resort to the default position that he does.

How’s that again? I think I missed something.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

You can prove a negative to a rational person, but can you prove a negative to Craig when he is using his "logic"? Although he states that you can prove the negative, he does not believe his own words. As a hypocrite, he is only making these claims here to win an argument against a person he loathes (in this case, an atheist).

For example, archaeology, history, and geology have proven that most events described in the Bible have never happened; yet, Craig and his ilk still do not behave as if the negative has been proven. Instead, they believe that, for example, the Garden of Eden and Noah's flood really happened. In the case of Craig, he makes excuses, claiming that it's "mytho-history" or that it happened but in a different way that is spiritually true, which then ends up being "materially true". Thus, he believes that a historical Adam and a historical talking snake really existed. Let alone the convoluted logic he uses to "prove" that god (of the Bible) has not been disproven.

Probably the most common everyday use of the stolen concept fallacy.  Where a person employs a concept in support of a claim while denying that concepts fundamental validity.  

"Mytho-history", for example, is the explicit acknowledgement that the objection being argued against is true.  We could translate it simply to make it apparent -

"Magic book is not mythology, it's history, because mythology is how people wrote their history."

[Paleophyte]

I'm content just ignoring their claims until they've provided some decent evidence. Evidence motherfuckers, not arguments.