You cant prove a negative!

[The Grand Nudger]

I've seen this statement repeated by theists as though it were a logical weapon of mass destruction, capable of ending any argument proposing the non-existence of god. I've also seen "polite atheists"? repeat this sentiment when attempting to explain their position. The statement is actually incomplete, it should be stated (if you wish to make this statement) that "you can't prove a universal negative."

The problem with this statement, in both forms, is that it is inherently false. consider the following:

"There are no planets between Venus and Earth"
This is a singular negative, and it can be proven.

"There are no prime numbers whose square root is a rational number"
This is a universal negative, and it can be proven.

The method one employs to prove this particular universal negative is proof by contradiction, itself a form of reductio ad absurdum. Strong Atheists sometimes employ this argument to show that a god with any set of contradictory characteristics cannot exist in the known world. If one wished to wholly avoid this argument being applied against their proposition, one could formulate an argument such as

God cannot be defined
That which cannot be defined cannot be dis-proven
God cannot be dis-proven.

We do in fact see this argument[/i] in debate after debate. Completely ignoring the issue that this statement is factually meaningless, there is still a problem with this argument. Stating that god cannot be defined is in at least one respect defining god; as a concept belonging to a set of concepts which cannot be defined, which is subject to proof by contradiction.

This is one of the reasons that apologetics continue to be refined. That people attempt to prove the existence of god with logic is unsurprising to me, that people continue to assert that a negative (singular or universal) cannot be proven is.

As a side note. I'm a high-school drop out, and I can wrap my head around these concepts. This leads me to believe that anyone can do the same, some are simply unwilling.

Late edit: Claiming that logic can support the god proposition and yet is simultaneously powerless to defeat it is dishonest.

[leo-rcc]

Actually, if you look at certain topics on this forum it has been repeated quite a lot not to use "you can't prove a negative" as it is obviously false. It is more difficult to prove a negative in some cases while in other cases it is even quite easy.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh I've definitely seen it touched upon. Nothing wrong with giving the subject its very own (recent) thread, besides, up to this point I've mostly been posting myself up on the rooftop of other posters threads. Don't want to make it a habit of hijacking other posters threads without posting anything myself.

[Minimalist]

[The Grand Nudger]

You know, you can find t-shirts and messenger bags, but I don't think there's an actual teapot that gets marketed.

(if anyone runs with this please remember me when you're reimbursing your investors...lol)

[fr0d0]

God cannot be defined
That which cannot be defined cannot be dis-proven
God cannot be dis-proven

What an absurd argument. Can you show me an example?

Speaking about the Christian God: God can be and is defined; God can be known; All of God can't be known: these are important distinctions often toyed around with for weak effect.

The attributes of God are logically defensible, as past discussions on this forum have proven.

God doesn't exist just 'in the known world', so we shouldn't be surprised that descriptions of him include the metaphysical.

[The Grand Nudger]

I agree, its an absurd argument.

I am absolutely okay, by the way, with any argument for the existence or definition of god that circumvents any proof by contradiction. Statements or definitions formulated for the purpose of playing a game of logic erode the idea of what it means, exactly, to be a god. I would even argue in favor of a proposition that isn't internally inconsistent. I'm just practical like that. If you have some definition or list of gods attributes that doesn't pose a logical contradiction let's hear it.

Happen to have links for the threads that prove the descriptions of gods attributes are logically defensible btw? I'm a compulsive reader.

[Rayaan]

[The Grand Nudger]

Thanks for that Rayaan. The gentleman in favor of the position was very eloquent. Not sure I would have taken the same route in forming the argument against the proposition. Nevertheless a good show. I would have to respond to you Frodo, that the attributes argued for in that position could definitely be said to be logical, thankfully for the opposition the god of the bible is given so many more attributes.

[Rev. Rye]