"You can't prove a universal negative."

Many atheists make the very bad argument that you don't need to prove the non-existence of God because you prove a universal negative. I'm not even sure exactly what the term "universal negative" means because I can't find it in any logic textbook ever written, but I think a universal negative is of the form "There is no x such that such-and-such." So, to dispell this myth, I'm going to prove a universal negative: "There is no x such that x has some property, P, and x lacks that very same property, P."

Say that there is such an x. Call it a.

Well, then a has P.

But a also has not-P.

Therefore, by arriving at a contradiction, I can negate my initial assumption, that is, "There is an x such that Px and not-Px."

So, I conclude, "There is no such x such that Px and not-Px."

Thus, I have proved a universal negative.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

 

A more formal proof, where "E" = existential quantifier.

1. ~~Ex (Px & ~Px); (initial assumption)

2. Ex (Px & ~Px); from 1, by double negation elimination.

3. Pa & ~Pa; from 2, by existential generalization.

4. Pa; from 3, by conjunction elimination.

5. ~Pa; from 3, by conjunction elimination.

6. ~~~Ex (Px & ~Px); from 4, 5, by contradiction, negation of initial assumption.

7. ~Ex (Px & ~Px); from 6, by double negation elimination.

 

It also occurs to me that "You can't prove a universal negative," means "There is no P, such that P is a universal negative, and P can be proved," which is itself, of course, a universal negative.

 

In all these arguments, you show that the inverse of the negative would lead to a logical contradiction.

So, the athiest can prove the universal negative "it is not the case that God exists" by showing that "God exists" leads to a logical contradiction?

 

Well, you're half right. What I did was this: Take a universal negative, one that is obviously a necessary truth (in our case, "There is no x, such that Px and ~Px"). Now, negate it. When the negation leads to a contradiction (how could it not, since it's affirmation is a necessary truth?), I will then have proved the universal negative.

The proposition I proved doesn't have anything to do with God. It's just an example of a universal negative. But it can be proved. Thus, you can, after all, prove a universal negative. My overarching point, I suppose, is that the atheist can't just sidestep the burden of proof by appeal to a catch-phrase, "logical" principle that obviously has nothing to do with logic, by a appeal to a principle, which is, indeed, contradicted by some very basic logic.

 

One cannot prove nothing. One may only disprove nothing. If one does not grasp the logic of language, one is truly at the mercy of mathematics!

 

exactly

Occam

 

We know religions are based on lies, we know most humans need to believe in higher powers for comfort and security. We know there are billions of claims of divine intervention but not one sold piece of evidence to support it. We know people use their beliefs in God to wage war on others. We’ve seen religious claims disprovin time and times again, we’ve seen religious and spiritual frauds exposed time and time again.

Now this is where I have a problem with an agnostic view: You are going to give an idea that has absolutely no credibility exactly the same probability as it being right vs. it being wrong. I just can’t see how anyone can come to the conclusion that the odds of debunked religious Gods existence being 50:50!

Did OJ Simpson do it? We’ll it was neither proved or disproved so I’ll just throw the logical probability scale out the window and say the odds of him being guilty are exactly 50:50!

 

Well, it's not exactly more "simple." Many atheists claim that it is unreasonable to ask of them that they disprove God's existence because, they say, "you can't prove a universal negative." So, they feel, the default position is disbelief in God, while the burden of affirming God's existence rests with the theists.

But, since I have shown that it is possible to prove a universal negative, namely, "There is no object, x, such that x both has and lacks the very same property, P," I think I have shown that the burden of proof is, in fact, shared by the atheists.

Now, relaxxx seems to think that, although proof of God's non-existence a priori may not be possible, that is, although there may be no certain proof of God's non-existence, it is, nevertheless, highly improbable that God exists. To him, I have to ask: "What are the variables in your equation? By what criteria do you determine the range of these variables?"

Many atheists think that if God exists, then there will be consequences in the phenomena we observe. "If Darwin is right, then Genesis is wrong, and there is no God," "If neurology is right, then rational psychology is wrong, and there is no God," "If Newton was right, then Ptolemy was wrong, and there is no God," etc. What they fail to see is that Genesis, rational psychology, and Ptolemy can all be wrong, and there could still be a God. They seem to think that if God were there, we could see his face, if only we built a powerful enough telescope. They think they are grounded in logic and science, when, really, they are just as prone to metaphysical flights of fancy as the theologians they deride.

 

I could go on for days pointing of the fundamental flaws of religious beliefs. Of course Genesis is wrong, we’ve completely shot it to hell. Look at how creationist butcher science in a desperate attempt to validate biblical fiction. Your name is Common Sense. So tell me this, do you honestly believe that ridiculous and continuously disprovin religious claims should be held with the same logical weight as an unbiased scientific claim would have?

Do you believe in evolution? If you do then you must realize that complexity is a product of time and energy. Would you agree with that statement? If you do agree that time and energy produce complexity then you should also agree that the idea of an infinitely complex, all knowing conscious supernatural being who created the universe is highly illogical, improbable and does not fit at all with the fundamental theory of evolution.

So I’m expected to believe that in the beginning there was a super complex God who snapped his fingers and created a bang of energy so he could wait 20 billion years so billions of little insignificant selfish humans would worship his name in the hope of eternal acceptance into paradise.

I don’t know how or what force started the universe but I’m positive it was not a conscious and complex entity. We are a product of energy and time. Energy is simply the result of an imbalanced medium. Somehow, billions of years ago there was a simple imbalance that created energy. Sure I could even call this force God if I completely redefined the meaning of God, but God is not an automatic function of universal properties and laws. The classical definition of God is a supernatural, infinitely complex consciousness and therefore an illogical fantasy of mans imagination and nothing more.

 

Of course.

Of course.

Of course not.

None of these objections disproves God's existence in the least. They do not even make it improbable. You speak of "probability," "logical weight," and "scientific claims." Well, how does one determine the probability of a proposition that has no empirical consequences? What, exactly, is the logical weight of natural selection? Which scientific claim makes God's existence improbable?

You say that,

I say that your speculation is no more grounded than that of those who hold that the world was created in six days, some six-thousand years ago. You think your speculation is rooted in science, but once you begin to think of the world before time, you pass out of the domain of science and into uncertainty. Atheists and theists are often guilty of the same mistakes. Science and logic have limits, and to attempt to pass beyond them would, really, be unscientific.

 

The only problem with your proof is that the only possible 'universal' negative is nothing.

lol

 

This is the second thing you've posted on this thread. The first was,

And I have to admit that I don't completely understand your critique. Of course, I'm proving the non-existence of an object (i.e. the object is nothing). But so what? I'm not proving the existence of a non-existent object. That would be impossible. I'm only proving that a certain proposition about a non-existent object is true. So, what's your point?

 

Nothing is not an object.

My point is that one may not prove non-existence ie. nothing. One may however disprove it. It is a point of logic.

Which equates to your proving there is no nothing. Why would an atheist bother?
You are an atheist aren't you? It appears you've trodden in some agnosticism!

 

No, it isn't a point of logic. I just proved the non-existence of a certain object. So, how is it a point of logic that one can't prove that an object doesn't exist? My whole point was to refute that common misconception.

No, not at all. I have proved that a certain object doesn't exist. Since there is no object, that object is not a thing.

Well, no. I'm not an atheist. This whole post is about refuting a common claim made by atheists. You could say that the point is a defense of agnosticism.

 

I said I didn't know what created energy, I have no claims on the subject! We don't know what existed before time but what we do know is that a claim of a supernatural, infinitely conscious being who now needs to be worshiped for creating the universe is ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS and you just can't hold it at the same LOGICAL VALUE as evolution and complexity being a product of time and energy. We're talking totally ludicrous and unproven VS. proven.

Basically, you just told me that a known biblical LIE of a 6 day creation is exactly as logical as the theory Evolution, a fundamental concept that can be substantiated time and time again !!?? It's ludicrous!!!!!

 

First, let's deal with this misconception:

I've told you no such thing. I've granted you that evolution is the case, but you have not shown me how the fact of natural selection logically contradicts the concept of God.

Now, to get to the heart of your posts. First, you say things like:

and

But then you go on to say things like:

and

Well, make up your mind. Do you know things outside of time or don't you? If you believe you do, then your belief is unscientific, as science can only deal with causal relations between objects in space and time. If you believe you do not, then you forfeit the only argument for atheism you have put forward so far.

You then go on to speak of "logical value." Well, what is a logical value? You have so far been very illusive about the subject. A posteriori facts aside, what makes natural selection more logical than belief in God? If nothing, then how can a posteriori facts logically contradict the concept of God? They cannot.

 

You did no such thing. Again, nothing is no object.

Because one can only disprove that an object doesn't exist.

Since there is no object, you have not proved its non-existence.

It may well be about refuting that claim, but you have not refuted it.

 

so again nothing has to exist or not exist, but for the nontangable to resemble what anyone thinks they know about it reamains something of a long shot.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Arguing about religion is like trying to move a mountain with words.