"You can't prove a universal negative."

Relaxxx and common sense.
Yes but who are you argueing with?.. dejavu?
He who said
"My point is that one may not prove non-existence ie. nothing. One may however disprove it. It is a point of logic."

Any idiot can disprove nonexistance. They just have to post.

Is this the guy your argueing with?

Occam

 

Yes, I am arguing against Dejavu. For this whole thread, I have been trying to show that one can, in fact, prove that certain objects don't exist. I've already shown it, but Dejavu thinks that my proof is invalid, for some reason. No doubt the reason is that he's willing to defend his dogma no matter what absurd and illogical conclusions follow from it.


I already gave my proof. If Dejavu knew what he was talking about, in the least, he would try to find an invalid inference in my proof. That's just how you show that a proof is invalid. But since he doesn't understand even this, he just repeats the old dogma, each time more emphatically.

Something seems terribly wrong with this thread, and that is that I'm the only one giving any arguments. Look through Dejavu's posts, he just repeats that "you can't prove a universal negative" over and over again. And since that's the very matter being explored, he begs the question.

 

P.S. I've been all stressed out this week about exams. So, if what I've been writing recently comes off a little harsh, sorry, but try to cut me some slack.

 

Occam:

That's fine, but what do you imagine it to be?

CommonSense:

A sentence can only be true in that it is a sentence if its subject does not exist.

The only universal negative is 0.

As I said before, this is a negation, not 'nothing' (universal negative)


Here's the rub.

You mustn't know what an atheist really is. An atheist only ever 'concludes' that god does not exist for him/her.

I must be allowed to laugh, and laugh hard!

What about a touch of well-meaning quixotism? A hint at unreason? the dionysian art of self-forgetfulness?

Yes, contrary to atheists, because when we speak of wrong or right, we speak firstly for ourselves.

The spirit of dogmatism really has you in these words!

I'll forgive you for thinking me mentally ill, never mind your excuses about exams. It seems the least I can do! lol

I'll try to finalize this (again). I am a patient man.

Try and test the truth of the sentence.



"You can't prove nothing" --- With nothing to prove, what do you have to prove? Nothing, and so it remains unproven.

Do you know the difference between proof and disproof?

 

How does a fire continue to burn?

When does a fire go out?

HTML:

 

Well, I'm not.

I don't even think you know what you were trying to express there. What is that supposed to mean? Does it mean that all sentences are true? because that's just wrong. What does "in that it is a sentence" mean? Why is "is" italicized?

No, it isn't. "There is no God" is a universal negative, remember? After all, that was the whole fucking point of this thread. You can't just change the meaning of one of my terms half-way through the argument.

But anyway, we both agree that sentences about 0 are universal negatives. So, I can prove that 0 is 0, 0 is not 1, 0 is not 2, etc. So, there's three universal negatives you can prove, right there. Can you make two posts without contradicting yourself?

No, I said at the very beginning of the thread that universal negatives are of the form "There is no x, such that such-and-such." That is what it means to be a universal negative. I'm stipulating it. It's a definition. You have to grant it to even try to refute the argument. Stop trying to change the meaning of a well-defined term. You can call a universal negative whatever the hell you want for all I care. But in this thread, you have to stick my definition, the term as I defined it. Or else, we're not even talking about the same goddamn thing! Surely, even you can see that?

That's just stupid. That's no assertion at all. I used to be an atheist, and I denied God's existence, not just for me. If we took a survey of every atheist on hipforums, I'd be willing to bet that upwards of 90% think that God does not exist, and not in a wishy-washy "true for me, false for you" sense. So, do you even know what you believe?

Don't take it too harshly. It's not as if you're a slobbering mental patient. My point was only that fundamentalists and atheists see the same phenomena and infer radically different conclusions. So, at least one of the two consistently makes a bad inferrence - i.e. has a mental illness.

Once again, logic can't tell you that an object exists. It can't tell you that an object doesn't exist, for that matter. Logic does tell you which sentences are necessarily true, which are necessarily false, and which are of an indeterminate truth-value. It also tells you which sentences deductively follow from others, which are assumed to be true. I have no idea why you don't believe me. So, in case anyone got lost in this rambling wasteland of a thread, I'll prove a universal negative once more. I'm going to make this as explicit and informal as I can:

Universal negative we will be proving:

"There is no x, such that x both has and lacks the very same property, F, at the same time."

Proof:

Say there is such an x.

Then x has F

But x does not have F.

Therefore, there is no x.

It's just that simple, people!

 

All you need do is read it. It means that a sentence with a non-existent subject cannot be true. It is obvious. All sentences are true in that they are sentences. I italicized "is" to help you.

Rubbish. That is a statement, and only a statement. The only possible "universal" negative is nothing.

I can and I did, nor was it half-way through the argument. My second post read: "The only problem with your proof is that the only possible 'universal' negative is nothing."

No we don't. A sentence about nothing is only a sentence about nothing, not nothing.

Care to give an example of where you imagine I have contradicted myself?

And I soon after debunked the utterly inaccurate meaning you give to the term 'universal negative'

An entirely spurious argument on your part. I have given it its proper definition.
You are merely trying to back a meaning which I have taken from you.

Now that's more like it.

No I don't. I made it clear that my definition renders yours false and thus your entire so-called 'proof'.

Of course I can. I have proven your claim that atheists make a 'bad' claim in saying that a universal negative cannot be proven, to be a bad claim. Accept it.

So what? You may deny gods existence in itself all you like, if someone believes in god, then it exists as concept for them.

God does not exist in itself, but who can deny its existence as concept in those who believe?

Actually, logic can let you know the truth of many kinds of things, not just 'sentences' lol

You have proved that such an x is not possible, you have not proven x, you have disproved it.

Understand the difference.

 

Any individual who chronically trolls, who regularly posts arguments, flames or personal attacks for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion will be banned.

Item 4, HipForums Forum Posting Guidelines / Terms of Service, http://www.hipforums.com/forumguidelines.htm

You agreed to them, either intentionally or un-intentionally. Either way, you are subject to them as long as you joined this site and as long as you post to this site.

HTML:

 

I take it you're addressing me?

None of my posts are 'flaming' or 'trolling' posts or 'personal attacks'. 'Arguing' that does not involve such hardly constitutes a ban. I have been banned twice, the first time for the valid reason that I opened a thread quoting the contents of a private message made to me without consent.

 

Any individual who chronically trolls, who regularly posts arguments, flames or personal attacks for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion will be banned.

Appears to me that since you are doing just that, annoying (To disturb or bother in a way that displeases, troubles, or slightly irritates. To be bothersome or troublesome.) someone, then it constitutes a violation of item four of the Forum Posting Guidelines, simply because someone refuses to hold your views.

HTML:

 

Darrell Kitchen

It appears to me that you are the only one I seem to be annoying, and that you have a problem with me since you've banned me twice already. Why not ask the people you imagine I'm annoying if they think I should be banned?

 

Occam does not believe in 'banning' unless recipient is total idiot.
Dejavu is not, by my standards, an idiot, misguided yes.. hehehehe
But he seems a good man. and that is what counts.
My opinion only. But it may be worth a few credits to his name.

Seeing that occam says things that many dont agree with
as well.

Occam

 

I only think banning becomes necessary when someone actively tries to destroy a forum, say by hacking or flooding.

And thanks Occam for sticking up for me!

I don't think Common Sense wants me banned either, he's tough and I bet he wants a chance to beat me at chess.




And Darrell, don't do it man! Occam was right about me, there is still good in me!

 

Well Darrell, I think you've always been quite responsible in banning people in the past. But Dejavu doesn't deserve to be banned. He might be a little thick, but that's not trolling. Besides, while I'd certainly like to "beat" Dejavu, I don't think he's ever going to concede any point. So, I'm probably just going to let the matter drop pretty soon. But hey, you're the moderator, not me.

 

HURRAY! It took some coaxing, but I think we finally got another argument out of you. It's not a bad one either, but, of course, I disagree. There seems to be a handful of kinds of sentences that are or would be true, even though their subjects do not or might not exist:

(1) "All bachelors are unmarried."

I call (1) "necessarily true" because, it seems to me, that "bachelor" simply means "unmarried man." So, (1) means "All unmarried men are unmarried," which is tautological. It would remain true, by virtue of its meaning, even if everyone in the world up and got married (i.e. if there were no bachelors). This is the category into which the universal negative I proved falls into.

(2) "The interior angle sum of a Euclidean triangle is 180 degrees."

There has never been a perfect triangle in nature. So, I would be very hesitant to call a perfect triangle "real," as one never has existed. Nevertheless, (2) is true.

(3) "There are no unicorns."

Well, there aren't. But (3) is still true. After all, surely its negation, "There are unicorns," is false. You might think that the universal negative I proved falls into this category, but it doesn't. The universal negative I proved was analytic. So, it falls into category (1). (3), on the other hand, is a posteriori.

Look, here's what happened. I started this thread and said, "A universal negative is of the form 'There is no x, such that such-and-such." Then I proved a sentence of that very form. Then, you came along and said, "No, that's not what a universal negative is. The only universal negative is 0." Do you see the problem? I wanted to prove something, call it whatever you want. Calling a completely different thing what I called the first thing is no refutation of the first thing.

Here's a more concrete example. It's not exactly the same case, but it's closely related and, I think, gets the point across. Say I want to prove that all members of a certain species have four legs and a tail. I call that species "Dwoemar." You, on the other hand, call that species "dog." So, you say to me, "It's not that all Dwoemar have four legs and a tail. On the contrary, all dogs have fous legs and a tail." You can call the species whatever you like. Calling it something else is no refutation that all Dwoemar have four legs and a tail.

In this case, I defined the term universal negative and said I could prove one. Then you said that a universal negative means something else. Well fine, let's call all sentences of the form "There is no x, such that such-and-such," a "galactic negative." I will now show that one can prove a galactic negative. (I've proved it three or four times already. So, I won't go through it again). I'm having a bit of fun with you here, Dejavu, but I think you can see my point.

I can and I did, nor was it half-way through the argument. My second post read: "The only problem with your proof is that the only possible 'universal' negative is nothing."

In the above, you are denying that 0 is a universal negative, which confuses me because just a little while ago you said that 0 is the only universal negative. Furthermore, I'm sure you'll agree that "0 = 0" is true. Well, if 0 is nothing and a sentence with a non-existent subject cannot be true, then how can "0 = 0" be true? Does 0 exist, or doesn't it? Is "0 = 0" true, or isn't it?

Well, I just gave you two. Is that enough?

Then you go on a bit about stuff that I've already cleared up. If it makes you feel any better, I really don't think you're mentally ill. And I don't want to argue about what "atheism" means.

P.S. Exams are done. Unless I seriously screwed something up, I now have my B.A. in philosophy. And I couldn't have done half as good a job without having been able to bounce ideas off of all of you, here. So, thank you to absolutely everybody on these forums.

 

How does the subject not exist in this sentence?!

Again, how is the subject non-existent in this sentence?

For the third time, the subject of the sentence exists in both those sentences. Unicorns. lol

It will always refute it so long as you continue to maintain that your 'first thing' is not a misnomer, and that my meaning doesn't render yours false. Also, are you forgetting that this sentence was given by you to attempt to demonstrate the falsity of the sentence "You can't prove a universal negative"?

lol. Nice try. Of course you can call a dog a dwoemar, but then that word is yours, and has that meaning alone.

And that 'something else' makes your meaning invalid.

You will never prove nothing (negative). Something must be proved to constitute a proof. Your unwillingness to grant true meaning to the expression "universal negative" is a bit of fun to be sure.

In the above, I deny no such thing, nor is it possible to show that I have.

With 0, the subject alone exists. This is blatantly obvious. 0=0 is true. The subject is true.

Don't get me wrong, I think you have a sharp mind, just not as sharp as my own.

Congratulations! I have a B.A. in nothing. I'm a philosopher. Likewise, thank you to absolutely everybody on these forums!

 

common sense: if you have x, and then x has f, but x does not have f, then all you have proved is that x does not have f, you have not proved that you don't have x.

 

His formula works unless you substitute infinity for x and any number but 0 for f.

 

Well no, because if x exists, then it must have both P and not-P. So, x must not exist. Say that P means "red." Then, if x exists, then x is both red and not red. But this is impossible. So, x must not exist.

 

Dejavu:

Well, did you read my explanations, or just the sentences themselves? The key phrases are: for (1) "It would remain true, by virtue of its meaning, even if everyone in the world up and got married (i.e. if there were no bachelors)," and for (2), "There has never been a perfect triangle in nature." As for (3), I don't know what to tell you. Surely you agree that unicorns don't exist, and so that it is true that "There are no unicorns." If you think that "there" is the subject of the sentence, you're wrong because "there" can't be a subject. But, if you like, we can re-phrase (3) to read, "Unicorns don't exist." Better?

Now, about how you changed the meaning of one of my well-definted terms, which is a fallacy, I'm not sure how to make things any more clear. Why don't we take it slow? Okay, what would you like to call a sentence of the form "There is no such x, such that such-and-such,"?

Oh yeah? Well, here's where you say it:

Then, I said that "we both agree that sentences about 0 are universal negatives." And you said:

And even now, you're saying:

I have no idea how a subject can be true or false. Let's try it: "Socrates!" Hmm... definitely not true or false. Also, you have never even tried to explain what a universal negative is, other than that 0 is the only one. But since you fallaciously changed the meaning of the term anyway, it doesn't matter. So, I don't care.