This isn't a negative proposition, you're referring to a singular easily identifiable entity when you refer to "The Library", thus the library in question has a positive identity. A negative proposition would be of the form:

No Library opens on Sundays.

Now we're referring to something without a positive identity, to prove this you must eliminate this possibility from the entire category "Library" for every element which exists in it. It's a fools pursuit just like trying to prove: No God exists, in which you've taken on the burden of verifying that every type of God ever imagined or imaginable does not exist. 

 

 

 

To prove that there is no rational number (p/q) you can square to find 2 we use proof by contradiction. First you positively identify a rational number, then you show that it is illogical for that rational number to equal 2 as follows:

1. assume sqrt(2)=p/q

sqrt(2)=p/q

2. Square both sides

2= p^2/q^2

3. commute

2q^2 = p^2 ---> implies that p^2 = 2k where k = q^2 and is an integer

4. take q in terms of p^2=2k

p^2 = (2k)^2 = 4k^2 = 2*(q^2)

5. conclude that if sqrt(2) = p/q then p and q are both even numbers.

If p and q are both even numbers then they have a common factor of 2.

The numerator and denominator of our original rational number does not have common factors (or we would have cancelled them) so our conclusion is a contradiction and our original assumption cannot be true.

Notice that we proceed from a positive identity and eliminate it. If we were to proceed from a negative proposition : ie there are no rational numbers which square to equal 2 - then to prove it we would need to check the entire set Q (proven to be infinite) square every element and verify that none square to 2.

We're running a risk of going off the topic of my original post, so I'll just swing this back.  I already have said enough for you to know that I'm not saying this.  I said in mathematics and logic we can get proofs.  In science, we get well tested and demonstrated theories or facts, but not proofs.

It's just the way we've defined the word proof.  It refers to those things for which there can be no doubt, no mistake.  If there is the possibility of error, or if it turns out you were wrong, then you never had a proof in the first place.

You're making assumptions that are unwarranted.  The maxim doesn't specify what precisely "a negative" is.  For example, a negative might simply mean the negation of a proposition.  It might mean the denial that a particular class of things exists.  Either way, it is a false claim.  I wasn't the one who wrote the ill-specified maxim, I'm just reading it how it is written.

Your example of a "negative proposition" is equally capable of having evidence to establish it or refute it.  We find but one library that is open on a Sunday, and we know it is false.  If we do a survey of a representative sample of libraries, and find they are all closed Sunday, we can be reasonably confident that this negative proposition is true.  If we check every library we know, then we will have a very high degree of confidence.  Remembering, of course, that with empirical evidence we don't have proofs.

Far from providing an objection to my claim, you have simply showed that under a more precise interpretation of the word "negative", the maxim still fails.

Far from needing to evaluate every library, for empirical confidence we can evaluate a subset and form a belief which we then hold with confidence commensurate to the strength of the evidence.

There are at least a couple of errors in your last quoted claim.  First of all, the atheist does not need to "prove" that God does not exist.  He merely needs to give sufficient evidence or reasons that persuades us it is more rational to think God doesn't exist.  In other words, it must outweigh the reasons we have for thinking God does exist.

Second, there are plenty of ways to go about that task, and there have been plenty attempts to do so, including the problem of evil, arguments from scale, "look and see", etc.  Plenty more reasons I can think of that an atheist would try to give positive reasons and evidence to think God does not exist.  These are far more accessible than the absurd task of refuting individually each conception of God that's ever been imagined.

But it's not my job to tell people here how to be persuasive atheists.

Thankyou for sharing the proof, but I was already aware of it.  I fail to see why assuming the "positive" claim, and deriving a contradiction which proves the negative claim, is an objection to anything I have said.  It is, in fact, a beautiful example of how you can sometimes easily prove a negative claim.  My question then would be, what is your point?

My argument against this maxim has only grown stronger after your post, not weaker.  I can now add to the refutation another interpretation of the word "negative" for which the maxim fails, even though my original post was sufficient.  You have also illuminated other readers on one method of proving a negative - primarily, by assuming the positive claim, and deriving a contradiction.

Ah! Rather like we've looked all over, but never found any evidence for a god, so our confidence in this negative proposition is fairly high. I see what you mean.

It's very graceful of you to accept my point, I respect that.

I think that in this last post, there is the one mistake woven through all your responses.  It is a point I'd hoped I'd already established earlier, but it may have escaped your notice (as sometimes happens in discussions).

You are saying that the op meant only that "You cannot prove a universally negative proposition", as you have defined those terms.  My response earlier was that this is a trivial claim, since you cannot prove any empirical claim.  In any given scenario, we can establish possible (though unlikely) conditions in which we were mistaken about what we thought we demonstrated.  So, if we restrict our statement to the realm of empirical enquiry, then the statement "You cannoy prove anything" is true, and implies the statement "You cannot prove a universally negative proposition".

I was being charitable by assuming by "proof", the OP meant "evidence".  Otherwise, his statement is banal, and doesn't achieve what he wants it to.

This is why I avoided using the word "proof" in my previous post, though you thought I should be to represent the OP's statement.  I was trying to avoid his mistake.

Missed this in my first reading of your post.  I don't see why you think that the proof is not of a negative claim.  It is a universal negative claim, and it is proven.  If we were to write that in logical form, it would be something like:

∀x(Nx->~Sx)

Where N is "is a rational number", and S is "square is two".  In English you would it read like this: For all x, if that x is a rational number, then its square is not 2.

This is a universal negative, and is proven. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/618120/universal-negative-proposition

 

 

Stupid intertubes! I knew I shouldn't have pushed it again...

 

Eloise, are you a Pantheist or Panentheist? You seem to be using the terms interchangeably. I'm a little confused by the usage in the linked thread.

 

I identify Panentheist where panentheism defines all in God/ God in all.

According to me a Panentheist is basically a Pantheist with a different concept regarding the nature of the universe. We both think the universe and god are one thing but what we conceive of when we think universe, is generally, not the same thing.

A pantheist, for example, does not conceive of a universe wherein every infinitessimal part and the whole are indistinct. To a pantheist the whole universe is god and the assumption is that the whole universe is the very large everything we perceive around us thus God is distinct from the smallest fraction of the universe. 

For a Pantheist the concept of God as all-powerful follows from this definition of the universe being large and distinct from pieces making it up. Pantheism conceives a powerful God as an extension of a determining relationship by the massive causal influences of a large universe on the small and insignificant objects occupying it.

I see this concept as a relic of severely weakened assumptions about how the universe works. The perception of a universe in motion, underlying the laws of Netwonian mechanics leads directly to the prediction that the greatest mass exerts the greatest force. But we know also, since, of immense forces carried in a universe which relative to Newtonian motion, doesn't move at all and is for intensive purposes, massless.

I see the Pantheistic concept that the greatest power must necessarily constitute the greatest mass, as merely a concession to an idea with a long history of influence over our politics. It doesn't come from the stories about God, those stories describe an entity whose power is exerted through the smallest and most insignificant of things.

So if "God", then Panentheism, which is essentially Pantheism sans a troubled assumption regarding the nature of potency.

This is one major distinction I make between the two, there's more, but I will suppose thats enough to be going on with for now. I hope, at least, I have given you some idea why I identify one way but essentially define them as the same. The difference between them is not a difference between Gods but a difference between universes.

I agree with you that such an approach as we did for the mathematical proof is impracticle in the world of matter and energy.  We have seen that if we interpret the word "proof" strictly, then it is false since we have some proofs of a universal negative.

However, I think you make a mistake when you apply these mathematical arguments to the real world, and show how they are impractical - I think it is irrelevant to my argument to show them impractical.  You have aptly shown that a proof of a universal negative in the real world is not possible.  But I would say that a proof of any claim about the world of matter and energy is impossible.  As I mentioned earlier, I agree with the claim "you can't prove a universal negative" if we take it to be about empirical claims.  But I would also say that the claim, "you can't prove anything" is also true when restricted to that domain of things.

So, we must interpret the phrase as being something like, "you can't give evidence for a universal negative", to avoid the statement being trivial and irrelevant to all discussions.  But interpreted in this way, I think it is still false.  I can think of various ways, as I've listed in earlier posts, that you can give evidence in support of a universal negative.  I even think that you can give such evidence for the universal negative claim, "there is no God".  It seems to me that no matter which way you cut this phrase, it's useless.

In the one interpretation it turns out to be true (a strict reading of the word 'prove', as related to the physical world), it is true trivially, and so is the phrase "you can't prove anything".  In fact, the statement "you can't prove anything" implies that "you can't prove a universal negative".  I'm pretty sure the OP didn't want to claim that you can't prove anything.  He just wanted to deny that he has any duty to give reasons specifically for his disbelief in God.

Looks like there actually are Atheists that do believe in "Original Sin", or they didn't see your updated thread.

This is amusing!

The original post was filled with so much flawed logic that I frankly dont have the time, or the inclination to respond... other than to say this about his claim that we are "Bullies".

Hardly. With few exceptions we are a group defending ourselves against the real bullies...

I hope that if there ever comes a day when I stop posting on a particular internet messageboard, should my life be so devoid of anything interesting that I feel compelled to announce my departure with an inane rationalization, that someone close would euthenize me.

Get a room you two.

 

 

 

Hehe, I mean the discussion between you and spike should get it's own thread.

 

 

 

This is a no true scotsman fallacy. The ONLY thing that makes someone an atheist is that they do not believe in god. Anything else they do has no bearing on whether they are an atheist.

It is important to distinguish atheism from anti-theism. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al, do not criticise religion because they are atheists, rather they criticise religion because they are anti-theism. What you appear to be saying is that no true atheist can be anti-theism. Why not? Why is it that to be a 'real' atheist you must respect the religious beliefs of others?

Our 'attacking' religion often has little to do with our atheism, indeed, you can be anti-theism and NOT be an atheist (e.g. you can be a deist). In other cases, atheists do not attack a religious doctrine because they are atheists, rather they attack it because they feel that doctrine is wrong in of itself, regardless of their opinion on god, for example, the Catholic Churches stance on contraception.

 

This is shifting the burden of proof. Atheism is justified on the inability of anyone to prove that a god does in fact exist. Since no god has been proven to exist, the justified position is to abstain from belief in a god, which is atheism, and since this potion does not positively claim that a god definitely does not exist, the atheist incurs no burden.

 

This is an argument from ignorance/incredulity. Our hitherto lack of knowledge is not an argument god the existence of god.

Also, who exactly is saying there is no god? Atheists may deny a particular god exists, based on the claims made about that god (e.g. if a god is shown to be contradictory, then one is justified to deny its existence), but very few atheists will deny the existence of any god out right. What you seem to be arguing for here is deism... the belief in an undefined, first cause that has since played no role in human activity. I expect few atheists to have a problem with deism, since deists are not the ones trying to thrust their beliefs onto society, after all, the god of deism plays no role in society and thus offers no support or justification for the deist to spread their beliefs. I suspect the only problem the atheist and secularist will have with a deist is if they argue that religion should not be criticised (are you appear to be doing).

 

You're shifting the burden of proof again! Neither of the "Four Horsemen" say that does definitely does not exist, so they do not have to prove anything. To justify their position all they have demonstrate (and they do) is that there is no reason or evidence to believe in a god. 

 

Since faith is defined as holding a belief without evidence, the atheist requires nothing of the sort. Nothing about the atheist position rests on faith.

The atheist does not place its faith in science, rather the atheist acknowledges the methodology and prior achievements of science and therefore acknowledge that future knowledge will almost certainly derive from scientific inquiry. Their trust in science is not faith-based, far from it, it is a trust supported by a wealth of evidence and justification.

Perhaps you can give us a better reason to think that an atheist needs to hold a belief without evidence?

 

Why exactly is honesty a bad thing? Why is a scientist announcing that they do not knowing something a bad thing. I guess you're used to the religious arrogance of claiming knowledge even when they have no idea?

You're absolutely right... there is a lot that we do not yet know, yet your telling this to us as if this is news! No one here pretends science understand everything. Ironically your own comments refute your own suggestion... you speak to us as if we think science knows everything, and then to present a scientist who is perfectly willing to say that we do not know everything.

 

Oh I agree, religion is man made. Obviously you reject religion, and so presumably also revelation. How then do you know a god exists? On what basis do you believe in a god?

 

 

The bible is packed with some of the most immoral things ever written. The fact a few pearls of wisdom can be found can be found in it (which are typically not unique to it, by the way) doesn't change this, nor does that fact some people get joy and comfort from it; it still does not make its content true.

 

Shifting the burden of proof again!

Until you, or anyone else for that matter, has evidence that a soul does exist, the most rational position is to withhold belief in their existence. The fact there is still lots to know about the human condition and about the universe is not an argument for the existence of souls.

Before we start looking for souls we must first define exactly what it is we a we looking for; this entails providing an ontology for souls and an empirical basis for inquiring about them. What do souls do? Are they supernatural? If they are supernatural, how can we know anything about them, and how can they interact with the natural world? If they are natural, then how do they interact with this (still unproven) supernatural 'world' and what would be 'magical' about them?

 

Dawkins does not completely deny the existence of a god, so he does not need to prove that no god exists.

Your post is largely one big fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

 

Another shifting the burden of proof fallacy! We do not say there is definitely no afterlife, rather we just say there is little reason to believe in one, so we do not need to disprove the idea of an afterlife. I would add however that it is likely that an afterlife rests on dualism (the idea that consciousness/the mind/our identity is distinct from our physical brains), however we can confidently reject the idea of dualism, which does put a dent into the notion of an afterlife, nevertheless, we still to not claim to know what happens after we die.

 

Who is putting all their hope in science? Hope in what? If you're speaking of hope in a better way of life or in curing diseases, then I most certainly do put my hope in science, since it is most likely through science that these things will be realised? You really need to be a bit more specific.

As for spirituality... you need to divorce spirituality, religion, god and faith-based thinking from each other. Many atheists can be very spiritual in their own way. Being spiritual does not entail they we must accept things on insufficient evidence, so don't mistake our criticism of religion, or our unwillingness to believe anything, as our not being spiritual. Spirituality =/= faith-based thinking.

Can you explain why believing in the "unknown" (whatever that is) and the "supernatural" (whatever that is too) is a good thing? Why is believing in things without evidence a good thing that we should all aspire to?

 

Please stop shifting the burden of proof.

 

No! Very few of us are strong atheists. You really need to understand who your are speaking to before you start throwing around claims about what we all believe.

Calling atheists closed minded is really just theist projection. Can you tell us how exactly are atheists closed minded? Our inability to believe anything does not make us closed minded.

Assuming you were actually an atheist (I suspect you were an implicit atheist), you obviously did not turn to theism or deism by choice (since belief isn't a matter of choice), rather I most likely turn to theism/deism because you found the position convincing, so I find it highly unlikely that the supposed attitude of atheist made you accept belief in god.

 

Really, why bother posting you are just going to demand your account be deleted?!