True or False: There is no proof that X does not exist. Therefore, I can logically conclude that X does not exist.

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Kvaerner Masa
X is alive and well.

Cruiseliner?

 

[DainBramaged]

Bigtime false.

 

[Mo0o]

Man, talk about a thinly veiled religion thread.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: StormRider
Yllus,

Don't let those 'tards in P&N get you down.

Just amusing myself, and giving myself a little reminder that people who understand basic logic are still out there.

 

[Monkey muppet]

Originally posted by: iwearnosox

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Only when it's God. Not when it's the tooth fairy, giant robots, or dinosaurs. I mean hoaxes.

What if God is a giant fairy robot dinosaur?

Then it'll be a hoax

 

[bootymac]

X = god?

 

[DeMeo]

I like Santa Clause

 

[Malladine]

Based on the premise that you know all there is to know about x. Which is not possible to know...

 

[Kelemvor]

The poll question is still wrong:
There is no proof that X does not exist. Therefore, I can conclude that X does not exist.

Let me fill in some blanks...

"There is no proof that grass does not exist. (because it DOES exist). Therefore, I can conclude that grass does not exist. Umm, no.

I think yoe need to remove the first "not".

There is no proof that X exists. THerefore I can conclude that X does not exist...

 

[torpid]

You need to put some sort of adverb on the second part of the statement, and modify the does not. It should read something like "There is no proof that X does or does not exist, therefore I can logically conclude that X does not exist". Also it's i.e. and not e.g.

The way you have worded it, only an idiot would say false because regardless of whether it is logical to conclude that X does not exist, you CAN conclude that, unless you are brain dead and incapable of making conclusions at all.

But to answer your eg, as worded it is false. However,

Lack of evidence that something exists proves nonexsitence if the presence of the lacking evidence is a prerequisite for the thing's existence. But that is pretty much self-evident.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: yllus
My perception:

- If you wish to prove X exists, you must find evidence proving such.
- If you wish to prove X does not exist, you must find evidence proving such.
- Absence of evidence proves nothing either way.

If you agree with the above, you should vote 'False'.

I think you should be shot for making a religious thread that's very poorly disguised as something else.

 

[Legendary]

If you're trying to prove to the atheists that their belief is logically inconsistent, you must understand that for atheists (at least most I know) it's not about existence or non-existence, but about necessity (or a lack thereof).

Edit: For clarity, I am an atheist. The above applies to me.
Most atheists only try to prove the "nonexistence of God" (impossible) when their religious friends/enemies try to prove His existence. Basically if an evangelist quotes the Bible as a source of truth, I try to undermine the credibility of the source. As a standalone argument, the nonexistence of God cannot be proven.

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: Legendary
If you're trying to prove to the atheists that their belief is logically inconsistent, you must understand that for atheists (at least most I know) it's not about existence or non-existence, but about necessity (or a lack thereof).

boo yah

 

[Gurck]

Pretty impresive sully, to slip a religious circle jerk under mod-dar and have people who ordinarily wouldn't take part getting in their strokes

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: yllus
My perception:

- If you wish to prove X exists, you must find evidence proving such.
- If you wish to prove X does not exist, you must find evidence proving such.
- Absence of evidence proves nothing either way.

If you agree with the above, you should vote 'False'.

I think you should be shot for making a religious thread that's very poorly disguised as something else.

I was thinking he should be shot for the above bolded sentence, which is literally impossible according to the scientific method.

 

[sharkeeper]

Cruiseliner?

Yes, she turned 10 in Dec.

 

[MiniGolfIsFun]

False.

The burden of proof does not lie in those that say it doesn't exist, but rather on those that say it does.

For example, someone says that UFOs don't exist. Argument will go no where because you can't prove that.

However, someone says that UFOs do exist. It's up to that person to prove that it does.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Topic Summary: ie. Lack of evidence proves nonexistence.

That doesn't match the topic. The first part of your statement is not about lack of evidence. It's about lack of evidence against X. Your insistence on the correctness of your statement means that you either have a huge mental deficiency with grammar or with logic.

Tell me if this makes sense:
There is no proof that your intelligence does not exist, therefore I conclude that you are an idiot.
There is no proof that the sky is not blue, therefore I conclude that the sky is not blue.
There is no proof that Santa is imaginary, therefore I conclude that Santa is imaginary.