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

[yllus]

Okay, simplified the confusing question. Vote now, don't delay!

I understand the wording of the question is a bit confusing - please pick carefully.

 

[JackBurton]

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Eli]

Sure, you can claim that X doesen't exist.

You can claim X doesen't exist even if there is overwhelming evidence that it does.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Eli
Sure, you can claim that X doesen't exist.

You can claim X doesen't exist even if there is overwhelming evidence that it does.

 

[arcenite]

False. There is a difference between something existing, and something that we are aware exists.

 

[Kipper]

Define "proof."

For example, I can logically prove about anything under the sun.

If 2+2=4, I am God.
2+2=4
Therefore, I am God.

 

[iversonyin]

You can never prove a negative.

Therefore...FALSE

 

[iwearnosox]

If a bear farts in the woods...

False.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Only when it's God. Not when it's the tooth fairy, giant robots, or dinosaurs. I mean hoaxes.

 

[Gurck]

You guys are missing the wording...

 

[Evadman]

It is impossible to prove that something does not exist according to established scientific methods.

 

[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?

 

[everman]

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
If a bear farts in the woods...

False.

And nobody is there to smell it....does it exist?

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: Evadman
It is impossible to prove that something does not exist according to established scientific methods.

Woah. De Ja Vu!

 

[mercanucaribe]

I think you meant to say "True or False: There is no proof that X does not exist. Therefore, I can claim that X does not exist.

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
I think you meant to say "True or False: There is no proof that X does not exist. Therefore, I can claim that X does not exist.

Go home.

 

[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'.

 

[arcenite]

FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE

 

[Goosemaster]

In the end, man can only defend only so much of what they have surmised in their lives.

In the end, it just becomes an educated guess, a proven methology of understanding, or a habitual explanation for an occurence.



Basically, the way you worded your arguemnt states that if there is no evidence of something, then lack of evidence proves its nonexistance. If anything such a statement is contemptible in the eyes of science and educated thought because you are basing an argument on a blind assumption and ignorance.


Proof of nonexistance requires an absolute viewpoint of reality or of the situation that would allow for absolutely no error. Jsut because ther is no proof does not mean that it doesn't exist.

There was no proof that quarks didn't exist. Using the communicative property of mathematics, many people came to believe that there was something smaller than the atom. There was no proof that quarks existed, but given the pattern of matter as it increased in size.....gravity, structrue etc, it would have been foolish to write it off as another lame theory.

Did that make sense to anyone?

 

[yllus]

Basically, the way you worded your arguemnt states that if there is no evidence of something, then lack of evidence proves its nonexistance. If anything such a statement is contemptible in the eyes of science and educated thought because you are basing an argument of a blind assumption and ignorance.

Proof of nonexistance requires an absolute viewpoint of reality or of the situation that would allow for absolutely no error. Jsut because ther is no proof does not mean that it doesn't exist.

Excellent response, thank you. Let it be known that the statement is not one that I myself made.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Your wording is what doesn't make sense. The therefore doesn't fit in. "Yet" would fit.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: iversonyin
You can never prove a negative.
Therefore...FALSE

Originally posted by: Gurck
You guys are missing the wording...

Yup, he only said claim. And you can CLAIM anything you want.
Of course, this has never been in dispute. (Especially in OT). So the whole thread is a waste of electrons.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Your wording is what doesn't make sense. The therefore doesn't fit in. "Yet" would fit.

I realize the double negative in the statement is confusing, yet this is all that I can offer you. Believe me, the original wording that I've simplified was even worse:

[yllus] said it was unreasonable to say X doesn't exist because you can't prove X doesn't exist.

 

[DaveSimmons]

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'.

Though a strong argument can be made by simply showing that existence would contradict facts or laws.

For example, science has done nothing to disprove the existence of a creator (in some form), it has only perhaps removed the necessity of a creator's existence.

However, science does offer evidence against the existence of a God who exactly matches, completely and literally, the God in the King James bible. That God's existence contradicts physical laws (miracles, resurrection of the dead), the age of the universe, and the fossil record (dinosaurs). None of this proves the non-existence of this particular god, but does show that either the KJV is nor 100% literally true or its god is free to ignore physical laws and likes to mess with our minds by creating fossils of non-existent creatures and messing with their carbon dates.

 

[Neurorelay]

If x is proof, and proof is true, then x is true.