"You cannot prove a Negative" Another Claim?

MrC: Correct me if I am mistaken, but I do believe that you are a Christian.

If that thought is correct, then allow me to ask if you, as a Christian, do you believe in the power of the Holy Spirit? If your answer to that last question is 'yes', then allow me to ask you one more question.

Do you believe that it is within the power of the Holy Spirit to reveal something to someone in this day and age, pertaining to what has happened in the past relative to the history of Christianity?

 

I believe in miracles, but miracles that defy the laws of nature are very rare. I personally have never seen one, but I do believe they happen. A bad choice of words on my part.

 

No! I don't think you had a bad choice of words. With so many varying doctrines of Christianity out there, I had to inquire so that I would know how to proceed without offending a Brother.

Now suppose that the Holy Spirit revealed, to that person testifying in court about the feeding of the 5000, all the details of that event. That person then has had the personal religious experience of 'seeing' what happened (or at the very least, hearing directly from one that was there) at that event. The person then testifying can give expert testimony of the oral narrative or the visual seeing of those events. The court, by their own rules, then have to accept that testimony as evidence regarding those events. The court also knows, by virtue of their rules, that the court cannot demand physical evidence of a religious experience; though such physical evidence would be the clincher, such physical evidence cannot be demanded. Separation of Church and State. The State cannot go into that jurisdiction.

 

The name of the thread is "You cannot prove a negative." This is not true. Suppose a mathematician makes a negative claim--the sum of the angle in a flat triangle is not equal 180 degrees."

Our existing proof that the sum of the angles, in such triangle, is always equal to 180 degrees is a valid "proof of negative." Why not?

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

 

Herein lies the problem. Atheists on this thread have been asking for evidence of god, which does not rely upon the bible. Such evidence does not exist.

End of thread really.

 

I've already been through this. The thread title is incorrect. An absence of god is not a negtive, it is a neutral, a zero.

 

Sure there is. Aristotle and Plato believed in God to a certain extant. He prime mover, first cause argument was developed by Aristotle. St.Thomas Aquinas points to 5 proofs of God's existence without referencing any scripture.

 

A non-theist is a negative. Grammatically correct and logically correct. There is your proof of a 'negative'.

 

I will agree with you on this but the only negative statement it makes is that of not being a theist. What not being a theist means, however, namely absence of theistic faith, is not a negative; it is simply the absence of the positive affirmation that constitutes the theist.

 

Looking at the complete definition of a 'negative' we find some interesting facts.
One of those facts is the nature or man to 'cherry pick' a particular definition to meet his/her needs.

"neg·a·tive (ng-tv)
adj.
1.
a. Expressing, containing, or consisting of a negation, refusal, or denial: gave a negative answer to our request.
b. Indicating opposition or resistance: a negative reaction to the new advertising campaign.
2. Lacking positive or constructive features, especially:
a. Unpleasant; disagreeable: had a negative experience on his first job.
b. Gloomy; pessimistic: a negative outlook.
c. Unfavorable or detrimental: a negative review; a negative effect on the child's development.
d. Hostile or disparaging; malicious: ran a negative campaign against her opponent.
3. Medicine Not indicating the presence of a particular disease, condition, or organism.
4. Logic Designating a proposition that denies agreement between a subject and its predicate.
5. Mathematics
a. Of or relating to a quantity less than zero.
b. Of or relating to the sign (-).
c. Of or relating to a quantity to be subtracted from another.
d. Of or relating to a quantity, number, angle, velocity, or direction in a sense opposite to another of the same magnitude indicated or understood to be positive.
6. Physics
a. Of or relating to an electric charge of the same sign as that of an electron, indicated by the symbol (-).
b. Of or relating to a body having an excess of electrons.
7. Chemistry Of or relating to an ion, the anion, that is attracted to a positive electrode.
8. Biology Moving or turning away from a stimulus, such as light: a negative tropism.
n.
1. A statement or act indicating or expressing a contradiction, denial, or refusal.
2.
a. A statement or act that is highly critical of another or of others: campaign advertising that was based solely on negatives.
b. Something that lacks all positive, affirmative, or encouraging features; an element that is the counterpoint of the positive: "Life is full of overwhelming odds. You can't really eliminate the negatives but you can diminish them" (Art Linkletter).
c. A feature or characteristic that is not deemed positive, affirmative, or desirable: "As voters get to know his liberal views, his negatives will rise" (Richard M. Nixon).
3. Grammar A word or part of a word, such as no, not, or non-, that indicates negation. See Usage Note at double negative.
4. The side in a debate that contradicts or opposes the question being debated.
5.
a. An image in which the light areas of the object rendered appear dark and the dark areas appear light.
b. A film, plate, or other photographic material containing such an image.
6. Mathematics A negative quantity."

Notice also that I did not say "not-theist" but instead said 'non-theist'. In either case, 'not' or 'non', both are indicators of 'negation'.

negation = ne·ga·tion (n-gshn)
n.
1. The act or process of negating.
2. A denial, contradiction, or negative statement.
3. The opposite or absence of something regarded as actual, positive, or affirmative.

Have a nice evening Freeware.

 

?? I already agreed that non-theist is a negation (whether it's non-, no-, not-, a- or dis-) but this is a negation of being a theist. It is a negation of holding theistic faith, not a negation of the contents of said faith.

 

In evidential terms, this is garbage.

 

It is still a negative statement per the definition. If you want to argue that point, then argue it with the people who wrote the dictionary.

 

No it's not. It is zero. Zero belief. You have positive belief, which might make it appear to you that I have negative belief, but this is an incorrect assumption, based on flawed logic.

 

Are you saying your statement is garbage? Your use of the word 'this' within your own statement would indicate that you are talking about your own statement.

 

What's garbage? Please specify.

 

OK, this is how it works.

My example relates to temperature, where 0 deg is atheism and 100 deg is theism.

0 deg is neither positive nor negative. However, is is negative when compared to 100 deg (theism). So to the theist, it may appear that atheists are "negative", but the are not, they are neutral.

 

Well, gee whiz... we are talking about making a comparison of one group against the other, so it is in fact a matter of relativity. Even as you have admitted in your example above with the temperatures... they are still negative... thus proving a negative.

 

The neutral position is shared by agnostic atheists, not gnostic atheists.

 

The negative does not refer to the belief itself but to the label given due to beliefs, or absence of beliefs.

Both non- and atheist are words that negate the word theist. They simply mean 'NOT being a theist'. That's not even debateable; it's simple grammar. But it does not mean that it negates anything beyond not being an theist.

If being a theist means that a personal god exists, for example, then not being a theist does not mean that a personal god does not exist. If that's where the negation was then it could just as well be that a non-personal god exist or that a personal non-god exists. All of those statements, just to name a few, are negating the beliefs of the theist but that's not what being an atheist means.

Being an atheist ONLY negates that of being a theist, not the faith, looks, name or choice of lingerie of the theist.

 

Because the Five Proofs have been logically decected and do not offer evidence.

The Argument of the Unmoved Mover - assumes a creator must have started all motion, which there is no evidence of. All we actually know, factually speaking, is that things are in motion.

The Argument of the First Cause - Is a chicken and egg argument, which in itself is not evidence of god.

The Argument from Contingency - Is a chicken and egg argument, which in itself is not evidence of god.

The Argument from Degree - Seems to rely on the argument that god is the ultimate good and we are to varying degrees less good. And this is apparently "evidence" of god. Which it clearly is not.

The Teleological Argument - Simply says, things are so complex that they must have been designed. Which again is not evidence of god.

There is no evidence of god in the 5 Proofs.

 

It is also simple grammar that both the words non and not (and as you pointed out the prefix 'a') are all indicators of negating... or making a negative statement. You saw it yourself in the dictionary.... so argue the point with the grammarians that assisted in the writing of the dictionary.

Your rationalizations are really proving to be feeble in respect to the rules of grammar.

 

Do you have evidence of Thor not existing? You must have if you do not believe in him.

Please provide your evidence that Thor does not exist.

 

Who said I don't believe in Thor? Are you hallucinating? Show me where I made such a comment.

 

My stance is that there is no evidence in Thor, so I do not believe in the Viking god. And that equal evidence exists for the christian god, and I also do not believe in him for the very same reason.

What is your reason for chosing to believe in one god, but not Thor?