-

He's not using the word 'prove' correctly. By definition you can't prove a negative.

Given a limited scope you can absolutely prove a negative. "There are no muslims in congress" is provable. "There is no God in the United States" is also provable.

The problem is that if you have an unlimited scope, then it becomes impossible.

"There are no fairies in my basement."
vs.
"There are no fairies."

-

>> ^gwiz665:

Given a limited scope you can absolutely prove a negative. "There are no muslims in congress" is provable. "There is no God in the United States" is also provable.
The problem is that if you have an unlimited scope, then it becomes impossible.
"There are no fairies in my basement."
vs.
"There are no fairies."


As already pointed out, by *definition* you can't prove a negative.
As per your other threads shinyblurry, we can argue semantics all day so it's kind of pointless, but I'm going to anyway, because it's actually at the nub of the statement "you can't prove a negative".
I've also used an online dictionary you've sited in your other posts.

prove/pro͞ov/Verb
1. Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
2. Demonstrate by evidence or argument (someone or something) to be.

Note the use of the affirmative "the existence" / "to be". There is no scope for a negative here.

Also it's worth pointing out the etymology of the word "proof". It comes from the Latin "probare" meaning "to test". So it you've got proof of god's existence, it's got to be testable. Similarly if I want to "prove" there is no god I need to formulate a test that will give a definitive result.

Now, moving away from semantics....

So yeah, he's using a linguistic trick to try and recontextualize the statement "you can't prove a negative". That statement is generally used as a shorthand in an argument not only as a reference to the above definition, but also as a more general indication of the vast impracticality of proving a blanket negative statement such as "there is no god". In that context it is never meant as an absolute.

By adding a very restricted location, as William Lane Craig has in the video above, a negative statement of course becomes provable. I don't think any atheist would disagree that the statement "there are no coins in my pocket" could be proven simply by looking in my pocket.

For example - If as an atheist I was to say "there is no such object as the holy grail in existence" in order to prove it I would then have to trawl through every every steet, house, closet, drawer, toilet cistern, dessert, mountaintop, quarry pit, top secret inaccessible military bunker in the world, then undertake extensive excavation all the way to the earths molten core.

At his stage a believer could say "Well I have just had a personal revelation from God who spoke directly to me and told me that the grail is being kept safe underneath the icy surface of Jupiter's 6th moon Europa"

So after I've convinced NASA to undertake "The Program for the Recovery of Christs Holy Grail from Under the Surface of Jupiter's 6th Moon Europa" I'm told by the believer that they've had another personal message received directly from god that he was angry at being tested, and so has moved the grail to a divine and indestructible vault at the heart of the distant sun Omicron Beta....

However, if I make the statement - "there is no such object as the holy grail in existence in my desk drawer" - I just have to open the drawer to look and the statement can be proven.

And the above examples are with definite physical objects. Think how impossible it is to prove the statement "there is no god" when the idea of how god is defined is so widely and radically disputed depending on what religion you subscribe to, and when almost every individual within each of these religions will have their own definition of what god is.

-

>> ^jonny:

TheSluiceGate, maybe it's just me, but you seem to be falling into the same trap as Craig. You are intentionally ignoring the question at hand, as does Craig in this video.


Do you mean the way in which he doesn't actually answer the kid's question (at least in the duration of this edited clip), but concentrates on the first statement the kid makes? If so, then yes, I have done this, and done it intentionally because the title this video was posted under is "FYI Atheists: You *can* prove a negative". That's the point I was addressing.

Is that what you mean?

Already been discussed ad nauseum.

http://videosift.com/video/1000-Dollars-To-Any-Atheist-Who-Can-Prove-A-Negative?showbackup=3586

>> ^KnivesOut:

Already been discussed ad nauseum.
http://videosift.com/video/1000-Dollars-To-Any-
Atheist-Who-Can-Prove-A-Negative?showbackup=3586


Man I *love* godtube!
"Pascal, eat your heart out!" - BWAHAHAHAHAH!!

Invocations (love) cannot be called by TheSluiceGate because TheSluiceGate is not privileged - sorry.

>> ^siftbot:

Invocations (love) cannot be called by TheSluiceGate because TheSluiceGate is not privileged - sorry.


Haha. *botfail

Gezzz what a cheap argument

William Lane Craig is a KING of the sophisticated theology that people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and so on just don't get. My favourite example so far is how he explains the morality behind the brutal massacres of children in the Bible, and argues ever so convincingly that the true victims are the poor murderers, who must have been simply traumatised doing God's bidding.

Read and learn, amoral heathens!

Do u remember there was a guy on youtube called VENOMFANGX?. ahh, those were good times...

Moving this video to shinyblurry's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

As I've heard it, it's always been said as "You can't prove a universal negative." I'm no expert on this subject, but I always took that to mean you can't prove statements that set no limits, else you will be forever investigating.

Claims of "X will never happen" also tend to fall into this hole, because never is a long time.

A simple negative of limited scope is clearly provable, ie "There are no ice cubes in my freezer."

But a claim such as "The Jersey Devil doesn't exist" can't be proven. There are dozens of reasons to believe it, but there's no way to prove it.