Jump to content

"you Can't Prove A Negative" Is A Bad Argument


EdwardEdward
 Share

Recommended Posts

Say I wanted to disprove the Christian God. A lot of people will tell you it is impossible but imagine a parody of this deadly serious discussion... imagine a story:

 

Captain Kirk is falsely accused of murdering the Klingon chancellor!

 

Firstly to disprove this elaborate story I might investigate authorship, so I would find out the names of the writers and producers of Star Trek VI, which are on record as being real living people. Secondly I would find internal inconsistencies which might show evidence the story was concocted, like during their trial the position of Kirk and McCoy actually switches. Thirdly I might try to find mataphyical arguments to disprove the story like for example Captain Kirk can be observed to be both all-Captainy and yet he displays terrible diplomatic skills when confronted with Klingons.

 

When asked to disprove a complicated story which shows very obvious signs of being manufactured and designed, then we don't need to worry about the technicalities of logic. It might be actually true you can't prove a negative like "there is no God" but you definitly CAN disprove a silly story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say I wanted to disprove the Christian God. A lot of people will tell you it is impossible but imagine a parody of this deadly serious discussion... imagine a story:

 

Captain Kirk is falsely accused of murdering the Klingon chancellor!

 

Firstly to disprove this elaborate story I might investigate authorship, so I would find out the names of the writers and producers of Star Trek VI, which are on record as being real living people. Secondly I would find internal inconsistencies which might show evidence the story was concocted, like during their trial the position of Kirk and McCoy actually switches. Thirdly I might try to find mataphyical arguments to disprove the story like for example Captain Kirk can be observed to be both all-Captainy and yet he displays terrible diplomatic skills when confronted with Klingons.

 

When asked to disprove a complicated story which shows very obvious signs of being manufactured and designed, then we don't need to worry about the technicalities of logic. It might be actually true you can't prove a negative like "there is no God" but you definitly CAN disprove a silly story.

 

You can prove a negative in certain circumstances. It's just rare to have those circumstances. See the Problem of Evil as an example. I think what you are describing above is defeating an argument by noticing ad hoc fallacies. Occam's Razor is awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the judeo-christian-islamic monster "deity", disproving is not used against just a claim , but a logical impossibility.

 

You can't disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns because somewhere in the universe they might exist - how would we know? With that fuckface gawd on the other hand, we have a rather long list of traits and attributes assigned to it by da wholly babble, the horror-ran and probably the talmud too (Never read it myself so I can't be sure). These claims are mutually exclusive, resulting in a clear, perfect and (to any sane, logical thinker) irrefutable disproval of its existence. Morontheists can't even try and use that above-mentioned "perhaps somewhere else in the universe" copout because their scripchas clearly state that the fuckface is close enough to routinely mess with all our lives.

 

They lose.

 

Whether they try to copy one more of their opponents' arguments and use it for themselves does not matter. They always fail anyway :fdevil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually has anyone ever heard this argument in real life? You hear it all the time from apologists in debates on the defensive about some obscure metaphysic but these are not the reasons Christians stay Christian!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

great video and I love the part where he brings out the Bible :) cos that is where I am "at"

 

great presentation with excelent observations. I like it when theists are exposed using bad deistic arguments. They would be more honest if they spent their time defending the specific tiny anecdotes of their holy book, the small unimpressive stories that brought so many ancient peasants to convert and later gave princes excuses to do terrible things to their subjects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.