Why do debates about God lead to "you can't prove a negative" protests when...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Didache
  • Start date Start date
D

Didache

Guest
...mathematicians prove negatives ...? ......on a daily basis as a routine part of their work dealing with proofs. (Aren't there countless proofs which demonstrate that some defined number or class of numbers doesn't not and cannot exist?)

So I'm baffled by the recurring claims here when someone is told to prove something and the reply: "You can't prove a negative." On what basis should someone accept the claim that "You can't prove a negative"?
 
Because the god debate isn't a math problem.

@ Ed: The point of the unicorn being both invisible AND pink is to illustrate the fallacy of a god who is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful. Those three things cannot coexist, EVER, just like invisible and pink cannot coexist.
 
Because the god debate isn't a math problem.

@ Ed: The point of the unicorn being both invisible AND pink is to illustrate the fallacy of a god who is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful. Those three things cannot coexist, EVER, just like invisible and pink cannot coexist.
 
On the basis that we're not talking about math, we're talking about me asking you to prove there is not an invisible pink unicorn whispering this answer into my ear.

Edit @ Ed: Silly its not invisible to OTHER invisible unicorns, just humans.

And that sort of rationalization can be done with gods to try to make contradictions seem invalid....
 
Are you saying that God is like the square root of a negative number?

Since we've proved the latter can not exist, neither does the former - quid pro quo.
 
Maths has it's own rules, you fool. If you don't understand the difference, then stop attempting to enter the debate.

If something does not exist, it presents no data in order to prove anything about itself - including it's non-existence. On this basis, a negative cannot be proved.
 
Back
Top