The problem is that “this discussion” might not strictly be about God but about paranormal phenomena, Bigfoot, black holes or any number of entities in which “You can’t prove a negative” appears with depressing regularity. Even in this one, the unprovability is nothing to do with it being a negative - I could rephrase the statement such that the NOT was elsewhere or even absent, given certain choices of property P.
Specifying a negative at all is an utterly misleading fallacy - I’d suggest it was outright ignorance rather than mere sloppiness. But each of us having different thresholds of “OK” is … OK.
You’re going to have to explain this a bit more closely, I’m afraid. “God doesn’t exist” sounds like a pretty clearcut negative no matter what properties you choose to imbue “god” with.
I suppose you could rephrase it to something like “this universe is and always has been god-free”, but I don’t think that’s not what you mean.
“God exists outside space and time” is an unprovable positive.
“An unobservable God exists” is an unprovable positive.
“Gorillas don’t exist in this room” is a provable negative.
“Gorillas don’t exist in this universe” is an unprovable negative.
Yet again, the properties and scope are relevant to which statements one can prove. The presence of a negative is not.
Thanks, PG. Thanks also in that you’ve forced me to construct my objection to “you can’t prove a negative” into as clear and direct a form as I can. I hope I may even have convinced you to gently but firmly correct anyone who uses such a phrase on other boards you might frequent: spread the meme!
Well, that’s what it takes to get through my skull.
I would, but I’d be surprised to see that phrase on any of the other boards I frequent. Should it ever occur, rest assured that I’ll be springing into action.
You know, I think this is an important enough point that it might warrant a Straight Dope column proper, with you as Guest Contributor giving a quick precis of your discoveries together with an explanation for why it’s bunkum, perhaps using examples from this very thread. I’d be happy to supply the original question (or are planted stooges like this frowned upon?)
matt, I believe I understand your position - namely, that the creator’s only “fingerprints” might be the very physical laws we observe today. If that is true, then you’re right, there’s no way to answer the question one way or the other.
However, I believe that those laws arise purely out of the properties of the fundamental entities populating the universe (spacetime, dark matter, dark energy, matter, energy, etc), in which case the creator’s contribution would be to assemble some configuration of those entities and start it going - leaving a fingerprint in terms of the initial configuration. If we find that and it turns out to be a configuration that spells out “Hello, people of the Universe,” then we’ll know that there was probably a creator. (ok, so a more realistic example is that it would just be very highly ordered). If the initial configuration is just a jumbled mess, then I think that would support the opposite conclusion.
And how do you propose to identify if things are ordered or jumbled? Since we have no idea what either of those would look like, you’re back to square one.
Chill out. I meant rabid as in “rabid following” for a rock star, for instance. It doesn’t mean they’re frothing at the mouth and carrying diseases or anything.
Telemark, I’m just talking about different items being arranged in a finite volume. If we looked back and saw that the early universe had all the matter on one side and all the energy on the other, that’d be a very ordered configuration.
Okay. And your statement doesn’t automaticaly include every follower.
For the most part though, rabid carries negative conotations. It’s not a synonym to zealous.
It’s means going to extremes sometimes violent.
You stated that you believe, but don’t belong to any organized religion. What is it that you believe? If it’s the God/Jesus mythos espoused by Christianity, you’ve bought the product sold by the religion, even though you might not attend a church of the religion.
However, if it’s something you dreamed up, that’s different. You might bow down to a flat rock in your back yard for all I know, and if that’s what you want to do, no problem. The problem begins when you try to get others to bow down to that rock as well.
Two things about the God/Jesus mythos. There is no “the.” Beliefs vary greatly as I’m sure you know. For some you may find evidence against said belief. For others there is little or no evidence for or against. In that case the term mythos is only your opinion and carries no more wieght than any one elses.
I have respect and even reverence for a persons right to choose their own beliefs and their own path. There are reasonable and obvious limits. Our belliefs, religous, moral and otherwise direct our choices and what we contribute to our society. If a person believes something to be true and crucial to the welfare of his loved ones and society then there is a certain moral obligation to take a stand.
I have to chuckle at a certain smugness from some non believers. There is no superiority in believeing or not believeing. There is the truth, and where seeking it leads us. You complain about others trying to impose their beliefs upon others and yet here you are, doing your own form of preaching. The proverbial pot, don’t you think?
Thank you for arguing my point for me. My issue is when that person then turns around and sells his concept to others. Your beliefs are your beliefs if, and only if, you are the one who originates them. If your beliefs are based on someone else’s point of view, they are not original and you have bought the con.
Not in the slightest. Let me quote someone on this very point: *If a person believes something to be true and crucial to the welfare of his loved ones and society then there is a certain moral obligation to take a stand. *
