Tricks New Atheists and Theists Play (Part 1)

[Uber Genius]

"YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE!"

The statement above is uttered repeatedly by theists and atheists alike. Professors make the above statement as frequently as high-school students. Is it true?

Here is an article that will help people more accurately understand why we want to consider the claim more carefully before we mindlessly repeat it.

https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

After engaging the argument weigh-in on the claims and if you were able to change your position or at least soften entrenched beliefs on the matter.

 

[Tree of Life]

According to modus tollens, a negative can easily be proven:

1. If A then B.
2. Not B.
3. Therefore not A.

If a person wants to prove "not A", all they have to do is establish a necessary relationship between B and A and then demonstrate "not B". Here would be an example in the form of a theological argument:

1. If atheism is true then moral norms do not exist.
2. Moral norms do exist.
3. Therefore atheism is not true.

 

[Nithavela]

Please prove that there is no teapot orbiting Jupiter.

 

[durangodawood]

Wow thats a crazy paper.

First he says you can prove something using assumed premises. But what is that.... a "conditional" or "provisional" proof?

Then later he gets slippery re inductive arguments. He appears to count strong inductive argument as "proof", like his alien abduction example. But maybe he doesnt go quite that far, and just wants us to not completely dismiss them? (Strictly speaking an inductive argument is never fully "proof", right?)

Maybe what he means by proof is just "highly convincing".

 

[Tree of Life]

Please prove that there is no teapot orbiting Jupiter.

This could theoretically be proven if we were able to gain an adequately exhaustive knowledge of Jupiter's orbit. It could also be logically inferred:

1. If a teapot is orbiting Jupiter then it came from planet earth.
2. No teapot has ever been sent from planet earth to Jupiter.
3. Therefore a teapot is not orbiting Jupiter.

Which premise would you challenge?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

This could theoretically be proven if we were able to gain an adequately exhaustive knowledge of Jupiter's orbit. It could also be logically inferred:

1. If a teapot is orbiting Jupiter then it came from planet earth.
2. No teapot has ever been sent from planet earth to Jupiter.
3. Therefore a teapot is not orbiting Jupiter.

Which premise would you challenge?

Both.

 

[durangodawood]

This could theoretically be proven if we were able to gain an adequately exhaustive knowledge of Jupiter's orbit. It could also be logically inferred:

1. If a teapot is orbiting Jupiter then it came from planet earth.
2. No teapot has ever been sent from planet earth to Jupiter.
3. Therefore a teapot is not orbiting Jupiter.

Which premise would you challenge?

Yes it could well be "logically inferred". But could it be "proven" (which is the topic)?

 

[Tree of Life]

Wow thats a crazy paper.

First he says you can prove something using assumed premises. But what is that.... a "conditional" or "provisional" proof?

Then later he gets slippery re inductive arguments. He appears to count strong inductive argument as "proof", like his alien abduction example. But maybe he doesnt go quite that far, and just wants us to not completely dismiss them? (Strictly speaking an inductive argument is never fully "proof", right?)

Maybe what he means by proof is just "highly convincing".

If a conclusion is legitimately implicit in premises that you accept then this is a proof.

 

[Tree of Life]

Both.

Why do you deny premises 1 and 2?

 

[Tree of Life]

Yes it could well be "logically inferred". But could it be "proven" (which is the topic)?

See post #8.

 

[durangodawood]

If a conclusion is legitimately implicit in premises that you accept then this is a proof.

I see. So when selecting the audience for your proof, screen for shared acceptance of premises.

 

[Tree of Life]

I see. So when selecting the audience for your proof, screen for shared acceptance of premises.

"Proof" is somewhat subjective. Anyone who thinks that a logical or scientific proof means that all reasonable persons must either accept it or implode is kidding themselves.

But generally, yes. A proof is based on premises that you already accept. If a conclusion is truly implied in premises you already accept then you must either accept the conclusion or reject your premises that you already accept. Since you will likely not reject your premises, you will accept the conclusion.

 

[USincognito]

1. If a teapot is orbiting Jupiter then it came from planet earth.

Why would that be a valid inference? How do you know the teapot wasn't from Magrathea and simply got lost during the construction of earth?

 

[Tree of Life]

Why would that be a valid inference? How do you know the teapot wasn't from Magrathea and simply got lost during tge construction of earth?

It's not an inference. It's a proposition. If you reject the proposition then you would not accept the conclusion. But it's very unlikely that you'd really reject that proposition. But if you do then there are probably a great many other obvious things that could not be proven to you.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Why do you deny premises 1 and 2?

I didn’t say I denied either premise. You said “challenge”.

 

[Tree of Life]

I didn’t say I denied either premise. You said “challenge”.

If you do not deny them, do you accept them?

 

[durangodawood]

If you do not deny them, do you accept them?

As for me, I flat out deny premise #1.

Especially given how far-voyaging civilizations seem to really like tea.

 

[USincognito]

It's not an inference. It's a proposition. If you reject the proposition then you would not accept the conclusion. But it's very unlikely that you'd really reject that proposition. But if you do then there are probably a great many other obvious things that could not be proven to you.

My stance is that nothing is proven scientifically. Proof is really the purview of math and liquor, and to a certain extent logic while science doesn't deal in proof nor is scientific proof a thing.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If you do not deny them, do you accept them?

False dichotomy.

 

[Tree of Life]

As for me, I flat out deny premise #1.

Especially given how far-voyaging civilizations seem to really like tea.

If you deny premise 1 then my logical inference is not a proof to you. I imagine it would be difficult to prove many other things to you that would be commonly accepted.