Why do atheists like to say "You can't prove a negative", when if i were to tell you "There is no water in this bucket", all i need to do..?
..is show you the bucket has no water in it and the negative has been proven?
For normal people reasoning with non-atheist logic, isn't it true that the one making the claim has the burden to provide the evidence.
Since an atheist has no evidence for their claim "There is no God", and try to pretend that a negative can't be proven (when it can), isn't it best to do tell them what one of their atheist role models say: "What you assert without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"?
Bonus question: Why do atheists dislike this reasoning?
Why do questions like this make atheists irrational and assertive, as some answers are showing? Is it embarrassment that cause atheists to be this way? Shame? Why do they try so hard to avoid answering the question? Isn't it true their poor logic has been exposed?
- Anonymous6 months ago
You're assuming members of the Atheist religion are logical or even comprehend logic.
This.. is a mistake, a big one.
- sashaLv 76 months ago
Its a shame people don't understand basic logic, but still try to argue logically.
Atheists don't claim there is no god, atheists simply don't believe any gods exist. That is not a claim.
Theists say God does exist - that is a claim and therefore the burden of proof is on you.
You assert God exists, but you can't prove it. So your assertion can be dismissed.
Atheists love that reasoning, its sad you don't understand it.
- Dennis SagtLv 76 months ago
The tenet is you can't prove a Universal negative. I don't know why people forget the 'u' word. I can prove there is no water in your bucket. I can't prove there is no water in all buckets.
- Bulldog reduxLv 76 months ago
You train of reasoning is faulty in that an assertion that the water bucket is empty is NOT a negative claim; it is a positive claim. You can disprove that positive claim by showing the bucket to contain water. But the claim that God does not exist is basically unprovable, and I believe that atheists should not make that claim. I am an atheist who does not believe in God, and I'm betting that you can't show me water in your metaphorical bucket.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous6 months ago
You can indeed prove some negatives, if their domains are limited enough. We could observe the entire contents of a bucket and state definitively that it doesn't contain water. Or we could go through a jar of marbles and prove that none of them are red.
So it is indeed an overstatement to say "You can't prove a negative". Their error is likely due to interpreting "a negative" to mean a universal negative, that something is not the case anywhere in the entire universe.
- 6 months ago
Guffaw!! Oh looky.....Another dumbass ignorant Christer who hasn't even a clue that they're stupid dumbass and ignorant.
- Space WaspLv 66 months ago
If someone is being asked to 'prove' the non existence of a god that has been defined in the way that theists usually define their gods, then "You can't prove a negative" is a valid answer in this context.
Negatives can only be 'proved' when the parameters are very clearly defined and very restricted.
- L. E. GantLv 76 months ago
"the bucket has no water" is a positive....The bucket exists
The trouble with God is that you can't demonstrates he exists; if one can't prove he exists, then one can't prove he doesn't exist.
That's a very different thing from proving the bucket contains no water.
- God of ThunderLv 76 months ago
You need to learn the difference between a universal negative and a limited negative.
"There is no water in this bucket" is quite different from "Water doesn't exist anywhere."
If I opened the drawer of my nightstand and didn't find a god there, would that prove that no god exists?
- FireсоскLv 66 months ago
Prove you don't owe me one million dollars...or pay back