FTM - Negative Proof

*WARNING* You MUST read the disclaimer before viewing this website. If you have not read the disclaimer, you MUST click here NOW or Close your browser NOW.

The negative proof insanity

Hello. This is a brief page about the idea of negative proof. Negative proof is completely invalid construct that is selectively used by societies and individuals in order to pretend that certain utterly immoral and deranged proposals are rational and sound, when in fact they are uttely unsound and ridiculous.

Legitimate proof works by supporting a positive claim via concrete and objective observations and evidence. What do I mean by a positive claim? By that I mean the claim suggests something exists or is factual, rather than something that argues against the claim.

Example :

"Planets exist" is a positive claim because it makes a statement that something is. In this case, it is correct.

"Goblins do not exist" is a negative claim. It's not really a new claim, but a verbal rejection of the positive claim "Goblins exist".

We can rationally prove something to ourselves, and we can prove it to others (to a lesser degree). Proof means to show or demonstrate evidence that shows why your assertion is highly likely or factually the case. It means to demonstrate something. You cannot produce or demonstrate nothing. You cannot show someone a nothing. You cannot demonstrate what does not exist.

So in principal proof involves the act of being able to demonstrate or show something. It is a positive conformation.

Here is where "negative proof" plays its dirty trick.

Take a religion-hooked god-addict. When the christian god and its various claims are rejected, they will use what is called a "backhanded negation". A backhanded negation is a term that was orginally coined by (as far as I can reveal) Joseph Weintraub.

A backhanded negation asks for negative proof. However, it is impossible to provide negative proof of a claim, especially regarding the existence of anything. One cannot produce or demonstate nothing, it just cannot be done.

When the impossible negative proof is not given (because it cannot be done), this often taken to mean :

A. That the assertion must be True, possible or reasonable (which it is ridiculous and illogical).

B. That somehow the arguments against the positive claim are unimportant. (Again this is ridiculous and false).

Both A and B are very important parts of what a backhanded negation entails.

Example :

God addict : "I claim god exists. I make these christian claims about what god is."

Peter : "There are reasons why these god claims are false. However, you have provided no evidence of your claim, and that there is no valid reason for you to believe that there is a jehovah god. Prove that god exists, prove any of your claims regarding what god is claimed to be have merit."

God addict : "I can't. I have not one single shread of legitimate and honest evidence to even point to my claim. None of the properties of my claim, such as omnipotent beings, even have any legitimate evidence to so much suggest them. I cannot give any valid reason as to why and where my claim originates".

Peter : "Then where does your claim originate? What made you think that there was a god creature? Surely you can see that your hypothesis is false?"

God addict : "It is not false! Prove to me that god does not exist".

Peter : "I cannot. That's because it is impossible to provide negative proof of existence to any claim. Its your claim, you need at least some evidence that shows why there is a god creature."

God addict : "If you cannot prove god does not exist, then I can say god exists."

This is the perfect back-handed negation (or demand for negative proof) example. It is tantamount to saying that anything must be possible. Of course, somethings are simply not possible.

In effect, the god addict asks "Show me nothing" or "demonstrate nothing." Of course, it is literally impossible to demonstrate or produce nothing. He knows that it cannot be done. If you produced anything relevant to the supposed "god" creature, it would have to prove the god creature, not refute it.

Does this add any legitimate weight to his claims? Absolutely not. It could be argued that any claim, even those that are just as patently absurd, could ask for negative proof. But of course, negative proof is impossible. Take a claim like "Jupiter's core is made of spaghetti". Sure, you could build a probe and find out what Jupiters core is made of, but then it can be argued that the spaghetti people tricked the probe to protect their secret spaghetti identities. And so on. That is absurd, yet by thier reasoning, we should consider this plausible, just because impossible negative was not (and in fact can not) be shown.

Does the god-addict just accept just any old claim that has equal evidential footing? Such as a claim that a "vod" creature exists, that vod never lies and is always right, and "vod" has completely agreed with the content at this website? No, the god-addict does not accept this claim. He would catagorically reject this "vod" proposition, simply because it does not suit him. That is because his claims are not based on reason, fact, observation, Truth, rationality but on psychological needs. Nor are they really based on the negative-proof/backhanded negation tactic. The god creature rationalization attempts are simply a case of special pleading.

If you are a rational and sane thinker, you shoud now be convinced that negative proof is absurd, and that proof constitutes a reasonable standard.

Proof is not infinite. There is no such thing as unlimited proof. We can show a proof, such as a fossil record of all the fossils we have found to support evolution. We can show dinosaur bones to support the scientific fact about the existence of dinosaurs. Even though each individual proof may be True, we can still ask for more proofs. This can potentially go on forever. Something does not require endless examples and evidences that proof its case to make it a fact. It only needs to make a compelling case, a rational case, that has no known refutations. We still have proof.

The Truth is that negative proof demand in the absence of all other evidence is just irrational, lie-based and deranged.

However, we will see that societal leaders and societal institutions are always calling upon irrational negative proof to support their assertions, such as the irrational theory of personal responsibility, the insane god-myth delusion and the "weapons of mass destruction" smokecreen to cover the genocide committed in iraq.