The Village Atheist: Thank you for that article you posted earlier.

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

However, I found that the basis of this entire article depends on some assumptions that go against logic:
1. A law of logic states that something cannot be both true and not true, and this can be proven. However, this isn’t purely a negative statement since it is partially comprised of a “true” statement. Furthermore, this law is specific to statements, rather than physical existences. For example, saying “I have red hair” and saying “I don’t have red hair” would be a wrong statement and could be proven, but it’s not making a claim about an existence (“red hair exists” vs “red hair doesn’t exist”).
2. “You can’t prove a negative” is, in itself, a negative; therefore it can’t be proven. However, that latter assumption is based on the fact that one CAN’T prove a negative, so they are going back on their words.
3. The next argument stated that you can make a double negation and prove that, thus proving a negative; however, a double negative is equivalent to a positive, NOT a negative. By proving a double negative, you are, in fact, proving a positive (i.e. I can prove that I am not non-existent).
4. Inductive reasoning is not an airtight way of arguing for a non-existence; one can search the entire planet and never find fairies and conclude that fairies don’t exist; however, this doesn’t establish for certain that they are non-existent because you never know if a fairy has been hiding in some flower while another flower was being searched).

Here’s part of the conclusion of the article:
“You can’t prove a negative! You can’t prove that there are no alien abductions! Meaning: your argument against aliens is inductive, therefore not incontrovertible, and since I want to believe in aliens, I’m going to dismiss the argument no matter how overwhelming the evidence against aliens, and no matter how vanishingly small the chance of extraterrestrial abduction.”

He is essentially saying that inductive reasoning is the best tool we have for interpreting everything, but it has its fallibilities (difficulty in proving a negative). If I claim fairies don’t exist because they are not in the fossil record, have never been seen, and thus don’t exist, that would be too hasty. Instead, I would have to find evidence for each of those premises, and evidence for each of those premises, going on for infinity, in order to prove fairies don’t exist.

In short, one can theoretically prove a negative if they can prove evidence of each premise, going on for infinity. So…if I can prove infinite premises, I can prove God doesn’t exist. Is that even possible?

Thanks for reading and thinking about this. I found the article really interesting and wanted to share my views, and now I would like to hear anyone else’s input so I can better inform my own perspective.

What do you think? Answer below!

Metro

Loch Ness monster is more fact than fiction claims paleontologist
Telegraph.co.uk
But Dr Naish and another dino expert dismissed this idea in speeches at a conference, 'Cryptozoology: Science or Pseudoscience?', in London. Dr Charles Paxton, of the University of St Andrews, said: "If there are prehistoric animals alive today it …
Loch Ness Monster is plausible and may exist, says expertMetro

all 8 news articles »

cryptozoology – Google News

Chemtrails on CSI – This is called “pre-programming”. It is a form of mind control. “talking points” are inserted into television programs in order to influence how people view reality. This is an obvious example. First they say someone who talks about chemtrails is “anti-american” then later they show him as a “domestic terrorist” so this will become part of your thinking. Most of the time the mind programing is not so obvious. For more REAL information on chemtrails visit islandonlinenews.com or for more propaganda just continue watching television. Whatever you do, for God’s sake, don’t mention the reptiles.
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Question by Dr Jello – AGW RIP 1980-2010: Does the Fact that “Global Warming” has to be debated prove that it isn’t scientific?
No one debates the speed of light, or ohm’s law. No one debates gravity or the chemical nature of water.

Only pseudo sciences like “Global Warming”, eugenics, faith, and mysticism are debated.

Science by definition is knowledge and does not depend on the strength of the orator’s argument to prove it is real.

Does the fact that “Global Warming” is debated just proof that it isn’t science, but politics, or faith?

What do you think? Answer below!

Established Fact: The Greatest Threat To Christianity is Witches
Death and Taxes
The Catholic Church is so unsettled by witches and Wiccans that they've created a pamphlet on how to dissuade them called “Wicca and Witchcraft: …
Catholic Church Issues Guide on How to Convert WitchesAOL News
Catholic Church Issues Guide to Chatting Up WitchesNewser
Catholic Church issues guide to convert Harry Potter and witches to ChristianityDaily Mail
Telegraph.co.uk (blog)
all 7 news articles »

witchcraft – Google News

Loch Ness Monster sighting in 2008
Video Rating: 0 / 5

Add your own answer in the comments!

Chemtrails are now a deadly fact (Opinion)
Natural News.com
One of the best examples of government abuse that would fit this statement (Other than the FDA) is chemtrails. We've all seen them; if not, just look up to …

chemtrails – Google News