Is it logically possible to prove that something does not exist?

Question

Surely it is possible to prove that something does exist but not possible to prove that it does not?
Because that would require knowing everything about everything would it not?

Answer 1

It *is* possible to prove that something does not exist





it is NOT possible to prove that *a god* does not exist, because the goalposts can be constantly moved, and because there is not single defintion of *god*

Answer 2

Yes, it is. But the "search set" has to be limited (and practical).



For example, if you have a paper bag, and tell me a gumball exists in it, I can easily prove a gumball does *not* exist in the bag -- simply by examining the bag (which is the search set). If there's no gumball in it, your claim is "proven" false.



But claims about "gods" are another story, mainly because people making the claims purposely define the "search set" to be the entire universe (or even more than that, sometimes). Since it's not possible to simultaneously examine every square mm of the universe to see if this claimed god is there, it's not possible to "prove" it doesn't exist. The impossibility of unlimited search sets is the reason the burden of "proof" is put on the person making a claim: because it's so easy to imagine or claim something that cannot be proven not to exist.



Peace.

Answer 3

It is logically possible.



I am all powerful. I can make ANYTHING happen just by snapping my fingers. I can easily snap my fingers. The effects of such all powerful finger snapping will, if I want them to, last for eternity.



I want everyone to have the head of a goldfish in place of their regular head. Furthermore, I want this to be easily observable. I want it to, in fact, be unmistakable. I want everyone to realize, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that they have a goldfish for a head. And I want this to be always in effect, forever and ever.



Oh, but you have not noticed yourself having a goldfish for a head. Ergo, my omnipotence OR my desire for you to have an easily noticed goldfish for a head, is false.



That's what people get for using the prefix 'omni' so carelessly.



Abrahamics say there's an 'omnipotent entity who loves us'. If you love someone, you don't let them suffer without a really good reason. There can be no 'good reason' forcing the hand of an omnipotent being. Therefore there's no good reason for us to suffer. Therefore no omnipotent entity loves us. Therefore this 'God' person doesn't exist.



To say otherwise is to say that 'God' doesn't have to match his description. In which case 'God' automatically exists b/c carrots for example exist and God's 'real' description simply changes until it matches something real, which is when the theists say "Told you so" but clearly, this is a dishonest tactic. Then again, theism is, by nature, dishonest.



Hence the 'God of the Gaps'. The redefining of 'God' has already begun.



Also, the 'if you know something is NOT, then you must know everything' idea also goes against the knowing that anything DOES exist or have a value of 'true' b/c to know something is true, beyond any possibility of error, you'd have to know everything BECAUSE one of the things that you DON'T know may very well be the thing that proves that anything you think you know is, in fact, false.



In other words, you can't know the world is round until you know EVERYTHING b/c one of the things you don't know, may prove that existence itself is all an illusion and that the 'roundness' of the Earth was simply the result of cosmic smoke & mirrors.

Answer 4

Yes.



Even without a limited search-set, there is one way of categorically proving with absolute certainty that something does not exist, but only if the thing that's being proposed is internally contradictory. If you can show something to be internally contradictory then it cannot exist.



For example, we can categorically state that a being capable of both existing and not existing at the same time all the while doing neither cannot be. Or a two-handed being that is both right-handed and left-handed without being ambidextrous. Or a god that is both omnipotent & omniscient. All of these are internally contradictory.

Answer 5

Don't be silly.



Suppose I boast that I have a Bugatti Veyron in my garage. Suppose I am lying. Suppose that you and I were standing in front of my garage, and the door was not locked. Could you prove that my Bugatti Veyron does not really exist?



I bet you could prove it if you tried.



Now, it might be harder for you if I kept moving the goalpost. "Oh! Right! I forgot... It's, uh,... in the shop. That's the ticket. It's at Exotic Cars Emporium..."



"Oh! you called them? Um,... I guess the driver must not have delivered it yet..."



"Wait! You know I'm talking about 'Exotic Cars' in Essen Germany, right? Of course, I wouldn't trust it to those clowns downtown! Yeah! That's it. It's on its way to Germany. On a ship,... In a cargo container, deep in the hold of a ship,... that won't get there for at least two weeks."

Answer 6

You should understand Mathematical proof and Scientific proof and their differences. In Maths many things are proved by the reductio ad absurdum principle. So it is possible to prove non-existence mathematically.

Answer 7

This is significantly wrong. According to Christian religion, the Christian god created the recognized universe. This ought to imply that it existed earlier than the recognized universe and used to be break free the recognized universe. What isn't facet of the recognized universe is unknown. The Christian god idea is supernatural in nature, and accordingly would exist external the recognized universe. There - I constant it for you. You can thank me later.

Answer 8

Yes. You absolutely cannot prove a negative. That's why when you go to court you aren't asked to prove you're not guilty, the people charging you are told to prove you are guilty and you're asked to defend yourself against their claims.

Answer 9

If you were to take a college course on logic you'd be familiar with a Modus Tollens syllogism which can be used to prove a negative and, by extension, something does not exist.

Answer 10

That's an illogical argument or what logic calls argument from ignorance. I suggest you verify some of the claims made above.

Answer 11

You can't know with absolute certainty that something doesn't exist somewhere out there. But you can be pretty sure about it. After all, none of us believe in Zeus or Apollo even though we can't disprove them.

Answer 12

Anything is possible in the realm of imagination... However, it is possible to disprove something logically. For instance, the "problem of evil" in a deterministic universe eliminates the biblical god.

Answer 13

You're kinda missing the point. If something doesn't exist there is no requirement to prove that it doesn't exist, it's already proven by the fact that it's not there.

Answer 14

Lemme do this through this famous story (real for once!).................





An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty. He asks one of his new students to stand and.....

Prof:-So you believe in God?

Student:-Absolutely, sir.

Prof: -Is God good?

Student:-Sure.

Prof:-Is God all-powerful?

Student: -Yes.

Prof:-My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?

(Student is silent.)



Prof:-Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?

Student:-No, sir.

Prof:-Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

Student:-No, sir.

Prof:-Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God?

Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?

Student:-No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

Prof: -Yet you still believe in Him?

Student:-Yes.



Prof:-According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?

Student:-Nothing. I only have my faith.

Prof:-Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student:-Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Prof:-Yes.

Student:-And is there such a thing as cold?

Prof:-Yes.

Student:-No sir. There isn't.

(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)



Student-: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it. (There is

pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)



Student:-What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

Prof:-Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student:-You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Prof:-So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student:-Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.



Prof:-Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student:-Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

Prof:-If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student:-Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize

where the argument is going.)



Student:-Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher? (The class is in uproar.)

Student:-Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?

(The class breaks out into laughter.)



Student: - Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With

all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir? (The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)



Prof:-I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student:-That is it sir.... The link between man & god is FAITH . That is all that keeps things moving & alive.





……………the student was none other than...........

…………..APJ Abdul Kalam , the former president of India .



--

Answer 15

Or just know that what they think exists in reality only exists in their properly brainwashed minds! tg