Proof of presence Vs. Proof of absence

[Tr6ai0ls4]

If we are talking about something that is clearly defined. What is the difference between proving that this something is present as opposed to proving that this something is absent.

I see this come up a lot in different situations on these forums. I'm not sure I understand the difference between the two. Somebody care to explain?

 

[yougene]

No difference

 

[redeemer]

^ I agree. Proving that x is absent is the same as proving that not-x is present and vice versa. Since the terms absent and present can be used interchangably as in this example I wouldn't say there is a difference.

 

[L2R]

You can only prove absence on something clearly defined.
I can clearly prove the absence of an apple on my desk, but i cannot prove the absence of god on my desk.

 

[Akoto]

Its obviously much easyer in most cases to proove there is something then there isnt, because if it is it is, but if it isnt, it might still be over to the left a bit more.

Maybe if you gave an example of a run-in with this we might be able to give you something other than blatant statements.

 

[elemenohpee]

Its obviously much easyer in most cases to proove there is something then there isnt, because if it is it is, but if it isnt, it might still be over to the left a bit more.

Hit the nail on the head. When proving whether or not something exists, the procedure for getting your answer is guaranteed to terminate. When faced with the opposite, no such guarantee exists. You need to step out of the system to reach a conclusion, which can be trivial to impossible, depending on whether or not you are trying to disprove the existence of an apple or the existence of god.

 

[kittyinthedark]

If you want to look at it mathematically/scientifically, you cannot prove a negative. If something is not there, you have no proof. I mean, think about it. How can I prove something if I don't have something to prove it with. The burden is in obtaining the tangible. I assume that what you're getting at is the God question, which others have assumed as well, and in that instance, there is essentially no difference between proving presence or absence as we have no idea what God is, what to look for, or what tangible evidence there may or may not be.

 

[yougene]

You can only prove absence on something clearly defined.
I can clearly prove the absence of an apple on my desk, but i cannot prove the absence of god on my desk.

You can only prove absence of something empirically verifiable. You can prove that there is or isn't an apple on your desk, but you cannot prove or disprove to me empirically that you're experiencing happiness.

 

[DarthMom]

i think trying to disprove the intangible, such as "god" amongst other more interesting concepts is an awful discussion if there are pure atheists/skeptic amongst it. not that i don't appreciate and respect their view, but it is just stagnant, and goes nowhere....i am a big fan of science, even though i am no scientist (that would be an understatement) but look at the scientists of 400 yrs ago who would laugh at the thought of tiny things you can't see that make you sick. but thanks to the microscope....things changed....yeah, this is simplistic, i agree, and perhaps with a few biology classes, i could sound a little more intellectual in a debate like this. :D yet, string theory is bringing to light a lot more questions and possible answers to such diverse topics...
basically what i am saying, is what my sig used to say so well..
i don't have any beliefs, but i have a lot of suspicions

and there hasn't been any disproof of god.
this coming from a mom who was so happy to hear her then 7 year old son sitting in the back of the car, talking to the child of a christian family, and the other son talking about jesus and how powerful he is, and my son said, "yeah, if he is so powerful, tell him to make this toy in my hand dissappear"

so simple and so profound, i love freethinkers, and i love myself for raising one.

 

[yougene]

If you want to look at it mathematically/scientifically, you cannot prove a negative.

Mathematics and the Sciences are both based on formal operation cognition but they deal in two different realms. Science deals with empirical(external) observations and its methodologies are developed to work in the emprical realm. Mathematics deals within the internal realm of experience. In Mathematics the foundational axioms are things that are readily apparent to pretty much anyone(but not empirically verifiable). From there one looks inside their own mind not the outside world for exploration. You won't ever find an imaginary number or a square root just running around in empirical reality. So in math I can "prove" to you that 1 + 1 does not equal 3, as long as your internal experience can resonate with my internal experience. Math and Science really deal in to different realms, the only reason science uses math is because it can be empirically verified to work.

If something is not there, you have no proof. I mean, think about it. How can I prove something if I don't have something to prove it with. The burden is in obtaining the tangible. I assume that what you're getting at is the God question, which others have assumed as well, and in that instance, there is essentially no difference between proving presence or absence as we have no idea what God is, what to look for, or what tangible evidence there may or may not be.

The "Logical Religions" dealt alot with this. For example in Buddhism, Buddha doesn't say you should believe him. He says try out these techniques that have been developed and see for yourself. If you have such an experience well than you share with other people and see if people resonate with your internal experience. If the application of your experiences also correlate with reality than it's logical to believe that you are on to something. If you can empirically verify it's usefulness even better.

"Contemplation" ~ Mathematics

 

[Tr6ai0ls4]

You can prove that there is or isn't an apple on your desk, but you cannot prove or disprove to me empirically that you're experiencing happiness.

I do not know much about the brain, but I'm willing to be that happiness is associated with some type of activity in there. If I defined happiness to be something that I experience when my brain has this specific type of activity going on, can I then prove that I'm experiencing happiness?

i think trying to disprove the intangible, such as "god" amongst other more interesting concepts is an awful discussion if there are pure atheists/skeptic amongst it.

I'm personally not trying to disprove anything. Also, while I have a lack of belief or disbelief for any particular god, I dont think that god is necessarily intangible. I think that people who believe in a god can define the god they believe in pretty well. If they can define what their god is, is it rational to ask for proof that this entity does not exist? If not, why? I still dont get it.

Also, I wasn't necessarily trying to get at god. I've seen plenty of other instances. Some specific ones that come to mind are:

Somebody asking for proof that computers will never become aware of themselves. This is something clearly defined. Why is it any more rational to ask for proof that they will one day be concious?

Another example is somebody asking for proof that ~90% percent of recent terrorist attacks were not commited by militant muslims. This was followed up by another person mocking the original poster for asking them to prove that ~90% of terrorist attacks were NOT commited by militant muslims as opposed to the original poster having provide proof that they were.

I dont get it. Whats the difference in these scenarios?

If something is not there, you have no proof. I mean, think about it. How can I prove something if I don't have something to prove it with.

You do have something to prove it with. In my head, the absence of whatever is in question is something.

For example, say you have a box. The top of the box is open and all other sides are closed. Lets say that we need to prove that there is either a presence of a blue ball in this box or an absence of a blue ball. Lets also follow up by defining a blue ball as any spherical object which is blue in color. You can easily prove either. Look in the box, there is no spherical blue object... there you go, you have proof that there is no blue ball in the box. You can simply look and see that there isn't one. I dont get why this isn't valid.

Can somebody address this example or any of the other ones?

 

[elemenohpee]

I do not know much about the brain, but I'm willing to be that happiness is associated with some type of activity in there. If I defined happiness to be something that I experience when my brain has this specific type of activity going on, can I then prove that I'm experiencing happiness?

We would first have to prove that the experience necessarily arises out of that specific brain state. I strongly suspect that this is what is going on, but there is no way to prove it, as of yet.

I'm personally not trying to disprove anything. Also, while I have a lack of belief or disbelief for any particular god, I dont think that god is necessarily intangible. I think that people who believe in a god can define the god they believe in pretty well. If they can define what their god is, is it rational to ask for proof that this entity does not exist? If not, why? I still dont get it.

Not if you define god to be outside of the physical universe. A lot of peoples' conceptions of God have built right into them that they cannot be disproved, so in this case, it is not rational to ask someone to disprove it. Now if you claimed that god is an elephant residing on mars, then we would be able to go look there and say, nope, no elephant.

Also, I wasn't necessarily trying to get at god. I've seen plenty of other instances. Some specific ones that come to mind are:

Somebody asking for proof that computers will never become aware of themselves. This is something clearly defined. Why is it any more rational to ask for proof that they will one day be concious?

I think in this case, neither request was a reasonable one. If we had proof, it wouldn't be such a big question. But in the absence of proof either way, it would make sense to stay agnostic about it.

 

[Tr6ai0ls4]

Not if you define god to be outside of the physical universe. A lot of peoples' conceptions of God have built right into them that they cannot be disproved, so in this case, it is not rational to ask someone to disprove it. Now if you claimed that god is an elephant residing on mars, then we would be able to go look there and say, nope, no elephant.

Ok,l agreed .. if you define god as something that can never be seen no matter what, then yea, it would pretty silly to ask somebody to prove that it doesn't exist. OTOH, why is it more rational to ask for proof that this god does exist?

I think in this case, neither request was a reasonable one.

Yea, thats what makes sense to me as well. Actually, it seems that its that way in pretty much every case I have seen here. I dont get the whole crazy macho superior attitude that people get when somebody asks them to disprove something in response to the originals poster request to prove something. People make it seem like its ok to ask for proof of presence in some situations, but you can't ask for proof absence. I can't think of one scenario where this is applicable. It seems to me that if its irrational to ask for one, its also irrational to ask for the other.

 

[elemenohpee]

Ok,l agreed .. if you define god as something that can never be seen no matter what, then yea, it would pretty silly to ask somebody to prove that it doesn't exist. OTOH, why is it more rational to ask for proof that this god does exist?

I think when people ask for proof of that sort of god, it is more to highlight the fact that there is no evidence rather than a real expectation that the person will be able to produce evidence.

Yea, thats what makes sense to me as well. Actually, it seems that its that way in pretty much every case I have seen here. I dont get the whole crazy macho superior attitude that people get when somebody asks them to disprove something in response to the originals poster request to prove something. People make it seem like its ok to ask for proof of presence in some situations, but you can't ask for proof absence. I can't think of one scenario where this is applicable. It seems to me that if its irrational to ask for one, its also irrational to ask for the other.

If someone claims something to be true, then it is up to them to produce evidence in support of this claim. A request for proof here is perfectly fine. What is not ok is when someone claims something is true on the basis that nothing disproves it. This is a fallacious argument, one from ignorance.

 

[yougene]

I do not know much about the brain, but I'm willing to be that happiness is associated with some type of activity in there. If I defined happiness to be something that I experience when my brain has this specific type of activity going on, can I then prove that I'm experiencing happiness?

Only with beings that share your experience. If you have a being that does not have such experiences, it would be able to see these correlations but it would tell them nothing about what it is outside the empirical behaviour displayed by happy people. When you look at neurons firing, you see neurons firing, not happiness.

 

[Akoto]

If you want to look at it mathematically/scientifically, you cannot prove a negative. If something is not there, you have no proof. I mean, think about it. How can I prove something if I don't have something to prove it with. The burden is in obtaining the tangible. I assume that what you're getting at is the God question, which others have assumed as well, and in that instance, there is essentially no difference between proving presence or absence as we have no idea what God is, what to look for, or what tangible evidence there may or may not be.

You can prove that there is a negative by the things around that negative. Obviously you cant prove something withought anything, but I think that should go withought saying.

Sort of like how you cant see a blackhole, but you can see all the crap spiraling towards it and assume that there is something there which is incredibly massive making it all go that direction.

To prove that there isnt a black hole, you can observe the lack of synonamous direction of all the stars and such in the area and conclude that there isnt anything extremely massive around there.

 

[Tr6ai0ls4]

I think when people ask for proof of that sort of god, it is more to highlight the fact that there is no evidence rather than a real expectation that the person will be able to produce evidence.

I think that when people ask the person that asked for proof to disprove that sort of god, it is more to highlight that asking for proof is retarded when you obviously can't provide any.

If someone claims something to be true, then it is up to them to produce evidence in support of this claim. A request for proof here is perfectly fine. What is not ok is when someone claims something is true on the basis that nothing disproves it. This is a fallacious argument, one from ignorance.

That makes sense.

 

[ebola?]

>>So in math I can "prove" to you that 1 + 1 does not equal 3, as long as your internal experience can resonate with my internal experience.>>

We should be careful about the distinction between proving a statement false and proving an object nonexistent.

ebola

 

[yougene]

Indeed, we should be*

 

[DrBio]

Do you want your donut with our without the hole?

(there is supposedly a paradox in this question)