| Proving a Negative |
Proving a Negative Fallacy / Negative Proof FallacyWhenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regression, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known; however, that is not true. Without Divine revelation, neither logic nor math can be known. Science is limited only to pragmatic thinking because of the weakness of human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. The negative proof fallacy, a form of axiomatic thinking, is one of these three unhappy possibilities. The Proving a Negative Fallacy / Negative Proof Fallacy occurs when a claim is made (without Divine revelation) that something does not to exist anywhere, at any time, or in any realm. This is known as a universal negative. One of the problems of proving a universal negative is that it would require one of two things: personal omniscience (knowing everything) or Divine revelation. It is possible to prove that something doesn’t exist in a certain realm (say the material realm) at a certain time (say right now) and in a certain place. “There is no cereal in my bowl here.” That is not a fallacy. There is a formal way, known as modus tollens, to prove a negative: If God reveals that there is not a just person on Earth, then there is not a just person on Earth. God reveals that there is not a just person on Earth. Therefore, there is not a just person on Earth. On the other hand, Bertrand Russell told a famous teapot story about a teapot floating somewhere in space—you can’t prove that it isn’t true. Unfortunately, Russell used the teapot story to justify a fallacy of an argument from ignorance and a universal negative claiming there is no God. Russell’s irrationality goes something like this: “It is impossible to prove a universal negative. To say that God doesn’t exist would be to commit a universal negative. Since the proposition that claims the non-existence of God cannot be proven, it is therefore true.” That is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Funny how religious Atheism makes intelligent people foolish. The proving a negative fallacy is committed when an attempt is made to justify dogmatic statements of disbelief or skepticism. It is a fallacy of closed-mindedness. Examples of the Proving a Negative Fallacy / Negative Proof Fallacy
We would need an eye-witness.
Actually, this could be shown to be untrue if there were absolute evidence in geology that the Flood didn’t happen. The evidence in geology, however, supports the Biblical account of the global flood to such an extent that willful ignorance is required for anyone to deny it. 
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionIpse Dixit Unsupported Assertion Secret Knowledge Allness Fallacy Autistic Certainty Lie Big Lie Outright Lie Bold-Faced Lie Appeal to Confidence Hypothesis Contrary to Fact False Prophecy Argument to the Future Escape Via Ignorance Argumentum Ex Culo Blind Authority False Accusation Argument from Omniscience Universal Negative As Far As Anyone Knows Claim of Unknowables Presupposition Irrelevant Purpose Propositional Fallacy Thompson Invisibility Syndrome Presumption Grammatical Presupposition Arbitrary Thinking Reversible Logic Floating Abstraction Implied Lie Spiritual Fallacy Feigned Powerlessness Pious Fraud False Open-Mindedness Recently Viewed |
