|
|
| Burden of proof (Re: Atheist Billboard At Lincoln Tunnel Approach) (703064) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Burden of proof (Re: Atheist Billboard At Lincoln Tunnel Approach) |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Dec 2 14:18:42 2010, in response to Re: Atheist Billboard At Lincoln Tunnel Approach, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Thu Dec 2 12:55:24 2010. >>>> Example of a proven negative: there is no rational number whose value is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.That is proven by disproving the positive, Yes, that's one method of proving non-existence. The proof starts by assuming that π is a rational number, which eventually leads to a contradiction (the method of proof by contradiction, a case of reductio ad absurdum). An easier example is the proof that there is no rational number whose square is two, which uses the same method. See here and here. At least in mathematics, both methods of proof are commonly used. Euclid used reductio ad absurdum. If proof of non-existence by reductio ad absurdum were not allowed, large bodies of mathematics would have to be abandoned. Likewise the claim to be assessed has to be "there is a God", It seems to me that either you can try to prove or disprove the claim that there is a God, or you can try to prove or disprove that there is no God. Any one of those four approaches, if applied correctly, would be logically sound. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|