My contention is "nobody can prove a negative" is in fact mostly FALSE. Because there are endless examples where a negative can be proven.

In the case of my "tooth fairy in my lolly jar" analogy, let me first make two assumptions:
(1) we know exactly what a tooth fairy looks like;
(2) we have all the magic to force a tooth fairy to manifest herself.

Then we put the two together. If we still do not sense (see) her in my lolly jar, is sufficient proof that she does not exist in that jar.

Hence "Nobody can prove a negative" is false in this case.

Certainly my argument is only correct if both assumptions (1) and (2) are true (which is obviously not the case, as you well know).

But even so, to have refuted "Nobody can prove a negative" as false is still logically acceptable, within a boundary (my loyy jar).

In any case I could easily replace "tooth fairy" with something tangible (eg. a piece of lolly). Then the same logic applies, proving that "nobody can prove a negative" is in fact false.

Therefore I think "Nobody can prove a negative" is not truth in itself, but depends on how a "boundary" is defined.

Given "common wisdom" that God is infinite and boundless, the boundary must also be infinite (in order to contain God within it). It is only in such a context that the negative statement "Nobody can prove God does not exist" is logically true.

In other words, it is entirely possible (in theory) to prove that a FINITE OBJECT does not exist.

If my argument is correct, then in fact "Nobody can prove a negative" is, well... mostly FALSE. In fact I should say, it is FALSE.

I'd be interested if anyone can comment on my mental exercise in futility.

(1) we know exactly what a tooth fairy looks like;
(2) we have all the magic to force a tooth fairy to manifest herself.

Ahh, but there is your mistake! My toothfairy in your lollyjar,
is the one you havent seen before! Only I know the magic formula.

So prove me wrong

Yabby,

You detract from what I was on about.
Your's not the same thing.

But, never mind ...

Thanks anyway

GZTan,
One doesn’t prove, or test things by first making assumptions that will guarantee the success of your ‘proof’ – that is unethical and unscientific.
In arguing about your lolly, for example, it’s just as logical to make two other assumptions:
1. we do not know what your lolly looks like.
2. we do not know how to make the lolly appear or manifest itself.
When the lolly doesn’t appear, that doesn’t prove the negative, because, as in the case of gods, according to the religiously deluded they can say, “Huh! You’ve proved nothing; to ‘see’ the lolly, or god, you have to have faith…”
When dealing with delusions, it is pointless to argue. As someone wrote a few posts ago, it is up to those proclaiming the existence of supernatural things to either prove their assertions, or shut up and accept they're probably figments of the imagination.

Ybgirp,

"we do not know what your lolly looks like" is the detraction.

Your argument is same as Yabby, I think.

I want to find out whether "nobody can prove a negative" is TRUE or FALSE, not how we MAY NOT be able to prove that statement is FALSE. I think they are subtly but significantly different.

Whilst an assumption may not be ethical, making assumptions is an entirely scientific approach.

My reasoning leads me to believe "nobody can prove a negative" is FALSE because it is unqualified, non-specific. It is simply too generic to be a logical TRUE.

Whereas "Nobody can prove God does not exist" is a qualified one. We know this is a logical TRUE, because we make assumptions God is infinite, "unknowable" and outside the bound of science.

If instead we assume God is a finite being and within scientific boundary, then my argument is "Nobody can prove God does not exist" would be FALSE. Because logically speaking, we can do everything imaginable under scientific boundary to detect presence of God. If we exhausted all science but fail to detect God (assuming this is NOT due to incompetence of science), then conclusion must be that God does not exist (within that defined boundary). Then it is in fact the onus of believers of God to prove that God exists "within that boundary".

Of course, there is still a problem in what I just said - How do we tell we have exhausted all scientific effort? Perhaps either it is time to refine the boundary, or simply accept that my analysis does not stand in logic terms. I am not sure which at this point.

As it stands, central to my argument are: (1) Specific target subject (2) Valid assumptions (3) Boundary /context.

GZ, yup you can make certain claims and set boundaries to the negative, but I can claim a near infinite new set of boundaries that
you have not considered, which do not interfere with your claims.
If you set new boundaries to my claims, I will simply come up
with some more, etc. etc.

Thats why we humans have come to the conclusion that you cannot
prove a negative, best if people make claims, they show us the
evidence for their claims. The larger the claims, the more
evidence they need to produce, for anyone to believe them,
apart from the gullible of course.