How can i possibly prove it doesn exist

Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition.

These claims are "worldwide existential negatives. From X, which is the assertion, is not yet disproved. Therefore, X. This is a Fallacy. If X is unproven, then it is unproven and remains unproven until reason and evidence is provided or secured to establish the proof or high probability of the claim being true.. Has anyone ever proven otherwise? We don't see them because they blend in. Can you prove otherwise? No one has ever proved, to my knowledge, that Santa Claus does not exist.

And if one were to fly to the North Pole and say: Well, look, there's no toy factory there. A believer could argue: Well, Santa Claus knew you were coming and moved his operations to the South Pole.

So you fly down to the South Pole. No Santa Claus factory, toy factory there. So the believer would say: Oh, he moved it back up to the North Pole. So you simply cannot prove general claims that are negative claims -- one cannot prove that ghosts do not exist; one cannot prove that leprechauns too do not exist.

One simply cannot prove a negative and general claim. For instance, "there are no big green Martians" means "there are no big green Martians in this or any universe," and unlike your bathtub, it is not possible to look in every corner of every universe, thus we cannot completely test this proposition--we can just look around within the limits of our ability and our desire to expend time and resources on looking, and prove that, where we have looked so far, and within the limits of our knowing anything at all, there are no big green Martians.

In such a case we have proved a negative, just not the negative of the sweeping proposition in question. It is possible to prove rather specific negative claims that are made with rather well defined limits. If the area to be searched is well defined and of a reasonable size that permits searching then a negative claim might be capable of being proven.

For example, if one claims that there is no apple in the top desk drawer of a desk then all one needs to do is to open the top desk drawer indicated in the claim and examine it for its contents. Finding no apple therein would provide sufficient evidence under ordinary circumstances to verify or confirm the negative claim that there is no apple in the top desk drawer.

You can prove a specific negative claim by providing contradictory evidence. An example of a proof of a rather specific negative claim by contradictory evidence would be if someone were to claim that the one and only watch that you own is in the top drawer of the desk.

You make the negative claim that it is not in the drawer and you see it clearly on your wrist. There is no need to look in the drawer. You can also prove specific negative claims when they involve known impossibilities. For example is someone were to claim that the one and only moon that normally orbits the planet earth was in the top desk drawer.

You claim that the moon is not in the desk drawer. There would be no need to look inside because the mass of the moon would not fit inside such a space and were its mass to be condensed its mass would be far greater than the desk could support were the desk made of ordinary earth substances. You can also prove specific negative claims that can be rephrased as a positive claim.

If someone claims that the lights are not on in room that claim can be rephrased as claiming that the lights are off in room The claim that you can not prove a negative claim is itself a negative claim and would be a self defeating statement or a retortion were it not generally understood to be a limited claim.

What is usually meant by the assertion that "One can not prove a negative claim" is that it is not logical to insist on proof of claims or statements of the sort: " There is no such thing as X that exists anywhere at all and at any time at all.

Negative claims in the context of religion are very commonly of this form:. These claims are asserted by those holding belief in the existence of such phenomena.

They do not usually assert such criticisms against those who claim that there are no phenomena such as those not believed in by the defenders of the existence of a deity or miracles.

For example believers in deity or miracles do not criticize those who claim that there are no tooth fairies or that there are no leprechauns. The theists appears to think that the critic of theism is claiming that there are no deities and that such a claim can be proven or has been proven. What is actually being claimed by most critics of the claims that there are deities or miracles is that "There is not sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a deity or a miracle.

The critic of the person making the positive claim that an entity X does exist is asking for evidence in support of that claim and that the evidence be relevant and sufficient to warrant or support the claim. Here's what the The Objectivist Newsletter April had to say on the logical fallacy of proving a negative:.

She hasn't said she doesn't like you, right? So she's probably interested. Call her up. Why are you always so skeptical of ESP?

Can you prove it doesn't exist? The physical laws governing nuclear reactions in these stars then produced the stuff that life's made of — carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. How come all the physical laws and parameters in the universe happen to have the values that allowed stars, planets and ultimately life to develop? Some argue it's just a lucky coincidence. Others say we shouldn't be surprised to see biofriendly physical laws — they after all produced us, so what else would we see?

Some theists, however, argue it points to the existence of a God creating favourable conditions. But God isn't a valid scientific explanation. The theory of the multiverse, instead, solves the mystery because it allows different universes to have different physical laws. So, it's not surprising that we should happen to see ourselves in one of the few universes that could support life. Of course, you can't disprove the idea that a God may have created the multiverse.

This is all very hypothetical, and one of the biggest criticisms of theories of the multiverse is that because there seem to have been no interactions between our Universe and other universes, then the notion of the multiverse cannot be directly tested. Now let's consider whether God can be in more than one place at the same time. Much of the science and technology we use in space science is based on the counter-intuitive theory of the tiny world of atoms and particles known as quantum mechanics.

The theory enables something called quantum entanglement : spookily connected particles. If two particles are entangled, you automatically manipulate its partner when you manipulate it, even if they are very far apart and without the two interacting. There are better descriptions of entanglement than the one I give here — but this is simple enough that I can follow it. Imagine a particle that decays into two sub-particles, A and B.

The properties of the sub-particles must add up to the properties of the original particle — this is the principle of conservation. For example, all particles have a quantum property called "spin" — roughly, they move as if they were tiny compass needles. According to quantum mechanics, particles are by definition in a mix of different states until you actually measure them. The properties of A and B are not independent of each other — they are entangled — even if located in separate laboratories on separate planets.

If you measure the spin of A and you find it to be positive, then imagine a friend measured the spin of B at exactly the same time that you measured A. In order for the principle of conservation to work, she must find the spin of B to be negative. But — and this is where things become murky — like sub-particle A, B had a chance of being positive, so its spin state "became" negative at the time that the spin state of A was measured as positive.

In other words, information about spin state was transferred between the two sub-particles instantly. Such transfer of quantum information apparently happens faster than the speed of light.

Given that Einstein himself described quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance", I think all of us can be forgiven for finding this a rather bizarre effect. Both Leibniz and Newton considered themselves natural philosophers, and they freely jumped back and forth between science and theology.

He preferred to call himself agnostic, although he sometimes leaned toward the pantheism of Jewish-Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, who proclaimed, in the 17th century, that God is identical with nature.

That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Einstein often invoked God when he talked about physics. He was clearly awed by the laws of physics and grateful that they were mathematically decipherable. But during the s and s, hefiercely resisted the emerging field of quantum mechanics because it clashed with his firm belief that the universe is deterministic—that is, physical actions always have predictable effects.

The theory has revealed aspects of nature that seem supernatural: the act of observing something can apparently alter its reality, and quantum entanglement can weave together distant pieces of spacetime. Is there a place in this universe for the causative God of Aquinas and Leibniz?

Or maybe the more diffuse God of Spinoza? Then he argued, less convincingly, against the existence of a deist God who created the universe and its laws and then stood back and watched it run. Explaining the creation of the universe is trickier, though.

Some cosmological models propose that the universe has gone through endless cycles of expansion and contraction.