Do you believe in that myth of logic: "You can't prove a negative?"?

In the context of the argument here as to the existence of God, the statement that you can't prove a negative is validated by the document you linked to. Every effort to find God has shown nothing. Theists then use excuses such as non-believers can't experience God. They introduce limits into the argument that make it impossible to prove a negative. If I, an unbeliever, am unable to experience God, then it is impossible for me to prove he doesn't exist because every proof I give is explained away as simply me being an unbeliever and incapable of experiencing God.

The document is correct if all parties are abiding by the same rules of logic, but when some decide to use their own rules, the ability to prove a negative is compromised. When the opposing view refuses to acknowledge inductive reasoning, how do you prove a negative?

Ok, allow me to then use Mr. Hales' deductive model to disprove God:

1. If God existed, then there would be evidence.

2. There is no evidence of God.

3. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Well that was easy. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

So the next time you ask me to prove that God doesn't exist, I'll just refer you to deductive reasoning...end of discussion.

After reading that essay, it's obvious that Hales re-defined "proving a negative" for the sake of his essay. For all intents and purposes, proving a negative is always a situation where one is asked to disprove a claim by an impossibly long search or by a direct disproof that’s usually beyond our reach, too.

Proving a negative only works when one absolute is known.

In the case of god existing or not, neither absolute is known, therefore a negative can't be proven.

Otherwise every single thing you can dream up exists because it can't be proven not to exist.

And even if it were true that you can't prove a negative, you wouldn't be able to prove it.

In the particular case of God, proving he doesn't exist isn't all that difficult as long as you start with a very specific definition of what God is. Then all you need to do is find one contradiction, either within your definition of God or between that definition and some uncontroversial premise, and you've got yourself a reductio ad absurdum proof that God, as you have defined him, doesn't exist.

Reading the PDF shows that the atheists of Y!A are using logic properly, as they're proving the theists wrong by pointing out the lack of evidence.

No I do not. I can prove the the light is not on because it is still dark in the room.There I just proved a negative,I can prove that 2+2 does not =12345674894565645554894856 by adding up the numbers ,I can also prove that tomorrow is not christmas by looking at my calendar.I could go on and on but I won`t because I think you get what I am saying.

You can't use a the "can't prove a negative" claim to prove a positive.

Does that make sense?

(Now I'm confused)

Not negative existence claims. That's why the burden of proof is always on those asserting that something exists.

For instance: comments of every variety on your question, but no one Stars it as 'interesting'.

Does this prove that all these answers are thoughtless, or, that the people that write them are?

Finally! Someone who can prove to me that leprechauns don't exist!

... I'm waiting