Quote Originally Posted by CFTraveler View Post
So I'm a little confused with the premise of the statement- that by failing to prove that something exists it means it doesn't?
I can't prove the ocean exists, but if you go to the beach and see it, you can either decide it exists, think it's something else, or think you have hallucinated it's existence. In other words, if experience doesn't show something exists to someone who has as a premise that it doesn't, nothing will prove it because his premise is already set, and nothing will convince him it does.
That's why in logic, you cannot prove a negative.
Well you've mentioned my own point exactly, you can't logically prove is exists, you can't prove it doesn't exist either BUT if you prove it does exist, you also prove that it can't exist so it's a paradox. You don't prove it doesn't exist by failing to prove it does, there simply is no outcome where it can exist. It either doesn't exist, or it doesn't.

P.S.: I don't think it was a good idea to move the thread here since it's not really a question, it's more like a theory.