Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not a God
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
Jon, logic does not allow a Universal Negative to be proved. If you have studied formal logic, you already know that.
The way to prove that a God exists is to produce Him. There IS no way to prove that a God does not exist other than through strict logic. At most, we might be able to demonstrate that the God of the Holy Bible is self-inconsistent and thus cannot exist.
The way to prove that a God exists is to produce Him. There IS no way to prove that a God does not exist other than through strict logic. At most, we might be able to demonstrate that the God of the Holy Bible is self-inconsistent and thus cannot exist.
If I understand you correctly, that means that through strict logic you can prove that a God does not exist. Yet logic does not allow a universal negative to be proved. Therefore, through logic, you can both prove and not be able to prove God exists.
If there are only condition A (he exists) or condition B (he doesn't exist), does proving A mean that you have disproved condition B? Both cannot be true at the same time. So if that is the case, you could for the sake of argument flip around the "he exists" to" he doesn't exist", since they are just semantics if you decide to replace these phrases with the placeholder words of condition A or condition B.
If there are only condition A (he exists) or condition B (he doesn't exist), does proving A mean that you have disproved condition B? Both cannot be true at the same time. So if that is the case, you could for the sake of argument flip around the "he exists" to" he doesn't exist", since they are just semantics if you decide to replace these phrases with the placeholder words of condition A or condition B.
It is possible to prove that a specific god does not exist if the descriptions of that god are self-inconsistent. The existence of gods in general cannot be disproved. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph in the Holy Bible can be disproved by extension because the Bible (that is the defining reference for that particular God) can be shown to be inaccurate, yet it claims infallibility. Therefore, nothing the Bible says can be trusted as factual. With no factual proof and shaky evidence, you cannot hope to prove something.
A. The great flood never happened, based on geologic record and also because of logical inconsistencies such as the existence of any animals at all in Australia, South America, and North America.
B. The Hebrews were never slaves in Egypt. Israeli archaeologists announced that last year, noting the fact that they had every possible interest in showing otherwise, but the evidence just isn't there.
C. The census that supposedly caused Joseph to take his very pregnant young wife on a journey to be enumerated at a certain place - never happened. We have the annals of many of the kings back then, and the one who would have ordained this pilgrimage never ordered a census.
D. The description of creation gets it wrong - TWICE. If it had been divinely inspired, you'd THINK that this deity would have gotten the story straight. But no, didn't happen in the order listed.
"If I understand you correctly, that means that through strict logic you can prove that a God does not exist." Nope, didn't understand correctly. In formal logic, it is easy to prove that something exists - just produce it. I claim that oranges exist. So I drive to my local supermarket and find an orange. I have just performed a proof by demonstration.
The negative case, however, isn't so easy. Logic works on opposition. The opposite of "An x exists" is "An x does not exist" but the latter needs to be simplified for proof purposes, to the universal negative: "No x exists." And it is the latter statement that cannot be proved without an exhaustive search of all of the places where an x COULD exist. Since we have an entire universe to search AND have to take time into account, this would be an impossible task for pragmatic demonstration.
The alternative is to demonstrate that the x in question CANNOT exist due to definition problems. A couple of the big contradictions include:
1. If God is omniscient, then we don't have free will since God knows everything we have done, are doing, and will do. Yet we are claimed to have free will. We are told that we have a choice.
2. If God is omnipotent, then He could eliminate pestilence, famine, poverty, and war. (Three of those were the apocalyptic horsemen, the fourth being death.) The only apocalyptic horseman to be claimed as being eliminated is death through resurrection into Heaven. But to eliminate the others would eliminate a lot of death as well. What is it about God's potency (and supposed beneficence) that He couldn't eliminate all four of them?
3. If God hates evil and is omnipotent, why has He not acted to eliminate it? #2 and #3 together suggest that God is not omnipotent, yet Biblical texts say He is. Contradiction in terms.
4. The scientist's ultimate: God cannot be proved or disproved because His kingdom is not of this earth. We cannot reach to the realm where it is claimed that all such proof exists. That which cannot be tested cannot be proved or disproved because if it has no testable substance, in effect it does not exist.
A. The great flood never happened, based on geologic record and also because of logical inconsistencies such as the existence of any animals at all in Australia, South America, and North America.
B. The Hebrews were never slaves in Egypt. Israeli archaeologists announced that last year, noting the fact that they had every possible interest in showing otherwise, but the evidence just isn't there.
C. The census that supposedly caused Joseph to take his very pregnant young wife on a journey to be enumerated at a certain place - never happened. We have the annals of many of the kings back then, and the one who would have ordained this pilgrimage never ordered a census.
D. The description of creation gets it wrong - TWICE. If it had been divinely inspired, you'd THINK that this deity would have gotten the story straight. But no, didn't happen in the order listed.
"If I understand you correctly, that means that through strict logic you can prove that a God does not exist." Nope, didn't understand correctly. In formal logic, it is easy to prove that something exists - just produce it. I claim that oranges exist. So I drive to my local supermarket and find an orange. I have just performed a proof by demonstration.
The negative case, however, isn't so easy. Logic works on opposition. The opposite of "An x exists" is "An x does not exist" but the latter needs to be simplified for proof purposes, to the universal negative: "No x exists." And it is the latter statement that cannot be proved without an exhaustive search of all of the places where an x COULD exist. Since we have an entire universe to search AND have to take time into account, this would be an impossible task for pragmatic demonstration.
The alternative is to demonstrate that the x in question CANNOT exist due to definition problems. A couple of the big contradictions include:
1. If God is omniscient, then we don't have free will since God knows everything we have done, are doing, and will do. Yet we are claimed to have free will. We are told that we have a choice.
2. If God is omnipotent, then He could eliminate pestilence, famine, poverty, and war. (Three of those were the apocalyptic horsemen, the fourth being death.) The only apocalyptic horseman to be claimed as being eliminated is death through resurrection into Heaven. But to eliminate the others would eliminate a lot of death as well. What is it about God's potency (and supposed beneficence) that He couldn't eliminate all four of them?
3. If God hates evil and is omnipotent, why has He not acted to eliminate it? #2 and #3 together suggest that God is not omnipotent, yet Biblical texts say He is. Contradiction in terms.
4. The scientist's ultimate: God cannot be proved or disproved because His kingdom is not of this earth. We cannot reach to the realm where it is claimed that all such proof exists. That which cannot be tested cannot be proved or disproved because if it has no testable substance, in effect it does not exist.