Too often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing a particular equivalency: theists cannot prove that god does exist and atheists cannot prove that god does not exist. Frequently this comes after the theist's attempts at proof have failed and a new tactic is required.

Just frequently, this is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. Thus, the only reason for going with one or the other is something like faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist's faith.

Unfortunately, the above claim is more often false than true. It relies upon the erroneous assumption that all propositions are created equal and, because some cannot be conclusively disproven, then therefore none can be conclusively disproven. So, it is argued, the proposition "God exists" cannot be disproven.

But not all propositions are created equal. It is indeed true that some cannot really be disproven - for example, the claim "a black swan exists" cannot be disproven. To do so would require examining every spot in the universe to make sure that such a swan did not exist, and that simply isn't possible.

Other propositions, however, can be disproven - and quite conclusively. There are two ways to do this. The first is to see if the proposition leads to a logical contradiction; if this is so, then the proposition must be false. Examples of this would be "a married bachelor exists" or "a square circle exists." Both of these proposition entail logical contradictions - pointing this out is essentially the same as disproving them.

Similarly, if someone claims the existence of a god, the existence of which entails logical contradictions, then that god can be disproven in the exact same way. Many atheological arguments are based upon exactly that - for example they argue that an omnipotent and omniscient god cannot exist because those qualities lead to logical contradictions.

Another means of disproving propositions is a bit more complicated - it involves careful observation and testing. Consider the following two propositions:

1. Our solar system has a tenth planet.
2. Our solar system has a tenth planet with a mass of X and an orbit of Y.

Both proposition can be proven, but there is a difference when it comes to disproving them. The first could be disproven in theory if someone were to examine all of the space between the sun and the outer limits of our solar system and they found no new planets - but such a process is beyond our technology. So, for all practical purposes, it is currently not disprovable.

The second proposition, however, is disprovable with current technology. Knowing the important and specific information of mass and orbit, we can devise specific tests to look and see if such an object exists. If the tests repeatedly fail, then we can reasonably conclude that the object does not exist and that the proposition has been disproven. Note that this would not mean that no tenth planet exists. Instead, it simply means that this particular tenth planet, with this mass and this orbit, does not exist.

Similarly, when a god is defined adequately, it can be possible to construct empirical or logical tests to see if it can exist. We can look, for example, at the expected effects which such a god might have on nature or humanity. If we fail to find those effects, then that god with that set of characteristics does not exist. Some other god with some other set of characteristics may exist, but this one has been disproven.

An example of this would be the common Argument from Evil - an atheological argument which proposes to prove that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot exist at the same time as a world like ours which has so much evil in it. If successful, such an argument would not disprove the existence of some other god; it would instead merely disprove the existence of any gods with a particular set of characteristics.

Thus, it is possible to prove that a god does not exist - but obviously this depends upon getting an adequate description of just what this god is and what characteristics it has. We need that in order to determine either if there is a logical contradiction or if any testable implications hold true. What happens when we don't get an adequate description?

Well, obviously atheists cannot prove that it does not exist and theists cannot prove that it does exist. However, in such a case believers have abandoned too much in the attempt to find a god which is immune to disproof. Without a substantive explanation of just what this god is, how can there be a substantive claim that this god is? In order to reasonably claim that this god matters, the believer will have to provide substantive information regarding its nature and characteristics; otherwise, there is no particular reason for anyone else to care.

It should also be noted that arguing about how atheists "cannot prove that God does not exist" often relies upon a misunderstanding about atheism itself. It seems to be generally predicated upon the assumption that the atheist claims "God does not exist" and so should be expected to prove that. It should be pointed out to the theist in such cases that atheists merely fail to accept that their claim that "God exists" and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer.

If the believer is unable to provide good reason to accept the existence of this god, it is unreasonable to expect the atheist to try and construct a proof that it does not exist - or even care very much about the claim in the first place. Such an expectation is only reasonable when the atheist in question has specifically claimed that this or that god does not or cannot exist.

If you mean this as in it didn’t willfully create the universe by design, then no it cannot be a deity by the above definition.



There’s no evidence it was created by anything.



I’m sorry but it doesn’t go without saying that something must have created matter and energy. For all we know, it always existed. We don’t know where matter and energy came from. What we know is that the properties of matter and energy brought about the chain of events that eventually led to the existence of our species.

I never said anything about randomness. But the origin of our universe isn’t all speculation. We know that matter and energy brought about our universe. Just because we don’t know how long it existed prior to that doesn’t mean we don’t know anything about it at all.

The properties of chemicals don’t suggest they were thought out at all. Neither do patterns suggest design. Just because people have a natural tendency to seek patterns doesn’t mean patterns are evidence of design. Sometimes it causes people to think they see things that aren’t there.

Not at all and this is a complete misrepresentation of my view. I base my views on evidence - the same scientific process that’s responsible for all human advancement in the whole of history. The religious view is based on blind faith, which opens the door to every human delusion to be given the same credence as scientific fact.

Again, this is misrepresentative. And no, I shouldn’t subject myself to more scientific standards. We should all subject our views to scientific methodology.

I can conceive of just about anything. Only notions that are supported by evidence should be pursued; otherwise people are squandering the advancement of our species.

If believers in deities had faith that their deity only existed in some supernatural realm, I wouldn’t care what fantasy world they lived in. But when people claim a supernatural being imposes itself into the physical world by claiming to see, hear, or feel it - or that it created the physical universe, then that deity has crossed the line of the supernatural and entered the realm of science - where it has placed itself into the position of being examined and scrutinized. If a deity indeed has manifested in the physical realm, then it should have left evidence. There is none.

First off, I don’t require proof; only evidence. Secondly, although hope cannot be held in the hand, it’s a very real and examinable phenomenon. Much of our knowledge of the cosmos isn’t based on first hand experience - or proof for that matter. It’s based on evidence - the same thing all our scientific knowledge is based on.

Hey,



It's true; he likes to argue, this one; he's like a mystical long argument/writing monkey (strung out on crazy meth that makes him write long counter arguments) that is payed in long vowels to produce posts that if recited would last a great duration, while rocking out to November Rain.

That's a ridiculous amount of research(for a forum debate) on the religious views of the founding fathers btw. Did you take a class on faith in the founding of America or something? To prime yourself for a conversion to America(not just a country, a state of mind), I hope. Anyway, impressive.

sheepwalker    

Chris, that’s a very good article. Thank you so much for posting it.


Breanne

What tangible and testable evidence is there that hope exists?

Could someone who wasn't Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or not apart of any other belief ever be put into office.

Another means of disproving propositions is a bit more complicated - it involves careful observation and testing. Consider the following two propositions:

1. Our solar system has a tenth planet.
2. Our solar system has a tenth planet with a mass of X and an orbit of Y.

Both proposition can be proven, but there is a difference when it comes to disproving them. The first could be disproven in theory if someone were to examine all of the space between the sun and the outer limits of our solar system and they found no new planets - but such a process is beyond our technology. So, for all practical purposes, it is currently not disprovable.

The second proposition, however, is disprovable with current technology. Knowing the important and specific information of mass and orbit, we can devise specific tests to look and see if such an object exists. If the tests repeatedly fail, then we can reasonably conclude that the object does not exist and that the proposition has been disproven. Note that this would not mean that no tenth planet exists. Instead, it simply means that this particular tenth planet, with this mass and this orbit, does not exist.

I hope you guys wrap this up soon....and I can prove it.

Hi, Brea -- nice to know you are still floating around out there.