Now it seems that Atheists claim that they can indeed prove a negative. As proof for this one site has set up a paradoxical situation and then shows that it is paradoxical, claiming to have proven a negative: it can’t be “true” because it contradicts itself. So a negative is proven. (1)
Is that the case? Let’s back up to the original claim. Atheists claim to know conclusively that God does not exist. The challenge to that is this: Can they prove the non-existence of God with irrefutable, empirical, material evidence for every inch of space, every moment of time, every dimension?
This challenge is not a logical test of the coherence of the idea of a deity, so it cannot be tested with claims of paradox. It is a test of the Materialist claims of Atheism, requiring Atheists to be true to their demands for requiring material empirical evidence as proof for truth claims.
The claim of the ability to prove a negative, when using coherence as a standard for logical proof in one case, but using physical evidence in the other as a standard for empirical proof, is a classical Black and White Fallacy, and a Category Error.
Here is another attempt to prove a negative (2):
The short version:
1. There are lots of negative existential claims that we believe reasonably and that we have evidence for: there is no Santa, there are no unicorns, there is no Bigfoot, aliens don't make crop circles, dinosaurs don't exist, etc.
2. God has all the relevant features that makes it reasonable to believe that those things don't exist.
3. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that God does not exist.
This “proof” does not even attempt to provide empirical evidence. “Believing reasonably” as called for in item 1 is a call for setting up a belief system to accommodate the lack of evidence for the non-existence of any of the examples (possibly excepting Santa, but that evidence is not called out); also, not believing in unicorns and not believing in dinosaurs…? Curious. At any rate, no Atheist has enough data to eliminate aliens from making crop circles, because they have no data on who did make the circles. The call is for "reasonable belief", not for empirical proof, which Atheists typically demand for proof of a deity.
The deity, on the other hand, does not fare any worse than the non-empirical, non-evidentiary claims of item 1. In fact, the idea of a First Cause is not refutable in an empirical fashion, and it is perfectly coherent with our experience of cause and effect in the universe. How does that fare on a scale of "reasonable beliefs"?
So the “reasonable conclusion” in item 3 is both not empirical proof, nor is it reasonable in the sense that the arguer claims.
The phrase, “proof of a negative”, which refers to requiring Atheists to produce empirical, material evidence of their claim that God does not exist, is neither an issue of logic nor an issue of “reasonable conclusion”. It is a demand for Atheists to be consistent – coherent – in their belief statements, which are:
a) Because the universe in material only, material evidence must be provided for any information to be considered truth or knowledge;
b) the positive statement of a negative belief, “there is no God”.
These two positions are contradictory, paradoxical, and cannot lead to truth.
Atheists cannot prove the non-existence of God, regardless of their attemmpts through abuse of Logic.
(1) http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/one-of-several-ways-to-prove-negative.html
(2) http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/proving-negative.html
6 comments:
Empirical evidence is not required to prove a negative existence claim for X if X is defined in an incoherent way. This, I think, is adequate for disproof of some conceptions of God, but certainly not all.
I've discussed this issue further here.
Jim,
I agree with your paper. I think that the last line sums up the issue that I am focusing on here, in the following regard.
Proving that a deity concept is not coherent is not the same as proving conclusively, using empirical scientific experimental or at least observational techniques, that a deity (or first cause) does not exist.
One of the primary demands of Atheists, especially beginners, is the demand for scientific material proof that a deity exists. The challenge back to them is to find material observational proof that a deity does not exist, because that is the essence of their claim.
You said,
"It can be impossible, as a matter of physical limitations, to prove universal negative (or negative existential) statements by exhaustive enumeration of instances." But you must remember that exhaustive enumeration of instances is not the only method of proof we have.
But it is the only method of scientific knowledge that we have. Virtuallly all other methods are logic and inference based, not observation based.
This has of course been a major interest of mine recently. You can see me debating atheists here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nontheism/more-william-lane-craig-s-stupidity-re-the-burden-of-proof-t8480.html
All to no avail.
"All to no avail"
There are two ways to look at that. First, Atheist web sites are there to promote their particular bias, not to seek truth. So the perpetual argument is to be expected.
But! Second, there are readers there to evaluate the argument. So you are also "playing to the stands", and the influence of your arguments might never be reflected back to you.
Martin, according to the Bible the only way someone converts is through the Gospel message. Using Logic and Rationality like Stan is using carnal methods on carnal minds. Only God converts, not men because his glory is the purpose of existence.
I think what I meant to say was not "to no avail" but rather: "all I get in response is venom and invective." On a site called "rational" skepticism.
This seems par for the course in atheism these days. I was actually pleading with them to make a good rational case for atheism (if possible), but they weren't having it.
Post a Comment