This thread has reminded me of a post I came across awhile back. Check it out:

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.

The second proposition, however, is disprovable with current technology.

No it isn't. It would depend on the claimed mass.

If the tests repeatedly fail, then we can reasonably conclude that the object does not exist and that the proposition has been disproven.

Wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Again, it would depend on the claimed mass. It's like saying there is an elephant in the room, prove me wrong. BTW the elephant is only 1mm high.

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.

This is basically what Dawkins did. He created a strawman then knocked it down. It is not a proof that God does not exist. It is just a proof that Dawkins' strawman definition is absurd.

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.

A God is by definition something that is ultimately unknowable. Otherwise you would be disproving the existence of a phenomenon, or a set of them. You can only disprove the existence of a god by defining that god as something ungodly. This little exercise is philosophically valueless. It is changing the definition of something to prove that it doesn't exist, like saying you can prove elephants don't exists if you define elephants as situations where 1+1=3.

So you admit that there's no evidence to support the claim that God exists?

Revenant wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 5:42pm:



The only proofs you'll find of anything are in mathematical equations that may or may not reflect our perception of reality.

Cosmologists are a bit like like the guy who listens to an orchestra and tries to whistle the sound they make.  He doesn't have a hope of getting it right.

It's totally irrelevant to try and prove that your atheist worldview is any more valid that a theist world view.

Revenant, God is a working hypothesis that Jews or Deists believe in (for example.) For faith, just read 'working hypothesis'. Same thing, different terminology.

We don't understand cosmology, but we have  current working hypotheses like String theory, Superstring theory, M-theory, F- Theory and the rest.

In reality, we're just comparing our whistle against the orchestra to see how closely it matches.   So is Stephen Hawkings, but he's a better whistler than me.

In the end, does it really matter what paradigms other people cling to in order to get through this absurd series of adventures called life?

freediver wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 8:36pm:
 

Just like the Bible, aye? 

So what evidence is there?

Okay. I'm thinking of David Lynch. Now what?  Or were you supposed to guess what I was thinking?

Where's the evidence to support the claim that God created David Lynch from a lump of clay?

Speaking of evidence, if I was standing on a football field (I know you love your sports metaphors) and a guy came up to me with a footy in his hand and said "I can kick this ball 100 meters" Would it be reasonable of me to expect him to provide a demonstration or would it be more reasonable for him to expect me to disprove his claim, by showing him himself not kicking the ball 100 meters?