Tired of this argument.

You can’t prove God doesn’t exist.

You can’t prove a negative. I can’t prove that God doesn’t exist anymore than I could prove that unicorns don’t exist.

Something that never was wouldn’t leave behind evidence to suggest that it never was.

How is this not simple? This is not a valid argument for the possibility of God existing. It’s just a statement.

Advertisements

About thatcatkatie
I came to this site to discuss my beliefs, and yours too, and hopefully learn some things from my fellow human beings.

5 Responses to Tired of this argument.

  1. Of course you can’t prove God doesn’t exist Logical fallacy Appeal to ignorance.
    The third sentence is irrelevant. It seems to be an assertion that you don’t think God exists, but with no presented case. There is of course plenty of evidence.

  2. It is a problem. Believer’s won’t ask you to prove that fairies or ghosts don’t exist but they will approach the argument differently. Ask a person making the god argument to prove that ghosts don’t exist. They will tell you that they cannot and probably that to think ghosts do exist. then ask them to prove that the green man doesn’t exist or that Russell’s teapot does not exist. They will admit that they can’t prove that it does not exist, but it was a thought experiment …. but can they prove it does not exist? Try to move the argument to the area of what reasons do we have to believe something does or does not exist?

    A lot of people believe that big foot and loch Ness monster exist. Do they? How would we prove it one way or the other? Yes, it is the same thing as god. Unless you can prove god exists, it is exactly the same thing.

    Maybe they will at least back off the argument.

  3. I just had this argument with another blogger on this site too. Our discussion is at http://lutfulmannan.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/richard-dawkins-needs-to-get-a-grip/

    The guy has another tactic when I told him about the Russellian teacup. He just rambled on about other nonsense ad nauseam. An effective strategy because it bored the hell out of me and made me not want to respond because there was way too much to respond to. So, my strategy was if he was going to use nonsense ad nauseam, I was going to use wikipedia for ad hominem. I found out from his replies that he was an Ahmadi Muslim, a group which a large proportion of the muslim world do not consider to be believers, or in their words “fakirs”. So I just pointed this out instead of replying to his nonsense. It’s nice not to have to abide by the rules of logical discussion sometimes 🙂

  4. * not “fakirs”, but “kafirs”. My mistake. It’s all Arabic to me.

  5. goldheathen says:

    There is no alternative for the believer but to take this tack for the very simple reason that they CANNOT provide any rational, well thought out justification for their stance. They’ll try for a while, and then it’ll eventually come down to one of three things. Either A) “well I have faith and that’s enough for me” B) “Well you can’t prove god doesn’t exist” or C) ” You’re an intolerant, overly literal asshole who refuses to see the truth because of your wickedness. You’re going to hell.” They’re basically interchangeable, and I’m sure you’ve seen as much of all three answers as I have. Good post, thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: