If you want to refute all arguments for the existence of God, all you need to do is to prove the contradictory. Demonstrate that it is true that "There is no God."
"But Eve," you say, "you can't prove something *doesn't* exist! That is proving a negative!"
You can. Like so:
"But Eve," you say, "you can't prove something *doesn't* exist! That is proving a negative!"
You can. Like so:
https://twitter.com/EveKeneinan/status/1354101465455992833
I just proved a NEGATIVE, EXISTENTIAL claim.
I proved that "a largest prime number" does not EXIST.
Now, I'm going to show that you can prove POSITIVE EXISTENTIAL CLAIMS purely formally, that is, non-empirically. THIS will show that existence claims don't HAVE TO BE empricial.
I proved that "a largest prime number" does not EXIST.
Now, I'm going to show that you can prove POSITIVE EXISTENTIAL CLAIMS purely formally, that is, non-empirically. THIS will show that existence claims don't HAVE TO BE empricial.
"For any given prime number P, there exists a greater prime number N."
PROOF:
1 P is a prime number.
2 There is no largest prime number [see above].
3 ∴ P is not the largest prime number.
4 ∴ There exists some prime number N greater than P.
Q.E.D.
No "empiricism" needed.
PROOF:
1 P is a prime number.
2 There is no largest prime number [see above].
3 ∴ P is not the largest prime number.
4 ∴ There exists some prime number N greater than P.
Q.E.D.
No "empiricism" needed.
What have we learned?
1 You can prove negative claims, including negative existential claims.
2 You can prove positive existential claims formally, without no need of any "empirical" or "scientific" basis.
1 You can prove negative claims, including negative existential claims.
2 You can prove positive existential claims formally, without no need of any "empirical" or "scientific" basis.
What follows form these two lessons?
First, that
(1) Atheists who shirk their duty to prove that there is no God are not doing so because such a proof is logically impossible, but because they haven't got one.
First, that
(1) Atheists who shirk their duty to prove that there is no God are not doing so because such a proof is logically impossible, but because they haven't got one.
Second, that
(2) Atheists who demand "empirical" evidence of God are acting in bad faith, deliberately demanding the wrong kind of evidence, which is a sophistical means to engage in argument.
Of course, we should expect atheists to act in "bad faith."
(2) Atheists who demand "empirical" evidence of God are acting in bad faith, deliberately demanding the wrong kind of evidence, which is a sophistical means to engage in argument.
Of course, we should expect atheists to act in "bad faith."
God is the ἀρχή of Being. God is not a god, not a being among beings or a being in Being. God transcends even Being—which itself transcends everything merely empirical, which is a tiny subset of all that IS.
Anyone who thinks God, properly understood, is a thing susceptible to an empirical proof has simply not understood what the term "God" means.
He is thinking, at most, of a god. But this error of understanding on the part of the atheist is *not* the problem of the theist.
He is thinking, at most, of a god. But this error of understanding on the part of the atheist is *not* the problem of the theist.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
