It's often said by skeptics and scientists that 'You can't prove a negative' or
that 'It's impossible to prove that god doesn't exist'.
Hell, I even used to say this, but it's simply not true… you can prove a negative,
and you can prove that god doesn't exist (depending on the definition of god)...
This, is You Can't Prove That God Doesn't Exist – Debunked.
So first and foremost, a humungous and sincere thank you is in order.
When I released my last video, titled 'A Likely Goodbye for Now', I of course knew
that some of you would support me, but I in no way expected so many...
I just want to say thank you!
You've changed my life, and now hopefully together we can change the lives of millions
more.
Honestly, I simply cannot express how grateful I am!
But I can demonstrate it, by working my butt off!
Anyhow, to get to the topic at hand, it's widely believed that one can't prove a negative
- that one can't, to name but a few examples, prove that Santa, Unicorns, God, or Russell's
Celestial Teapot doesn't exist, but this isn't necessarily true...
Take Russell's Teapot for example; if Russell was to assert that between Earth and Mars
there is a microscopic teapot orbiting the sun, then, in this case, it might well be
impossible (or as good as impossible) to prove the negative.
But if Russell was to also assert that the teapot is both entirely made of china and
entirely made of steel, then we can prove the negative because this concept violates
the Law of Noncontradiction, which states that contradictory statements cannot both
be true in the same sense at the same time.
Nothing can be made entirely of china and simultaneously entirely of steel – this
isn't possible – and hence, by proving the negative, we can prove the non-existence
of such a teapot.
Now some will object to this by saying that we don't know, with absolute certainty,
that nothing can violate the Law of Noncontradiction, but I would reply by saying that, with the
exception of our own existence, we know absolutely nothing with absolutely certainty, and so
to demand that we have absolute certainty when proving a negative, but not absolute
certainty when proving a positive, is unjustifiably inconsistent – and so, this objection doesn't
stand.
Now before I tie this to the various concepts of the Abrahamic god, I just want to point
out two things – the first is that the reason why people say 'You can't prove a negative',
is actually to convey that the Burden of Proof is on the those who make an assertion, and
that those who dispute the assertion don't have a Burden of Disproof.
And of course, this is true – and this is the very purpose of Russell's Teapot – it
illustrates the nature of the Burden of Proof – it doesn't illustrate that you can't
prove a negative.
And the second thing I want to point out is that many negatives are actually extremely
easy to prove, both colloquially and scientifically.
For example, if I were to say that 'You can't prove that this cup isn't full of
tea', and you had access to the cup and clear understanding of all definitions, then
of course you can prove the negative – it's not full tea… but it should be :( What's
more, and to really knock this out the park, scientific papers prove negatives all the
time!
For example, the assertion that 'cell phones cause cancer' has been overwhelmingly proven
false – or in other words, the negative assertion that 'You can't prove that cell
phones don't cause cancer' has been proven!
Now again, such proof isn't absolute, but neither is any proof, positive or negative.
Anyhow, with this all said, let's move on to the non-existent entity that is the Abrahamic
god.
Over the thousands of years since its inception, there have been countless definitions asserted
for this entity.
Some of which insisting that it's a white man who physically manifests above the clouds,
and others that it's three entities rather than one, who all care deeply about who you
sleep with and in what position.
But the most popular definitions, at least today, are one, 'A transcendent and eternal
being who created absolutely everything' (which is actually a definition of the deistic
god, not the Abrahamic god), and two, 'A transcendent and eternal being who created
absolutely everything, who's omnipotent (meaning that it has unlimited power), omniscient
(meaning that it has unlimited knowledge) omnipresent (meaning that it's everywhere
at all times) and omnibenevolent (meaning that it's all-loving and infinitely good)'.
Oh, and it's worth noting that many theists additionally define this being to be just,
merciful, and responsible for imbuing mankind with 'freewill'.
Now admittedly, the first definition can't be proven false, because, like the existence
of an intangible, invisible, and undetectable celestial teapot, one would need unavailable
and perhaps even impossible resources and knowledge to do so.
But the second definition can be proven false – and we can do so by demonstrating that
one or more of its attributes are internally contradictory; that one or more of its attributes
contradict a law of thought; or that two or more of its attributes contradict one another.
And so, let's name but just a few of these contradictions, starting with omnipotence.
As observed by the twelfth century polymath Averroes, one can prove that the very concept
of omnipotence is self-contradictory by asking the simple question "Can an omnipotent being
create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?"
If the answer is yes, then the being's power is limited because it cannot lift the stone;
but if the answer is no, then the being's power is limited because it cannot create
the stone; and hence, an omnipotent being cannot exist.
Now it's worth noting that while this crushes the most popular definition of omnipotence,
it doesn't crush all definitions… but that's a rabbit hole that we'll dive down
at a further date.
Moving on, let's now look at just some of the attributes that contradict one-another.
First off, if a being is omnipotent then it's necessarily already omniscient and omnipresent,
because it must already know everything and be everywhere in order to have 'unlimited
power'.
And so saying 'god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent' is like saying 'the sea
contains water, hydrogen and oxygen'… considering that hydrogen and oxygen are constituents
of water, one might as well just say 'the sea contains water'.
Now sure, this isn't so much of a game-ending flaw, but it certainly demonstrates that theists
tend not to understand the nature of these concepts.
A contradiction that is a game-ending flaw, however, is the combination of omniscience
and human free will, because if a being has unlimited knowledge (omniscience) then it
knows all things, including the future, but if the future is known, then free will (the
ability to consciously do otherwise) isn't possible.
And finally, let's look at two omni-attributes that are incompatible with reality – that
being omnipotence and omnibenevolence.
If a being existed with these attributes, then it would necessarily create the best
possible universe, because it has unlimited power (omnipotence) and it's infinitely
good (omnibenevolence), but one can easily think of a universe that's better than this
one – for example, one in which innocent babies aren't born with cancer!
Or to put it another way, and to expand upon a quote from the ancient Greek philosopher
Epicurus: Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.'
Now there's no two ways around this: if a being exists that is willing to prevent
evil (that is, omnibenevolent) but is not able (that is, does not have the power to
do so), then this being is not omnipotent.
Epicurus continues, 'Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.'
Again, this sentence is logically valid.
If a being exists that is able to prevent innocent babies from being born with leukaemia,
but is not willing, then this being is a malevolent colossus prick!
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
And again, this sentence is logically valid, and I personally think it's the nail in
the coffin for most theists.
If a being exists that is able and willing to prevent evil, then it logically follows
that evil cannot exist… but evil does exist, and therefore this being does not exist, despite
the countless backflips apologists do in the attempt to rebut this.
And Epicurus concludes with: Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him god?
So, to recap: Even though the Burden of Proof is on the one who makes an assertion, in many
cases you can prove the negative (even though you don't have the burden to do so), and,
depending on the attributes assigned to the Abrahamic god, you can prove that god doesn't
exist.
Anyhow, as always, thank you kindly for the view, and an extra special thank you to my
patrons, old and new – you really came through for me on this one, and I can't thank you
all enough.
Thank you.
And I'll leave you with just one more version of the Abrahamic god whose non-existence can
be proven – that being one that's 'just' and 'merciful'.
I'm sorry theists, but this isn't possible, because mercy is by definition the suspension
of justice.
For more infomation >> Can't Help Falling In Love cover (+ BIG ANNOUNCEMENT!!!) - Duration: 4:41. 
For more infomation >> Coz i can - Duration: 1:36. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét