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.
we don't have free will though do we.
"In a controversial set of experiments, neuroscientist Ben Libet (1985) scanned participants’ brains as he instructed them to move their arm. Libet found that brain activity increased even before participants were aware of their decision to move their arm. Libet interpreted this finding as meaning that the brain had somehow “decided” to make the movement, and that the person became consciously aware of this decision only after it had already been made. Many other neuroscientists have used Libet’s findings as evidence that human behavior is controlled by neurobiology, and that free will does not exist."
Source
About the omnipotence issue, can it be solve by saying: yes he can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it. But when he wants to he will be able to?