I often hear both non-theists and theists alike say it is impossible to disprove God’s existence because it is impossible to disprove a universal negative. This conception, though popular, is mistaken.
While a universal negative cannot be proven empirically, it can be proven logically. If something is logically contradictory, or incoherent, we can be sure it does not exist. For example, I can prove there are no square circles. I cannot, and need not do so empirically, but I can do so logically. To prove that God does not exist, then, does not require omniscience so long as one can demonstrate that there is something in the very concept of God that is rationally incoherent. Of course, that is difficult for atheists to do because there doesn’t seem to be anything about the idea of a divine, transcendent being that is internally incoherent or self-contradictory. Nevertheless, if they could find one, they could disprove God’s existence.
Thinking to Believe 
January 17, 2011 at 11:28 am
Jason,
Many argue that the characteristics of the Christian God are contradictory. For example, omnipotence and omnibenevolence:
http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/opotevil.htm
Arthur
LikeLike
January 17, 2011 at 11:41 am
Jason,
This article also argues that God is incoherent:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/andrew_moroz/incoherence_theism.html
Arthur
LikeLike
January 17, 2011 at 3:29 pm
The problematic premise in the first article is #3, “A good being always eliminates evil as far as it can.” This is merely an opinion, not a logical necessity. To make the attributes of omnipotence and omnibenevolence truly contradictory, you would somehow have to demonstrate that no perfectly good being would ever tolerate any evil under any circumstances whatsoever.
The second article takes a shotgun approach, hoping that at least one of its many salvos will do some damage. However, none of its points are rigorously argued or even stoutly defended; the author seems to think that simply putting them out there is sufficient to carry the day. The claim that God’s omniscience precludes human free will is particularly absurd; God’s knowledge that X will happen in the future does not cause X to happen in the future.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 17, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Wait what? God’s knowledge that X will happen will not cause X to happen? What the hell are you basing your epistemological background on? Justified belief that X is going to happen? Random probabilistic-fate quantum wave collapse functions that God can’t predict? We have knowledge of climate patterns and perhaps it might happen or it might not but we do not have absolute TOTAL knowledge of every atom, quark, bosom, movement and formulaic calculation to predict that the event will occur in the future with 100% chance, but when we’re talking about God’s omniscience and omnipotence, it is logically fallible in the sense to say that X is not going to happen when an entity has already presupposed the event in a transcendental time continuum
LikeLike
January 17, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Not only that but if God (as we conceptualize as) is Omnipotent and omniscience and can decide to create another entity or just for the sake of it the universe or multiple universes or everything itself and can designate things within a perceptual framework of time for all living entities, then why the hell would you say that God’s knowledge that X will happen in the future does not cause X to happen when Entity A (God) has already been logically established to possess absolute knowledge and power and to have created all there is. It makes no sense in my mind whatsoever. We as human beings have NO knowledge of the future, the future might end as it will, I might not have another lunch tommorow ready in my refrigerator, there is some degree to a deterministic nature of reality in which we can predict but it is all probability; in which case I agree it is absurd to claim that entity B (humans) or other intelligible living entities so-called ”knowledge” of the future will cause that to happen. But then we get into the paradox of time, if we know X happens then we can change X happens and therefore how can X happen and this goes down to quantum cryptography, etc with if an observer is there, it affects the entire system, etc, etc.
LikeLike
January 17, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Jason – sorry, but I think you are on the wrong path here. This sounds very much like the “liar paradox” – a very well known philosophical problem with no easy solution (various proposed solutions exists). Proving something logically is a lot harder than what you make it out to be.
LikeLike
January 18, 2011 at 7:49 am
[…] God's Existence Can Be Disproven « Theosophical Ruminations […]
LikeLike
January 18, 2011 at 11:38 am
Arthur,
Yes, atheists have tried to two or more of God’s attributes against each other in an attempt to show that they are contradictory. I think their attempts fail, but it serve to illustrate the point of my post: pointing out an internal contradiction in the idea of God is a valid way of disproving a universal negative such as God.
Jason
LikeLike
January 18, 2011 at 11:38 am
Sonic Vangall,
You make the mistake of thinking that knowledge is a causal entity. Knowing X does not cause X. If I was able to peer into the future to acquire advance knowledge of who would win the Super Bowl, that would not make me the cause of team A beating team B.
Causal determinacy requires an act on God’s part, not mere knowledge. But God has not acted to determine everything that happens in the universe. God has invested us with free will, which brings contingency into the picture. God perfectly knows all that humans will freely choose, but that does not make Him the cause of our choices. God’s knowledge of all future contingent acts may be chronologically prior to those acts, but the acts themselves are logically prior to God’s knowledge.
I expand on this further at https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/divine-foreknowledge-and-human-free-will-are-compatible/ and http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/freewill.htm
As for the post itself, do you have anything to say? Would you disagree that God’s existence can be disproven by demonstrating that the concept of God is incoherent?
Jason
LikeLike
January 18, 2011 at 11:38 am
Nico,
I’m not clear on what you are objecting to. Are you disagreeing that some universal negative X can be disproven if one can demonstrate that the very notion of X is incoherent or self-contradictory? Or are you just disagreeing that such can be done in the case of God? If so, why?
Jason
LikeLike
January 18, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Jason – I’m not really objecting – merely pointing out that trying to proof something logically like you do here is not as easy and that the argument you presented leaves more questions than answers.
LikeLike
January 20, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Nico,
Maybe we have two different concerns. I’m merely concerned to show that it is possible to disprove God’s existence–not that it would be simple to do so. Indeed, atheists have often tried to disprove God’s existence using this very method, but have been unsuccessful (and I would say for good reason…because God exists!).
Jason
LikeLike
January 21, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Not only two of God’s attributes but also one attribute from god and one from it’s creation should be sufficient. The age of universe, for example, if proven more than what Bible says then Bible’s version of God automatically fails.
Omniscience and free-will can be constructed as a two ways to disprove God as attempted here:
http://etiologue.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/omniscience-and-free-will
LikeLike
January 21, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Etioquaesitor,
A number of things need to be said. If the Bible gave us a specific age of the universe (which it doesn’t), and if empirical investigation conclusively invalidated the claim, this would not necessarily prove that the Christian God does not exist. At best it would show us that the Bible is not inerrant. A good number of others things would have to be demonstrated before one could disprove the Christian God.
Even if such would disprove the Christian God, this would not disprove theism in general, or the existence of any other finite gods. Other arguments would be needed to prove that no divine beings at all exist.
As for the claim that omniscience and free-will are incompatible, I dealt with this in comment #9. This is a popular argument, but it is fallacious.
Jason
LikeLike
January 22, 2011 at 5:22 am
I think you are correct on Bible – even if proven wrong (or right!) it does not mean anything conclusive.
To disprove something by logical contradiction one simple but relevant contradiction suffices. Thus, if shown that two of the attributes of one God are incompatible with one another means that all Gods with those two attributes have been disproven.
There are more than one logically independent arguments based on free-will and omniscience (the point of my previous post!).
Comment #9 deals with contradictions that require knowledge to be causal a priori – the arguments in my link do not use this assumption. (One them is a recent advance – not yet a popular one!)
So you haven’t dealt with them… yet.
LikeLike
January 22, 2011 at 8:54 am
The age of the universe is not specified in the Bible and cannot be “proven” scientifically.
There is no logical contradiction between omniscience and free will. The fact that X knows at time T1 that X will do Y at time T2 does not entail that X does not freely do Y at time T2.
Your second argument fails because both of its premises are false, at least with respect to the Christian concept of God. Where does the Bible say that “God gave men free-will because god wanted something interesting,” or that “Men with free will, to be interesting to god, must have some unpredictable part, even for god”?
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 1:17 am
Etio,
I can’t read the content of every link someone posts here, so my rule is that if you want to enter an argument into the debate, you need to summarize it here in the comments section. If you do so, I’ll be happy to interact with it.
Jason
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 1:18 am
Aletheist,
Were your comments directed to Etio?
Jason
LikeLike
January 30, 2011 at 11:03 am
[…] God’s Existence Can Be Disproven from Theosophical Ruminations by jasondulle […]
LikeLike
January 30, 2011 at 7:12 pm
It doesn’t really matter if your god or anyone other god can be DISproven. The fact remains that no credible, testable, falsifiable evidence has been demonstrated for any god. That’s all any reasonable person needs to not harbor belief in any god.
Trying to prove the non-existence of a mysterious ethereal entity that has a different definition for every person that believes in it is unnecessary, except perhaps as a pleasant mental exercise.
LikeLike
January 30, 2011 at 10:36 pm
D441,
It’s easy to throw out accusations, but have you ever truly interacted with any of the works of philosophers of religion who have offered a good number of arguments for theism?
Jason
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 7:28 am
Jason
I made no accusations, I made statements. Yes, there is a difference. I’m curious, what part of my post you consider accusatory?
In reference to your question, yes, I have read all kinds of arguments for the existence of gods from professional theologians and philosophers, and their lay counterparts. Some of them were quite sophisticated. But arguments aren’t evidence.
So I reiterate: Without evidence belief is not a reasonable position. So you must fall back on faith, which is equal justification for believing the tenets of any religion, and is therefore no justification at all.
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 3:52 pm
D441,
I was referring to your statement that the “fact remains that no credible, testable, falsifiable evidence has been demonstrated for any god.” Perhaps “claim” was a more fitting word.
Who have you read?
Why would an argument not constitute evidence? Are you dismissing philosophy altogether as a source for truth? If arguments aren’t evidence, then what is? Are you an empiricist?
Your definition of faith appears to be “blind faith.” While that may be the way other religions would define it, that is not the way Christianity defines faith.
Jason
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Jason,
I honestly can’t remember every argument for the existence of a god I’ve ever encountered, but some names of authors, philosophers, and arguments do come to mind. The first few that spring to mind are: Lee Strobel, CS Lewis, various ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments, Thomas of Aquinas, John Calvin, Matt Slick, and others. However, while those I have read may or may not have presented attractive, sophisticated arguments for a deity, what none of them did was base those on logical premises that are supported by evidence.
Arguments don’t constitute evidence as a matter of definition. An argument is a claim, backed by reasons which are supported by evidence. A valid argument should describe evidence, but is not evidence in and of itself.
I don’t think philosophy is a useful way of determining the existence or nonexistence of anything. Your definition of truth is necessary for me to better answer that question.
I am a practitioner of methodological empiricism, because that approach to knowledge consistently produces results, including things like the computers, etc. we are using to have this discussion.
How would you define the type of faith Christians have? I know a lot of Christians would disagree with you, too. Blind faith is very much the Christian way. The bible expressly touts the holiness of belief without question . How is that not blind faith? Your god does not advocate questioning your faith, or looking to non-religious sources to confirm the validity of your faith.
Do you claim to have “credible, testable, falsifiable” evidence for the existence (or non-existence) of a god? Or even an argument that isn’t logically flawed? If so I’d love to hear it. I’m not closed to it. If such evidence was discovered, tested, and verified, I’d have no reasonable choice but to accept the existence of whatever god it indicated.
LikeLike
February 2, 2011 at 5:15 pm
D441,
This makes more sense now. If you only consider empirical evidence as genuine evidence, then a lot of the rational support in favor of God’s existence is thrown to the trash heap. But I think there are several problems with this position.
First, clearly philosophy is a useful way of determining what exists. If I said there is such a thing as a square circle, would you have to remain agnostic on the question until after a thorough empirical search of the universe can prove that claim true or false? No. You are within your epistemic rights to dismiss it out-of-hand because such a thing is a contradiction. It can’t exist, and we know that via philosophical reasoning, not empirical discovery.
There are even things we know exist that we cannot find any physical correlate for, or possibly demonstrate empirically. For example, morality. Morality is an objective feature of the world that we recognize, and yet it is not something we discover through empirical investigation. Indeed, morals are not physical things. You can search for eternity, but you will never uncover the moral law “don’t steal” in the physical world. Other examples include fairness, justice, numbers, logic, etc.
Second, you are sort of stacking the deck in favor of materialism if you say philosophy cannot tell us anything about the ontic status of some proposed entity. If only science can tell us what is real, then at best we must remain agnostic on the question of God’s existence because the discipline of science is not equipped to tell us about immaterial realities. It can only tell us about physical reality. Philosophy is the go-to tool to give us information about the ontic status of proposed immaterial realities.
Thirdly, empiricism cannot possibly be the only test for truth because empiricism itself cannot be verified empirically! It is self-refuting to claim that we can only know what is true/real via methodological empiricism, because that truth (if it is true), is not discoverable via methodological empiricism. The idea that only science (empirical investigation) can give us knowledge is not a scientific idea, but a philosophical idea—ironically, the very thing you dismiss as having merit in these types of discussions.
Fourth, even if we did restrict ourselves to physical evidence, I think there are some empirical discoveries that point strongly in favor of God’s existence. Consider the discovery of the fine-tuning of the initial conditions and physical constants for intelligent life. Consider the discovery of irreducible complexity in the biological world. Given what we know about the powers and limitations of both naturalistic and intelligent causation, we have every reason to conclude that the explanation for these physical effects is that they were produced by an intelligent cause. Or consider the discovery that physical reality had a beginning (I’ll say more on this in a bit). None of this is direct evidence for God, but it is indirect evidence for God. After all, you can’t expect direct evidence for an immaterial being by looking at material stuff. But we reason from the physical to the immaterial by assessing causal adequacy, much in the same way scientists postulate unseen physical entities because such an entity would explain the effects they observe in the physical world.
As for blind faith, yes, a lot of Christians would agree with you that faith is blind. But that doesn’t mean that is the Biblical view of faith. And it’s the Biblical view that determines Christian doctrine. It’s only been in the last 300 years or so that Christians have adopted this misunderstanding, and it is unfortunate. And there are a lot of Christians who understand otherwise.
You ask for evidence, but the vast majority of the evidence I would offer you is based on philosophical reasoning, which you won’t accept. For example, there is the kalam cosmological argument that reasons:
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause
Both of these premises are based on empirical finds. Premise 1 is always confirmed empirically. The second premise has been confirmed as well (even the various multiverse scenarios cannot avoid an absolute beginning). So the conclusion follows logically from these two empirical premises. All that needs to be determined is what this cause is. As the cause of matter, space, and time, the First Cause cannot itself be material, spatial, or temporal. It must be immaterial, non-spatial, and eternal (self-existent, uncaused). Only two candidates fit this description: abstract objects, unembodied mind (God). Since abstract objects are causally impotent by definition, it must be God.
Further confirmation that the cause is God is found in the other attributes it must possess: power, intelligence, and volitional power which requires that it be personal.
Jason
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 7:24 am
I began composing a long reply, refuting and otherwise pointing out the flaws rampant in your last post, but as I was roughing out my response I realized something. All the things you present aren’t the reasons for your belief; they’re all justifications after the fact. You started from the wrong end, and as long as you continue in that fashion, your delusion will persist.
You make a pretense of logic, but it all boils down to this: You started with a conclusion (your god belief) and then looked for things to support it. The reliable, accurate way to seek knowledge is to start with an idea or question, and then see if the evidence actually supports it. If so, great, if not, also great, because now you’ve eliminated an incorrect proposition. Adjust your premise to align with the evidence then move on. Your utter failure to do so in this exchange or any of the others I’ve read on this site leads me to the conclusion that you are not interested in truth; you’re interested in defending your beliefs by whatever means necessary.
In that regard we couldn’t be more different. My desire is to believe as many true things as I can, and to not believe as many false things as possible. No god belief has enough evidence (not arguments and wordplay, but evidence) to fall into the first camp. Until it does, I won’t believe it. It’s the only rational position to take on the matter. If you’d like, I can post my point by point dissection of your previous post. Here’s a stripped down list of points:
1. The idea of a square circle is contradictory because the definition of squares and circle make them mutually incompatible.
2. Morality is subjective, not objective.It is just a label for a set of guidelines that attempt to maximize the positive interactions within and overall well-being of a social species, which is why it varies between people, cultures, and species.
3. Nobody has demonstrated that reality actually began. And even if they had, that still doesn’t point to anybody’s god as the cause. Also, cause and effect are only meaningful within a temporal system, so your god being an immaterial and atemporal doesn’t really fly. The first cause argument is self-refuting. If everything but god needs a cause, then clearly not everything needs a cause, removing the need to posit an uncaused god as a cause, until you can show evidence for it.
4. Kalam, fine-tuning, and IC have all been roundly, repeatedly, and thoroughly debunked. A few minutes of research will show this beyond any reasonable doubt. That you would bring them up indicates woeful ignorance or duplicity on your part.
5. Your list of “necessary” attributes for the god you’ve failed to demonstrate a need for is laughable, in that nothing you’ve said indicates a requirement for those properties.
If you can’t begin to show some intellectual rigor and bring up some substantial arguments, backed by evidence, then I’m done here. Again, I get the strong impression that you don’t want truth, you want support for your beliefs, and you’re willing to go through some impressive mental gymnastics to feel like you’ve found it. If that’s the case, there can be no meaningful discussion on this subject between us.
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 7:36 am
Oops, left out a point, I’ll call it number six for the sake of simplicity.
6. Empirical investigation can be empirically demonstrated to be a reliable source of knowledge, in that it reliably generates knowledge that can be applied to the real world, and has done so for as long as it has been used. That may seem a bit circular, but face it, we’re surrounded by the evidence that empiricism works, and damn well at that.
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 4:58 pm
D441,
In my case, you are right…I did not come to faith because I examined the evidence and was so persuaded by it that I became a Christian. But there are many others who have had that experience. Besides, there have been times I have doubted the existence of God, but it has been my investigation into the evidence that has caused me to be confident that God exists.
But your contention is misguided anyway. You act as though if someone starts off believing something, they cease to be objective. But the blade cuts both ways. There are those who were raised in atheist homes. Would it be fair of me to dismiss their arguments on the grounds that they believed atheism was true prior to an examination of the evidence? No! If atheism was true, it would just be an accident of history that they were raised to believe it before discovering the intellectual basis for their position. They should not be faulted for that. The same is true of Christians. All that should matter is the quality of the evidence itself.
Regarding your points:
1) It’s not the definition, but the concept. But that’s besides the point. The point is that that our ontology is informed by both reasoning as well as empirical investigation.
2) You can say it is subjective, but you can’t live that out. Do you really mean to tell me that there is nothing really wrong with rape? So long as society approved of it, it would be ok?
3) The impossibility of an infinite past is philosophically sound, but scientifically sound as well. The Standard Model of cosmology definitely indicates a beginning to this universe. And even if the Standard Model is one day overturned, the fact remains that entropy always increases. If the universe or multiverse were infinite, we would have ran out of energy an infinite time ago. We haven’t, and thus physical reality has not been here for an infinity. You can’t hide behind an eternal universe.
You say cause and effect only make sense in a temporal framework. Says who? What does time have to do with cause and effect? Time doesn’t cause anything. While we may be familiar with cause and effect as happening in time, there is nothing about the concept of cause and effect that requires temporality. Think of the ball resting on the pillow from eternity past. The ball will cause a depression in the pillow, but did that cause precede the effect? No, because both are eternal. And yet clearly the ball has caused the concavity.
The argument does not claim that everything needs a cause, but that everything which begins to exist needs a cause. Why? Because such things are contingent. But to avoid an infinite regress (which is philosophically impossible, and from what we know from science, it is not true as a matter of fact), there must be a first cause that is itself uncaused. The only way to get that is if the first cause is eternal and necessary (i.e. not dependent on anything outside of itself for its existence).
4) It’s one thing to claim this, and another to demonstrate it. I’ve read the counter-arguments and they have not debunked anything.
5) Apparently you aren’t following the logic, but given your empiricism, this doesn’t surprise me. Let me try this again: whatever caused matter to come into being cannot itself be material, otherwise matter would already be in existence, thus we conclude the first cause was immaterial. The same is true of space and time since those also had a beginning in the physical universe.
6) The question isn’t whether empirical approaches provide us with knowledge. Clearly they do. The issue is whether it is the only means to knowledge, and clearly it isn’t. You know the laws of logic and mathematics, but not through science. And as I pointed out, the idea itself that empiricism is the only source of truth is not something you can arrive at via empirical means. It is a philosophical notion. You simply cannot escape the validity of philosophy.
It seems to me that you are tall on ad hominems and short on evidence.
Jason
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 9:30 pm
I’ll read your whole post later, but to address your last line, I don’t need evidence to not believe a claim. I need evidence to believe a claim, something that neither you, nor any other theist has provided.
I could just as easily say that you’re tall on word games and twisted logic but short on evidence.
LikeLike
February 4, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Ok, read through it all. Once again, I could spend several paragraphs specifically addressing your fallacious arguments (and I will if you so desire, though I doubt you’re interesed), but instead I will point out, not for the first time, that your arguments do not point to the existence of a god, let alone your specific god. Where is your evidence? Not your arguments, your evidence.
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 11:02 am
D441,
Actually, in some cases I think one does need evidence not to believe a claim because some claims are so self-evident and intuitive that the burden of proof is on the individual who would deny that. Some would contend that belief in God is one of them, but I won’t go there. In general I agree with you. But I wasn’t talking about evidence for a belief in no God, but evidence against theistic arguments. You say the arguments are bunk, but I’m not seeing you present good reasons to doubt them.
Yes, please do take the time to engage my points. I am interested.
What exactly do you see as the difference between evidence and arguments? Or are we just back to the “philosophy doesn’t count” thing again? Remember, philosophy deals with reason, and I thought you atheist types loved reason. I find it strange that you want to dismiss the field dealing with rationality as somehow not able to speak to metaphysical questions.
Jason
LikeLike
February 14, 2011 at 1:19 pm
D441,
I should have been a bit more explicit in my first paragraph. You do not have a burden to disprove the existence of God, but you do have a burden to demonstrate how the theistic arguments offered in support of the proposition fail.
Jason
LikeLike
March 2, 2012 at 5:32 pm
[…] then I think most philosophers would agree that no one could be an atheist. After all, apart from identifying something that is logically incoherent about the very concept of God, it is impossible […]
LikeLike
January 3, 2016 at 5:52 pm
[…] people claim the existence of God cannot be falsified. As I have argued elsewhere, this is not true. One way to falsify God’s existence is to show that the concept of God is […]
LikeLike
July 24, 2019 at 11:09 pm
@D441
As Jason stated, the proposition that empiricism is the only test for truth is itself immune to empirical verification and is thus self-defeating.
LikeLike