To my brother atheists: Proving a negative is easy?

Question

I know a lot of atheists think that Dawkin's motto that you can't prove a negative is somehow golden - but its wrong. You can prove a negative where:-

Quite simply, the God in the Bible does not exist because:-

1. It is internally inconsistent;

IE - God seems to change character through out the Bible.

2. It is Illogical

God blames Adam and Eve for eating a fruit that he put there in full knowledge what they would do and knowing that Adam and Eve did not understand Good or Evil - then he punishes people for acting in the very way that he designed them.

3. It is inconsistent with the observed universe.

I have plenty of data that shows the world is older than 6,000 years. That is inconsistent with Genesis - therefore, since Genesis is not supported at all, we must say that it is not true.

Conclusion

I do not choose to not believe, rather, I have reviewed the evidence from a place of not knowing and then concluded that the God described in the Bible does not exist. I am yet to carry out the same examination on Zeus, Jupiter or Odin or any one of the 40,000 other gods but I am pretty sure that the answer will be the same.

Do you think this approach has legs?

Answer 1

Yes, of course. Though, I don't think it's going to make much difference sadly. People have been trying, and there are many many reasons out there why he does not exist. All you have to do is go to http://www.godisimaginary.com for 50 detailed reasons.. The problem though, is that people refuse to believe anything that they don't want to believe.

Answer 2

As I am an atheist, I am comfortably sure about your conclusions. However, I must point out that the argument from logic approach is not, strictly speaking, proof. Ergo, it is not proof of that negative.

Now, in general, its possible to prove *certain kinds* of negatives: "Is there water on the Moon ? No."

But, beyond such limited negatives, it still stands to *reason* that claimants of a positive always bear the Burden Of Proof for their claim, and, that it is not necessary to try to prove a negative in most cases, nor is it very often possible: "Prove that there *isn't* a teacup in Mars orbit."

Its fair to point out that other, positive, facts disprove some positive claims made by theists and their religions. "Geology proves that the Earth is far, far older than 6,000 years". But, in such cases, thats not proof of a negative, thats a positive proof that falsifies an older positive claim.

Its possible to counter your examples thus:

1) god is consistent, just his human chroniclers aren't.

2) god is illogical. So ?

Now, 3) is another matter, but due to scientific positive proofs that show that the older positive claims made for god are in error.

But, little of that is proving any negatives. So, no, your approach has no legs, per se.  

Answer 3

Oh wise one, you make much sense!  :D  

I think the god worshippers will be unable to read and honestly debate this question, since they are short the smarts to do so.  Ah well.

Answer 4

An easier example of being able to prove a negative:

"There is no such thing as a city of men with wings growing out of their butts living in New York, America."

We can prove this negative.

Yet believers continue to insist that we cannot prove a negative.

My advice: Give them the above example.

Answer 5

Disproving the Bible is not equivalent to proving a negative.

Answer 6

First of all, it is NOT Dawkins that came up with that notion. It's been around since before he was crawling. Give him credit when it comes time for him to go to work as a science.

As for what you posted:

General problem: you have attacked only the Christian understanding of the conept "god." What of deism or polytheism? What of imperfect or evil gods? What of conceptions that, perhaps, nobody has yet considered? You've attacked one popular portrayal; you have done nothing to attack the concept itself.

The only thing they all have in common is no evidence. And that's all that's needed.

1 - Interal inconsistency on god's nature would be based on inadequate knowledge. As any psychologist would tell you, personality can only be judged by observations across multiple settings. If you've only seen "god as creative agent," you really can't make judgments about why he acts one way in one situation, and not the same way in what appears to be a similiar situation. So, this would really be a bad argument for inconsistency, unless you can claim omniscience about each event, and could ascertain that they are, in fact, identical.

2 - "God the concept" can be illogical, but what you posted is more in the lines of "god allegedly did something that we really don't understand." Plus, you assume Biblical literacy in the story; several believers take the story as metaphorical. You've done nothing in regards to their understanding.

3 - Genesis is inconsistent with observation. I agree. But, again, some believers take this in stride, showing that the Bible doesn't force young earth creationism. Even the Vatican accepts evolution.

If you get an enjoyment out of disproving such entities, then keep the hobby. But do try to focus on the real reason to lack belief in things like leprechauns.

Answer 7

I think you are on the right track and I also think that it is indeed possible to prove a negative if the subject to disprove is defined properly. In this case you can point out inconsistencies, self-contradictions and logical impossibilities that arise from the definition. Like you did in 1. and 2. You should look up the term "theodicy" to find the general discussion about self-contradictions in the definition of god.

Of course religious people will reject your approach, either by attacking your arguments, by bringing in the old "god works in mysterious ways" talk or by avoiding a concise and falsifiable definition of their respective god(s).

Your argument 3. is somewhat weaker, however. Religious people could always argue that their omnipotent deity is perfectly able to place dinosaur bones and misleading C14-evidence everywhere so that your ideas about the observed universe could be as well wrong. This of course is a silly argument but the silliest arguments sometimes are the trickiest to refute. In this case you can only fall back on the line that those who claim that their god exists need to prove it themselves.

Answer 8

Good ,here' s a star

Answer 9

Religion is the greatest delusion that mankind has created.  Death is our greatest fear, and religion humanizes this fear by offering us the illusion that something about us will go on.  People love their opium; kill the supplier, and you will have killed many peoples' happiness....  

Answer 10

I do. If this were a philosophy debate you'd have some merit here.

Don't expect to convince many believers though.

Answer 11

You are still only stating observations and your opinions of them. You cannot, however, account for every possibility in the universe at one time, so you cannot prove a negative.

1. This is a false assumption. It is internally consistent if you understand what you are reading.

2. The application of logic does not always make reality. Explain the logic of love, hate, and my desire to dispute you on this topic.

3. You have not observed all of the universe.

"Proof" is a hard enough thing to come by when you do have empirical evidence, but attempting to 'prove a negative' based mainly on the lack of evidence is actually impossible.

Answer 12

herpes

Answer 13

You had just disproved a book call a bible. A bible is a positive item.

The existence of god, however, is a negative item. You cannot disprove a negative item. You can disproved a book which describe a Unicorn, but you cannot disprove the non-existence of a Unicorn.

Answer 14

I like where you are coming from. Your thoughts are logical. Me personally I just don't give a flying c**p if god exists or not, even though I am fairly positive that he does not.

Answer 15

You are confusing belief in God with belief in Christian doctrine.  It isn't necessary to take Genesis literally to believe in God.  Genesis cries out to be taken allegorically, and really only a small minority of believers in God (though admittedly a very vocal minority) insist on its literal interpretation.

It's natural for people to want to believe in something bigger than what they can see.  This belief is not defensible to atheists, and I understand that.  Believers make the mistake of thinking their beliefs are 'science', and that's certainly wrong.  But the way I see it you can't prove God exists or that he doesn't exist, so either one you choose to believe, nobody can prove you wrong.  Genesis, literally interpreted, certainly CAN be proven wrong.  8^)

Answer 16

1. Many things are internally inconsistant.  Most humans are, ever heard of lying?

2. Not all believers of God believe in the Adam and Eve bit.

3. Not all believers of God believe in the 6,000 years old bit.

Conclusion

I chose to believe, and I think it can't have legs, that's ILLOGICAL.

Answer 17

No.... God took the legs off the serpent in the garden of eden.

Answer 18

Good luck with it is all I have to say... I believe in God but I don't know its just weird to me that you would go through all the trouble to prove that He doesn't exist after you already believe he doesn't...why doublethink? ....

...but hey good luck! :-) I am not knocking you for it... you bring up interesting points but a lot of these inconsistency are ones I've heard before by those who do not believe.  

Answer 19

Highly credible. Kudos to you.

Unfortunately, Christians still have "faith." And they will never let such a silly thing as logic stand in their path.

From my experience, there are two possible outcomes to presenting your argument to a Christian:

1. They will call you an idiot and walk away without actually debating what you just said.

2. They will attempt to talk circles around you using information that they made up on the spot.