Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane.....?

Question

by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist.
This is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. Thus, the only reason for going with one or the other is faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist’s faith.

This claim relies upon the erroneous assumption that all propositions are created equal and, because some cannot be conclusively proven, then therefore none can be conclusively disproven.
So, it is argued, the proposition “God exists” cannot be disproven.
But not all propositions are created equal. It is true that some cannot be disproven — for example, the claim “a black swan exists” cannot be disproven. To do so would require examining every spot in the universe to make sure that such a swan did not exist, and that simply isn’t possible

Other propositions, however, can be disproven — and conclusively. There are two ways to do this. The first is to see if the proposition leads to a logical contradiction; if so, then the proposition must be false. Examples of this would be “a married bachelor exists” or “a square circle exists.” Both of these propositions entail logical contradictions — pointing this out is the same as disproving them.

If someone claims the existence of a god, the existence of which entails logical contradictions, then that god can be disproven the same way. Many atheological arguments do exactly that — for example they argue that an omnipotent and omniscient god cannot exist because those qualities lead to logical contradictions.

The second way to disprove a proposition is a bit more complicated. Consider the following two propositions:

1. Our solar system has a tenth planet.
2. Our solar system has a tenth planet with a mass of X and an orbit of Y.
Both propositions can be proven, but there is a difference when it comes to disproving them. The first could be disproven if someone were to examine all of the space between the sun and the outer limits of our solar system and found no new planets — but such a process is beyond our technology. So, for all practical purposes, it is not disprovable.

The second proposition, however, is disprovable with current technology. Knowing the specific information of mass and orbit, we can devise tests to determine if such an object exists — in other words, the claim is testable. If the tests repeatedly fail, then we can reasonably conclude that the object does not exist. For all intents and purposes, the proposition it disproven. This would not mean that no tenth planet exists. Instead, it means that this particular tenth planet, with this mass and this orbit, does not exist.

Answer 1

What you say is true, but it's really quite a bit simpler than this. All that's necessary is to recognize that the default assumption for all claims is always 'false', until there is evidence commensurate with the claim. This is how we all live our lives. That's why a theist will usually see no inconsistency with simply dismissing leprechauns out of hand, but will resort to these special pleading arguments regarding god, without ever stopping to think I am just as justified to dismiss the concept of god simply by the nature that it sounds nuts and there isn't any credible evidence to support the idea.

If you're in a windowless building in the summer, and a coworker comes in and tells you it's raining, the mere fact they told you is sufficient evidence to overcome the default position of 'false'. But what if they told there's a tornado? You might now want a corroboration, which perhaps would include turning on a radio to check the weather.

But suppose they told you it was snowing? Now not even the radio would be enough to satisfy the disbelief, you wold insist on seeing it for yourself. Even after seeing it you would probably be looking for some other explanation, because the idea is so outrageous.

Yet the same theist who would no doubt demand tons of credible evidence before believing snow in the summer, will turn around and simply expect me to believe something even more outrageous simply because it can't be disproven. I'm sorry, that is insanity.

Answer 2

Two things for you to consider:

The first, theists claim that God is supernatural, therefore not describable by science (the study of nature).

Of course, this is easy to throw away.

But on the basis of you argument, you must also reject string theory. String theory even accepting that it might be correct, requires you to accept 6 or 7 dimensions that we can't perceive or even describe.

Oh, besides, you still seem to have a specific belief system with regards to the existance of God.

Answer 3

Can you show proof using Omnipotent,infinate,all knowing,no boundaries,without time proof?Have you searched every existant plane of reality(swan) to prove there is no God?

Answer 4

Dude, stop trying to convince yourself.

Answer 5

I agree but what's your question?