Disproving existence

[miniboes]

Hi guys,

So I am debating a Christian, and as always I explain my atheistic position as following, although more elaborate, that rejecting a claim should be the standard position until evidence is provided because to disprove the existence of something is impossible.

A guy argued that it is possible to disprove somethings existence the following way:

Would you not insist upon the acceptance of Einsteins "proof" that parallel lines cannot exist?

I find that situation most amusing. For all Einstein's reputation for mathematical prowess, he never provided any mathematical proof. Parallel lines are still taught in Geometry class, and any competent Geometry student can prove their existence mathematically. Yet in Physics class, acceptance of his "proof" is required.

Do you know what Gödel's Theorum proved, by chance? It proved that no bounded system of logic capable of proving its own axioms can exist.

Evolanders insist they have proven no dinosaurs existed after the evodate they made up for "dinosaur extinction". Would you have that "proof" questioned, or would you not demand everyone accept it?

Now, I can counter the thing about einstein and the thing about dinosaurs easily, but I'm having trouble with the thing about Gödels Theorum as I do not understand the theorum. Does anybody know if it really disproved the existence of a physical thing?

[brimstoneSalad]

Things can only be disproved using logic, by demonstrating that they are internally contradictory and thus impossible, or contradict something else that is necessarily true (as a premise, but this must be agreed upon or proved using logic).

Christians, however, do not usually accept logic.

When god is demonstrated to be self contradictory or otherwise impossible, they give him a pass. You can't do that. If there's one contradiction, then logic doesn't work for anything.

See the Principle of Explosion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

Gödel's incompleteness theorems don't really have anything to do with the subject. Logic is axiomatic and founded on the principle of non-contradiction. Either you accept logic and you can make sense of things and use reason, or you don't and you're an idiot (very likely the case for the fellow you're arguing with).


Empirical "proof" is something else, and just relies on mountains of evidence, but empirical matters are never certain like logical proofs, because observations, no matter how certain they can appear, could always be mistaken (e.g. you may be a brain in a vat, in a dream, etc.). Valid logic still holds no matter what the empirical circumstances if thought is coherent at all, and a Sound argument is always sound.

[miniboes]

Things can only be disproved using logic, by demonstrating that they are internally contradictory and thus impossible, or contradict something else that is necessarily true (as a premise, but this must be agreed upon or proved using logic).

Thanks for the explanation. Is there a way in which you can disprove god using logic?

[brimstoneSalad]

Thanks for the explanation. Is there a way in which you can disprove god using logic?

Yes, but it depends on the definition of god being put forward. Some definitions have huge holes in them, while others are consistent in so far as we can currently tell.

Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, Free Will, Temporal Transcendence are the primary weak points.