Everyone is Agnostic

[T.J.]

We can't 100% prove those things don't exist, but the burden of proof doesn't fall on us. It falls on the theist making the claim. You can't prove 100% there isn't a pink fluffy monster hiding out on Mars somewhere, but if you made the claim you'd be laughed into nonexistence, and for good reason.

And give Nobody some credit. He actually knows a lot about economics and globalization.

Well, impossible/contradictory objects cannot exist, so if you can prove that a thing definitively contradicts itself, you can establish with the greatest possible certainty that said thing does not exist. Square circles can't exist, for example, because a square has to have exactly four corners, and a circle has to have exactly zero.


A unicorn, by comparison, is a horse with a horn on its head. It's a thing we've never seen, but we've seen horses, and we've seen animals with horns on their heads, and nothing about either of those things necessarily excludes or contradicts the other, so even though we've never seen a unicorn, we can't reasonably conclude that it's an impossible object.


So, in any case, the question that has to be asked is this: is god a square circle, or is he a unicorn?


Jehovah, for instance, is definitely a square circle because his purported qualities (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc.) are mutually exclusive for various reasons. Jehovah is an impossible object.


The rest of man's gods fail on similar criteria. Some are both all-knowing and all-powerful, some are intangible yet able to affect reality, some are defined as citizens of a locale that turns out to be devoid of such beings...the list goes on.


Once you fight your way out to "higher power," you have to first prove to me that The Winderhirdenboogen does not exist before I will address whether god exists.

I like this post, but I'm a tad bit confused.

After doing some digging I know omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence are self-contradictory on their own (so you don't really have to even combine them to prove your point), but how are they mutually exclusive?