WLC: "You can't prove the negative"

[The Grand Nudger]

If God is yet another abstraction, a metaphor for what we idealize, then I have few problems with theism (I might suggest other values, but that isn't as central to the question). Such metaphors are useful for structuring a culture and are a wonderful basis for humor. But most believers don't believe just that. They believe in a separately existing conscious entity that was involved in the formation of the world around us. That is the notion that I find rather silly.

That's exactly what gods are, and it's the singular problem with theistic religions.  Not that it's silly, but that creating a religion out of idealized human agency imports the very specific problems of human agency.  

People have taboos.  People have shitlists.  People exact revenge.  People are transactional. Conveniently, theistic gods service this collection of bias in every example thusfar. Who knows, maybe the next revelation will fix god, but I doubt it. I suppose actual people would check off all those boxes anyway, no matter what their religion is organized around....but when a religion centers a personal and intervening god, those broadly objectionable human traits go from vice to virtue.

[Disagreeable]

"We can prove there are no living T-Rexes"

No because knowledge of their existence or nonexistence is, in both cases, an empirical claim. Objectivity in that case is the realm of science and science deals with evidence not proof.

"We can prove there are no Muslims in the US Senate"

No, because [the same reason as above].

"You can show that if something is self-contradicting that it can't exist"

True but irrelevant.

"There are no married bachelors"

True but irrelevant.

So what do you think, is WLC right? Can one prove the negative, as he says

We can prove the negative of God because God is self-contradictory. We can't prove the negative of T-Rexes because there is nothing self contradictory about them.

[GrandizerII]

"We can prove there are no living T-Rexes"

No because knowledge of their existence or nonexistence is, in both cases, an empirical claim. Objectivity in that case is the realm of science and science deals with evidence not proof.

"We can prove there are no Muslims in the US Senate"

No, because [the same reason as above].

"You can show that if something is self-contradicting that it can't exist"

True but irrelevant.

"There are no married bachelors"

True but irrelevant.

So what do you think, is WLC right? Can one prove the negative, as he says

We can prove the negative of God because God is self-contradictory. We can't prove the negative of T-Rexes because there is nothing self contradictory about them.

I thought you were an ignostic, or have I misunderstand your position on God? Regardless, God may end up being self-contradictory, but it's not like "married bachelor" where you can clearly from first glance see the contradiction.

And as for T-rexes, if you were to look around the whole globe and see no T-rex, isn't that "proof enough" they don't exist, given what we know about T-rexes? They're not invisible, so we can't use the "invisible ghost" excuse, and they're not super-intelligent mind-manipulators, so they can't trick us into never observig them despite all efforts. So maybe we can safely say they do not exist then.

[Belacqua]

We can prove the negative of God because God is self-contradictory.

What's your reasoning here? What description of God are you using to conclude that it's self-contradictory?

[Jehanne]

We can prove the negative of God because God is self-contradictory.

What's your reasoning here? What description of God are you using to conclude that it's self-contradictory?

Can God make a rock so big that he cannot lift it?

[Neo-Scholastic]

What's your reasoning here? What description of God are you using to conclude that it's self-contradictory?

Can God make a rock so big that he cannot lift it?

Yes, the human heart.

[The Grand Nudger]

If he wants to learn how to move that thing all he has to do is watch his creation. We do it casually, instinctively, effortlessly.

[Disagreeable]

I thought you were an ignostic, or have I misunderstand your position on God?

I'm overall ignostic because I need to know what God means first. But here I am dealing with WLC's God which is supposed to be outside of space and time and give humans contra causal free will. Such a God is impossible.

Regardless, God may end up being self-contradictory, but it's not like "married bachelor" where you can clearly from first glance see the contradiction.

. It's not clearly seen from first glance but it is still seen upon further looking.

And as for T-rexes, if you were to look around the whole globe and see no T-rex, isn't that "proof enough" they don't exist, given what we know about T-rexes?

It's evidence enough. It would only be 'proof enough' if I were to use the world 'proof' colloquially. Technically speaking, it's not proof—it's evidence.

[Belacqua]

Regardless, God may end up being self-contradictory, but it's not like "married bachelor" where you can clearly from first glance see the contradiction.

. It's not clearly seen from first glance but it is still seen upon further looking.

I have seen no reason to think that the concept of God, as defined by major theological traditions, is self-contradictory.

Obviously if you want to assert that God is a certain way, and the way you are talking about is self-contradictory, then you've defined it that way. But that doesn't mean that anybody else agrees with you.

[Jehanne]

Can God make a rock so big that he cannot lift it?

Yes, the human heart.

But, God never calls me; even a text message would be nice. I get more affection from.some of my Steam buddies than I do from God.