Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H
Gormley


ARE YOU UNABLE IN PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE TO REFUTE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE?
 
The problem of proving, “X/an x exists” is never true brings us to a subject called proving the negative.

Many insist that you cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that God does not exist. You cannot prove there is no Santa Claus. You cannot prove there is no witches.
 
They won't tell you that these points do not matter. Most things we cannot prove we assume they are nonsense and treat them as such. They are trying to manipulate you into thinking there could be a God. They only care about "You cannot prove a negative" when it comes to God. They don't if it is a witch or a magic fairy. Talk about double-standards. If God is a God of truth he would not want you to argue the way they do. The argument insults God.

It comes up predictably in the subject of God.  That it dominates with God believe shows that there is bias being paved for.  It cuts both ways.  If you cannot prove God is fiction or cannot prove God is true then surely you should be told you can toss a coin and even if there is a God he cannot judge you.  Truly respecting unbelief in God demands that you help people be atheist and affirm them if that is their choice.  That is not what happens. Baptisms and religious schools make a cold house for atheist children or those who want to be.

One massive reason why lies and errors and antitruth religions thrive and will be around in some form forever is down to the problem of trying to prove a negative.  They take advantage of that to make people think, "Maybe its true. We can't prove it wrong so maybe we should live by it more."

How do you prove that a falsehood is in fact a falsehood and wrong? If somebody says there is such an animal that eats fire and is lying then you cannot prove either that it is a lie or that the animal does not exist. The scope for being wrong or fooled is inherent. It is “more” inherent when the falsehood is supernatural or paranormal based. For example, if you say that vaccines somehow in some possibly supernatural or paranormal way cause detachment from God in many people how do you disprove that? You cannot test everybody. It is for that reason irrefutability is a vice.

To say, “An invisible magic man lives down the garden” knowing that nobody can prove the negative - that is prove you wrong - is cheating. If you were not cheating you would say, “An invisible magic man lives down the garden AND/OR there is a goat that nothing can detect in the field AND/OR…AND/OR to infinity. In other words, you have no right to cherry-pick from the infinite options you have. You are cherry-picking because you want to fool yourself which makes it other peoples business for to really fool yourself you must take in others too.  You don't care what invisible or magical being may be in the garden at all as long as you want to believe it is a specific one.  You are lying as if you care what is real in the garden.  You do not.

Some say you need to prove a negative, namely that in no possible way is there a God of any kind, in order to be an atheist.  They want to make it too difficult for you but it is enough to show that there is no power out there which loves us and has the power to fix what is wrong in the world and in us. 

Believers in God consider many versions of God to be disproved . For example, if here is a God that does not do anything they deny that such a God exists.  Catholics deny the existence of a God who is not all about grace - relating to us as a friend and forgiving and healing our bad side.

As nice proof that there is no God would be, you don't really need it.  You would only need it if there was proof of non-existence out there. Proof should be sought when available for the simple reason it helps us see facts.  

An atheist is a person is one who has no experience of God or of faith in God that he considers valid. This is like how an asexual is not a person who rejects sex but who has no interest.  God is not God to such an atheist for God by definition means the infinite good that alone really matters.  The atheist is an independent person who does not want anybody, especially God to tell them what do do with their life.  The atheist because of that BECOMES an indication that there may be no God.  Evidence is not just things it is people too.

People say that it comes down to what you mean by proof. If you mean 100% and undeniable proof then there is no proof of God's non-existence.
 
But if you mean proof in the way we usually mean it then God is possibly, plausibly or totally disproved.  The disproof could be out there for us to discover.  God could be disproved without anybody knowing it.
 
Believers may put their "You can't prove a negative" argument as follows, "If there is absence of evidence for God's existence, that is not evidence for God's absence."  But against that you can say, "If there is absence of evidence for atheism, that is not evidence that atheism is fiction."

Suppose we decide to not remain neutral and choose one.  It then is one or the other.  Then which one?  Let us pick a God different from the one that is promoted today.  "If there is absence of evidence for Zeus's existence, that is not evidence for Zeus's absence."  But against that you can say, "If there is absence of evidence for atheism as regards to Zeus, that is not evidence that atheism as regards to Zeus is fiction."
 
Absence of evidence for x is not evidence of absence. If the evidence should be there but is not that is warrant for denying x exists even if it's not evidence or proof.  Absence of evidence for God is evidence of absence for the concept wrecks the concepts of evidence and proof. 

If you say you can prove something does not exist you will be accused of assuming you can prove a negative.  As a philosopher would say, "negative existential propositions cannot be proven".  But this is itself trying to prove a negative!  To say, "You cannot prove anything does not exist" is a negative.  You are saying it is proven when it is not.  In principle if not in practice it is possible to show that something's non-existence can be proven!
 
Many negatives can be proven. You can prove that your mother is not made of ice.  In fact you are assuming that there is no God using a force to make her and you think she is not ice when she is.  After all he makes you think a table is solid when in fact physics tells you it is empty space almost entirely.  Perhaps God miraculously makes her seem to be of flesh when she is of ice. Perhaps he makes you feel her warm embrace though it is not warm at all and is sub-zero. If God has to let a little innocent baby endure months of torment for a mysterious purpose then you have no right to say that he is not giving you a mother made of ice. Do not see God as a thing but as a statement about an active being that is involved in everything.  God is action and activity.  See God together with the implications if there is a God.

So proving the negative about your mother is admitting that there is no God.  You are strongly saying there is no chance he is giving you a maternal ice lolly.  You are saying it is proven that he is not intervening and cannot be.

We all have our biases. The biggest risk of bias is with the untestable – the supernatural. It is unknown. For these reasons it is wise to assume that he supernatural is just an excuse for bias. It is being biased and hiding it.

Possibilities do not count unless evidence is saying they count. You cannot take something seriously just because it is a possibility. If it is possible that Dr X was Jack the Ripper for he was not at home the night of the murders that possibility counts but only as far as the evidence allows. It may only count slightly. But if there is nothing at all that suggests he did it then the possibility that he did does not count. We should not even consider it.
 
Possibilities are a necessary evil. In what way? They deny you the certainty you want and need and can lead you astray.
 
Thus if you adopt the concept of God that makes far more possibilities than you need.  For example, maybe witches are real then for the supernatural is real if there is a God.  It is fine to say there are definitely and absolutely no such things as vampires or werewolves. It seems arrogant for it seems you cannot know that for sure. But we do not think of anybody who is sure as arrogant. And Occam’s Razor says assume what you need and no more so you don’t need to assume they exist.

God allegedly did the big miracle of raising Jesus from the dead.  The evidence that Jesus' tomb was empty and that he was seen in visions may be wrong for perhaps none of that happened and the miracle or paranormal event of false memories was done on the witnesses?  A miracle cannot count as evidence for you never know what the evidence is for you don't know what the miracle was.  Paranormal is distinguished from miracle though it can clearly pass for a miracle which makes it more complicated.

There is more than just a burden of proof to show that “X is true/untrue.” When you say, “X explain the evidence” you are saying, “Take the burden of proving that you have considered and eliminated all other possibilities! And “You take the burden of proving that I have considered and eliminated all the possibilities and found the best one.”

If we cannot prove the negative then God is not just an exception.  He is the superlative exception ... it is a bigger and more foundational claim that merely saying there is a goblin in the garden.