Being asked to prove that God doesn’t exist is an irrelevant question. That is so because there is no empirical or conceptual way to attend to the question. And the practical proof of the irrelevance is that there are an infinity of assertions that can’t be disproven because there is no empirical or conceptual way to test them. Prove that a cow didn’t create the universe. Or two cows. Or as many cows as you wish to number. Prove that a teacup isn’t the centre of the universe and everything that happens comes from its say so and will. And on and on. Asking to disprove a negative that can’t be tested empirically or conceptually beggars discourse. So the burden of proof is in the claimant. Prove that God exists. Failure to do so with legitimate evidence or arguments ends the matter: needing to disprove what can’t be proven is a philosophical absurdity. Saying that someone can’t disprove the existence of God is either of only the thinnest meaning—like saying elephants can’t fly—or simply makes no sense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment