proof that there is no proof


There is more stupidity in the universe than hydrogen and it has a longer shelf life, Frank Zappa.

The author of this post is asking for proof there is no evidence for gods. Further he wants to be shown proof that demonstrates that you have no burden of proof. He does this, as he says, so that

By exposing such error and praying God will bless our doing so, we should hope to see fruit. May the Glory of God shine through it!

When I first read the post, I thought it was a load of crap and said almost as much. The author thinks I am being unfair. So I asked him to tell me what gods are. His answer[emphasis mine]

an absolute, objective authority exists and is self evident.

I am interested in knowing any believer who goes to church to worship such a monster. Why, if any god is self-evident do we question its existence? Is the questioning not enough evidence that the existence of gods, any god, is not obvious.

I think every christian believer, believes in a god that is a person, that hears prayers, punishes others, is sometimes jealous, is loving and so on. But because they modern christian finds such a god impossible to believe, they pretend to believe in an abstraction. They call it by many names such as ground of being, necessary being, infinite being and so on but this is so far removed from the very idea of god they have in the bible. So that at the end, the god argued for is different from the god believed in, and such is christian apologetics.

He then in his response writes

P1: If it is impossible to deny that an absolute, objective authority exists, without first assuming it is true, then it is true that an absolute, objective authority exists.
P2: It is impossible to deny that an absolute, objective authority exists, without first assuming it is true.
C: Thus, it is true that an absolute, objective authority exists.

which can be rewritten to read thus

P1: If it is impossible to deny that anabsolute, objective authority a green donkey exists, without first assuming it is true, then it is true that an absolute, objective authority a green donkey exists.
P2: It is impossible to deny that an absolute, objective authority a green donkey exists, without first assuming it is true.
C: Thus, it is true that an absolute, objective authority a green donkey exists.

I maybe missing something, but I would love to be shown if P1 and 2 are valid and whether the C follows necessarily from them.

IMV, the first premise is loaded. What is being sought is already assumed to be true.

Advertisements

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

59 thoughts on “proof that there is no proof

  1. And I want proof that there is no proof of a burglary … and so it goes on. But really, who cares? They want to believe? Fine. Just don’t encroach on my turf.

    Like

  2. Mordanicus says:

    >> for proof there is no evidence for gods

    Clearly that person believes there’s evidence that gods exist, otherwise such question is just ridiculous. I am fine if people believe in stuff without evidence, but to demand proof the evidence does not exist…

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      is to ask for too much. I don’t think he believes in god. He believes in an absolute, objective authority. I would wish a guy praying to replace god with such balderdash and see how long he shall keep at his faith

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Linuxgal says:

    It’s all word salad in the same vein as the ontological argument, which has been discredited for a long time. Existence is not a category. First you need to have something, then you can say things about it.

    Like

  4. archaeopteryx1 says:

    Where did he learn his logic, Sesame Street?

    Like

  5. john zande says:

    William Lane Craig in drag

    Like

  6. Doobster418 says:

    Wait, what? Are you implying that a green donkey doesn’t exist? Where’s your proof?

    Like

  7. “an absolute, objective authority exists and is self evident.” Which one? What does it look like? These arguments are idiotic. This dude’s a christian. This gibberish in WLC style is insulting to the intelligence. I have more respect for the christian who says, “I know there is no evidence that Jesus is god, but I accept it on faith alone that he is and that’s enough for me.” While I don’t agree with said statement, it is at least honest. These gibberish filled christian apologetic arguments are as insulting as they are common, and wrong. Batman must exist because you can’t prove he doesn’t. Bull crap.

    Like

  8. Arkenaten says:

    Hey, Noel, Just read what’s happened in Garissa.
    I am sorry and shocked my friend.

    Like

  9. ejwinner says:

    well, I took this as a challenge, because the main argument is clearly mistaken, but the generalizations deployed made it difficult to get a grip on, at first.

    “P1: If it is impossible to deny that an absolute, objective authority exists, without first assuming it is true, then it is true that an absolute, objective authority exists.
    P2: It is impossible to deny that an absolute, objective authority exists, without first assuming it is true.
    C: Thus, it is true that an absolute, objective authority exists.”

    P1: If (X denies P), this implies (X affirms P), then P.
    (Or: If (not P then P), then P.)

    (But “not p then p” implies the conjunct, “not P and P.”
    (I.e., “(X denies P), implies (X affirms P)” asserts: “(X denies P) and (X affirms P),” i.e., (-P and P)).

    P2: (X denies P) and (X affirms P). (I.e., -P and P.)

    C: Therefore P.

    More simply:
    (-P and P), then P;
    (-P and P);
    therefore p.

    This is not a fallacy, because it is not quite yet an argument; it violates principles of logical negation (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation), by packing a contradiction into an assertion: -(-p and p) is a strict contradiction and says precisely nothing. Then the argument simply asserts p; accepting this as an argument, it is open to a criticism of reductio ad absurdum:

    “A curious logical consequence of the principle of non-contradiction is that a contradiction implies any statement; if a contradiction is accepted, any proposition (or its negation) can be proved from it. This is known as the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso quodlibet, “from a falsehood, anything [follows]”, or ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet, “from a contradiction, anything follows”), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

    But the simplest response is to remark that no proper argument has been made.

    Additionally, we can remark that no terms have been defined such that a proper argument can be constructed using them. But I think that’s been obvious to all the readers here.

    On the question whether it is possible to ‘prove a negative’ (the denial of which is the complement to this), you might be interested in this short and very accessible paper by philosopher Stephen Hales: http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

    (See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence#Proving_a_negative.)

    Liked by 2 people

  10. I just got through reading the comments. He writes, comparing Allah to his god, then backs it up with biblical quotes:

    He’s distant, whereas in the Bible, God is intimately involves with His human creatures, causing chosen people to act and move on His behalf.

    Christians like him are the most dangerous because they truly believe that they are acting and moving on their green donkey’s god’s behalf.

    Noel, I was so sadden by what happened in your country by religious zealots who believe that they are acting and moving on behalf of their god.

    Like

  11. Ain't No Shrinking Violet says:

    Thanks Mak for pointing out another hysterically funny christian post. Yours and Ark’s comments to him were similar to the famous skit from from Abbott and Costello, “Who’s on first?” This was almost as funny as the “Africa is a mental construct” post.
    ——————
    I’ll have to look up what’s going on in your side of the world…it sounds tragic. 😦

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      It is tragic.
      Thanks Vi, funny thing these guys feel slighted when we point out their reasoning is flawed

      Like

      • Ain't No Shrinking Violet says:

        It was a brilliantly funny debate Mak…I thoroughly enjoyed it, and can’t wait for you to bring more of these gems to my attention.

        I read the news about the university…what a utterly horrible thing to have happen. So many people dead…and it sounds like the killing went on for hours. 😦

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          He is the type to leave alone. He is convinced he has written an argument that isn’t assailable so no matter how much you point out that it is fallacious, it doesn’t get through the skull.
          That was a tragic event which in several ways the government must be responsible for. We have a corrupt, poorly equipped police force and a greedy stealing executive and legislature. At some point such failures manifest themselves in incidences like this

          Like

          • Ain't No Shrinking Violet says:

            I supposed that blogger IS the type to leave alone, but it was highly entertaining, and I don’t get a lot of entertainment these days. So you brought me a smile!

            I think the last I read there were 142 dead…what a terrible loss of life. I was reading about the lack of police, but of course they left out the word “corrupt.”

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I will always try to keep you entertained, that’s what friends do, make one another smile.
            Oh yes, terrible, terrible loss of life. 147 I heard. One death alone is one too many, 147 in the name of a god is beyond words

            Liked by 1 person

  12. Since theists claim that their gods have done certain things, there should be evidence for these things. Since there is no evidence of these special things, and evidence for other things happening in their place, that is positive evidence that there are no gods, at least not the ones that believers claim.

    Like

  13. shelldigger says:

    I’m not sure how I missed this post…

    But DAMN!!! What a load of shit. This guy had best check his britches, something stinks. That is some of the most asinine bullshit I have heard come out of a creationists mouth. With all of the nonsensical B.S. that I have heard from creationists, this is saying something.

    Mak, I too am appalled at what these groups all over the world it seems, are doing in the name of their fucking gods.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      It seems gods want people dead. Could it be the population of hell has gone down beyond allowable limits?
      I like such posts. A parson who packs a load of stupid in less than 300 words is a good fellow. I hate it when they write long posts and you have to smear yourself with poo as you wade through the nonsense

      Like

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s