The original argument was allowing magical thinking to apply, given that magical thinking is required in order to even talk about the existence of gods in the first place. It was more a reflection on how theists shift their goal posts constantly when faced with logical argument. A unicorn is here, if you can’t see him its because he’s invisible to people he doesn’t want to be seen by etc.
Ergo, you can’t prove the unicorn isn’t there, they have to prove it is there.
We are not dealing with logic
Proof of a negative.
“There is no such thing as a 3-sided square, because a square is defined as having 4 sides (among other things).”
By definition.
2nd method: You must have a simultaneous universal knowledge of the set in which the object is to be observed.
Can’t apply this one to god, but I can prove there is no elephant in my office here… I have a simultaneous universal knowledge of it, as well as the fact that by definition, an elephant wouldn’t fit in here.
BOOYA!
@TheEnglishAthiest I think the point that he was trying to get at is that proofs for the nonexistence of certain entities are possible even if we don’t know how to formulate those proofs.
The original argument was allowing magical thinking to apply, given that magical thinking is required in order to even talk about the existence of gods in the first place. It was more a reflection on how theists shift their goal posts constantly when faced with logical argument. A unicorn is here, if you can’t see him its because he’s invisible to people he doesn’t want to be seen by etc.
Ergo, you can’t prove the unicorn isn’t there, they have to prove it is there.
We are not dealing with logic
Proof of a negative.
“There is no such thing as a 3-sided square, because a square is defined as having 4 sides (among other things).”
By definition.
2nd method: You must have a simultaneous universal knowledge of the set in which the object is to be observed.
Can’t apply this one to god, but I can prove there is no elephant in my office here… I have a simultaneous universal knowledge of it, as well as the fact that by definition, an elephant wouldn’t fit in here.
BOOYA!
@TheEnglishAthiest I think the point that he was trying to get at is that proofs for the nonexistence of certain entities are possible even if we don’t know how to formulate those proofs.
fine your playing with Maths. now prove the nonexistance of fairies.