UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 1 to Meditation 1029
An Ontological Argument for
The Non-Existence of God

by: Paul Sharkey

To contribute your own opinion to this exchange of views, please use our Contact form.

Thank you for exposing this nonsense that “one cannot prove a negative.”  Moreover, not only can “nearly every negative statement … be restated as a positive” -- they all can and quite trivially so.   All one need do is append “It is not the case that….” as a prefix to any statement of denial (a “negative“) and by the law of double negation it becomes an affirmation.  This, and similarly changing affirmations into denials, is a fundamental principle of logic.   

When it comes to proving the existence  of something, however, logic alone will not suffice.   The most one can prove, lacking empirical evidence, is the possibility that the thing in question might exist.  However, it is quite otherwise when it comes to proving the non-existence of  something.  Here, logic alone does suffice to disprove even the possibility of a thing’s existence if its description involves a contradiction.    We can safely assert that there are no “non-circular circles,” “married bachelors,” or “eight sided cubes,” unless we completely abandon all meaning and rationality in asserting that there are.  

Similarly, I submit that there are no super-natural causes of natural events (including the existence of nature itself) because nature just is everything that exists including any and all of its causal relations.   A super-natural cause then could only mean a cause of some effect which is also completely independent and “outside of” (i.e., specifically unrelated to) nature.  But if nature just is “everything that exists, including any and all of its causal relations,”  then no such supernatural causes or supernatural effects exist. 

Q.E.D. -- My “Ontological Argument for the Non-existence of God” as a supernatural cause.