This is simply feedback about the article:
Is a Proof of the Non-Existence of a God Even Possible? (1998)
by Jeffery Jay Lowder

There are certainly internal/psychological reasons that it is beneficial to believe that atheists can be sure of their beliefs - that is, they can have a stronger position than agnostics. Nonetheless, it actually is impossible to prove a negative existential proposition (NEP).

The crux of the article (quoted verbatim below) is that "there are no proofs of a NEP" is itself an NEP. This is an equivocation. The actual statement is "one cannot prove an NEP." Let me ask, how might you prove that there is not an invisible, massless leprechaun on my head right now? In fact, you can't. However, if you knew certain properties of massless invisible leprechauns, such as that they cannot withstand taunting, and then you proceeded to taunt the space above my head, you would make progress, and could validly argue that there is no massless invisible leprechaun on my head.

Again, this would require true propositions about the existence of a hypothetical something, and then a way of testing to see if both the proposition about the something and the existence of this something are both true.

Atheists are in an awkward position, however, since they have no propositions about the existence of a god to work with (i.e. "no god can withstand taunting," or, perhaps closer to home, "no god could write anything that I disagree with").

This truth is the foundation of the definition of the fallacy argumentum ad ignorantium, and is also the foundation of the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty.

Cheers,
Adam Baker

--
But the most decisive refutation of Adler's claim that "negative existential propositions cannot be proven" is the fact that the claim that "negative existential propositions cannot be proven" is itself a negative existential proposition. If negative existential propositions cannot be proven, then that implies there are no proofs for negative existential propositions. But the claim that "there are no proofs for negative existential propositions" is itself a negative existential proposition. I therefore conclude that Adler's a priori objection to negative existential propositions fails.

-DM-

[Thank you for your feedback regarding <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/ipnegep.html" target="_blank">Is a Proof of the Non-Existence of a God Even Possible?</a> by Jeffery Jay Lowder. E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post. --Don--]

-DM-

[Copied here from Feedback by request. -Don-]

Jobar

My answer to this difficulty is simply to point out that it is equally impossible to prove the nonexistence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The number of unevidenced-but-imagined entities is for all intents and purposes infinite; why must we try to absolutely disprove any of them? We need but ask for some unequivocal evidence *for* a particular entity's existence- and not finding any, relegate it to the realm of fantasy.

This lack of absolute disproof allows us unlimited mental flexibility- for if some evidence for, say, leprechans, comes to light a thousand years from now, we may re-examine all the available evidence and, if the new evidence is compelling, re-evaluate the scientific status of leprechans. It keeps us aware of our own lack of omniscience.

If theists try to claim that some version of God exists absolutely- we need but ask for absolute proof, and ignore them until they can offer it.

Goliath

The author of the OP does not take into account of some weak atheists (such as myself) who do not claim that no gods exist.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Ledrox

A negative existential proposition (NEP) is a proposition that has the basic form: “X does not exist.” An equivalent proposition is “There are no X’s” of which the meaning is identical to “X does not exist”, only it is stated in a different sentence format. The proposition “There are no proofs of a NEP" (let’s call this NoNEP) does have the form of a negative existential proposition, where X = “no proofs of a NEP”. This is the same as the basic form, “No proofs of NEP’s exist.” Therefore, NoNEP is itself a NEP, and hence, self-contradictory.

NOTE: NoNEP is only self-contradictory if it means that all NEP’s are a priori unprovable i.e. if NoNEP means “Provable NEP’s do not exist”. If NoNEP means “there are no proofs of NEP to this day (but possibly there could be in the future)”, then it has quite a different meaning, and is not self-contradictory.

What Adler actually said though, as you point out, is “one cannot prove an NEP." What did he actually mean? Did he apply it to all NEP’s? If so, then Adler is wrong because many NEP’s can be proven. I can prove that there are no 3-headed detectable dragons living in my closet. As Lowder pointed out, there are 2 ways to prove NEP’s: by seeing if the entity in question is self-contradictory (like square circles) and by empirical means, as applies to my detectable dragon. Lowder says that Adler did not elaborate and defend his claim so we not sure exactly to which of the 2 ways he was applying his statement.

Regarding the 2nd method, the provability of NEP as regarding an entity X depends on the spatial and temporal parametres of the entity in question. “There are no bears on the Isle of Wight” can be proven by traveling all over the island. If indeed, no bears have been sighted or ever reported, the statement, as an inductive one is strong. This of course assumes that by “bears”, one means that they are detectable in some way.

Quote:
Atheists are in an awkward position, however, since they have no propositions about the existence of a god to work with (i.e. "no god can withstand taunting," or, perhaps closer to home, "no god could write anything that I disagree with").

The reason why atheists might be put into this ‘awkward’ position is because the theist provides no testable statements about their deity. Numerous theists will often claim that the existence of their deity cannot be tested or proven or falsified, and that it is a matter of faith. From another point of view, it also puts such a theist in an awkward position. If there is no way to verify or falsify the existence of their deity, then there’s really no reason to believe such a deity, other than an emotional one, such as appeals to an afterlife or the benefits of being cared for by a paternalistic deity in exchange for worship.

Quote:
This truth is the foundation of the definition of the fallacy argumentum ad ignorantium, and is also the foundation of the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty.

I think this is a sweeping overgeneralization and oversimplification of the atheist’s case. The case of atheism does not rest on the idea that “since the theist cannot prove their invisible undetectable incomprehensible deity exists, it doesn’t exist.” Now, theology has provided several arguments purporting to prove or provide evidence for a deity. Atheism shows up the flaws in these arguments. However, the case of atheism does not even rest there. Based on the statements provided by monotheistic religions for their deity, atheism makes it case in two ways, which Lowder mentions in his essay: (1) internal contradictions alleged about the nature of the deity e.g. perfection vs. creator of the world [see Drange’s essay “Incompatible properties arguments: a survey”] , (2) a contradiction between the attributes of the deity and a particular state of affairs e.g. the existence of gratuituous suffering and an omnibenevolent deity. If a theist were to make the case, which some do quite often: “you are unable to disprove my invisible undetectable incomprehensible deity, therefore it exists” is equally a fallacy ad argumentum ad ignoratium.

I am not sure how the principle that “one is innocent until proven guilty” applies to matters of philosophy and science. There is no such principle and, in fact, it does not apply. This principle applies specifically to matters of law, and even more specifically, a trial of a PERSON in a court of law. And it applies only in countries that have adopted based on their particular views on the rights of the accused. So far as I know, some countries like India, adopt the contrary of “guilty until proven innocent.” The Napoleanic criminal code adopted it as well. I’ve heard people attempt to employ this principle, particularly theists, in order to bolster their arguments. It usually translates into: “a proposition should be accepted as true by default (innocent) unless proven otherwise (guilty).” This is a fallacy . No proposition by default is to be accepted as true or false unless there is evidence to determine which is the case.

Quote:
There are certainly internal/psychological reasons that it is beneficial to believe that atheists can be sure of their beliefs.

Certainly, this can be applied to certain theists as well (I am not making a sweeping overgeneralization about theists as the quote does about atheists.) There can be internal/psychological reasons that it is beneficial for theists to be sure of their beliefs, or in the very least, insulate the possibility of casting doubt or disproving the existence of their deity. To do this, they state the existence of their deity in such a way that is unfalsifiable, such as being undetectable, incomprehensible, transcends logic, etc. These all attempt to remove the deity from the realms of skepticism and bolster the faith. However, by doing so, they also remove their deity from the realms of verifiability.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Ledrox ]</p>