Devil's Delusion

Posts: 1
Joined: 2008-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Devil's Delusion

People like David Berlinski ( "The Devil’s Delusion)" keep asking us
to prove that there is no such a thing as a god. But they do not tell
us how to go about doing that. Do we gather together all the things
we have so far been unable to prove do not exist? Should we add
together , say, the Tooth Fairy,God, the Leprechauns and Marley’s
Ghost and then divide by zero? After all, the measurable evidence for
the existence of any one of these is exactly equal to that of the
others. Does zero divided by zero indicate there is zero chance that
such a thing as a God exists?

But then, since their likelihood of actually existing is exactly
equal, in each case, does one not cancel the other out? Or shall we
assume that if all the things we cannot prove to not exist is
enormous enough, does that prove that they must actually exist by
sheer weight of numbers? Well, there are over one hundred thousand
known deities ( some may be extant,someone's god bless them).so the likelihood that one of them
may exist seems high alright, but which one, if we have to disprove
its existence?

Seems to me the theists should get together and pick just one deity
for us to prove that it does not exist. Somewhat unfair, as I see it,
for us to have to disprove the existence of hundreds of thousands of
deities. The ball, I suggest, is in their court.
Andy Mulcahy
Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this amazing universe and it seems sad that so many waste it on spiritual fantasy

High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forums.The

Welcome to the forums.

The burden of proof always falls on the claimant for exactly the reasons you mention.  If it is required that everything which does not exist be disproven, then we could literally never know anything about anything.

Imagine that I propose to you that everything you perceive is wrong.  You must disprove this before you can begin to prove anything.  The problem, of course, is that the only evidence you have with which to prove or disprove anything is linked to a perception, and I have just proposed that all your perceptions are wrong.  No matter how many times you change your mind, you must assume that your perceptions are wrong -- even when your perception of logic tells you that a thing cannot be true and false at the same time.

You're literally stuck in an endless paradox.

Of course, if disproof leads to paradox, it becomes obvious that the burden is for proof, not disproof.  If something like god is immune from the burden of proof, there is a burden of proof upon those who would make that claim.  They must demonstrate why god is immune!


Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
Books about atheism

SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
It's called the burden of

It's called the burden of proof.  Do a search on this website, you'll see many threads dedicated to it.  You cannot disprove invisible pink unicorns, nor can you disprove the celestial teapot.  The burden is not on the person who claims something doesn't exist, it is on the one who claims it does as only they have the capability to prove such a claim.  All "proof" offered by theists is cherry picking at its finest or arguments from ignorance.

Cherry picking was shown very well by my god and savior pm9342 or what ever his name is (it's in my sig) in his currently most recent thread where he said to ask the lady who was pulled out of wreckage after the china earthquakes of prayer works.  That is just one person.  If you're going to ask that person you should also ask the tens, hundreds, if not thousands who were pulled out and don't believe in said deity as well as the tens, hundreds if not thousands who were pulled out and were no longer alive.

Arguments from ignorance all revolve around not knowing the answer, so some rough imaginative idea must be true.  Disprove one thing does not in any way shape or form prove the other, nor does it give the other more credence.  This can be seen by visiting any random ID website.  It's all they have.

Welcome to the board.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: | NZ: