If you intresting in sport Buy trenbolone and Buy testosterone enanthate you find place where you can find information about steroids
  • Resources

  • Book of the Month

  • Shopping on Amazon? Use this search box and support Dangerous Talk at the same time.
  • Blog Directories

    blog search directory Religion Top Blogs
  • AdSense

The Ontological Argument for Disproving God

My fellow atheists have often stated that you can’t prove a negative. While atheists shouldn’t have to prove a negative, I do think we can actually prove a negative. Today I am going to do exactly that.

Just as Anselm tried to use an Ontological argument to prove there is a god, I will use an Ontological argument to prove there is no god. The following video will be my entry into the Project-Reason video contest. If my video is among the 10 finalists, I hope you will all vote for it on February 15th.

Bookmark and Share

Enhanced by Zemanta
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • Steve in SA

    It seems to have a few problems, the most obvious of which would be what I would call a “fixed goalpost” fallacy. This would be where the arguer (you) assumes that the arguee (apologists) will not be changing the rules mid-argument. Next is that the apologists would claim that his proving himself like that would affect your freedom of will. And finally they would fall back on the old, tired “You cannot know the mind of God”.

  • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

    Well, the “fixed goalpost” isn’t a fallacy. Moving the goalpost is the fallacy. So that’s not really an issue. Second, while I am sure an apologist might claim that, such a claim does not invalidate the argument. Besides, I would argue that we would still have the “free will” (which I don’t really believe in), we would just be making a more informed choice. I could for example believe god exists and still reject him. I could believe he existed and still rebel against him and/or refuse to worship him. As for the third point, if we are assigning these attributes to God (as defined in the video) then we can conclude certain things about the God by definition.

  • Steve

    staks, you debate logic with logic, not with stupidity.

    your argument assumes you know what god wants. i can assure you like i assure any theist, there is now way to!

    god may well want us all to be atheists. like a parent that must let a child grow up by experiencing pain, joy, love, and the rewards and defeats from unfettered choice. god must remain hidden, if he exists, in order to for such an experience.

    and while that may not be a stimulating argument, it is entirely possible that a much better, elegant god-narrative could be developed. thus, proving your ontological argument singularly proves your assumption about what god desires, wrong.

    thanks for playing, staks.

  • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

    The problem is that you are rejecting the definition put forward for god. That’s fine, but then the argument wouldn’t apply to your definition. I still think the argument works for the god as defined within the argument. This accounts for most people’s conception of god.

  • Steve in SA

    I’m sorry, I was trying to be funny, guess it failed.

  • mj

    My only real problem is with your statement that, “at minimum god is . . .” In actuality there are many theists (including christians) who don’t claim god to be all knowing or all loving. I’d edit out the “at minimum” and replace it with “many people think” or something like that.

  • http://www.dangeroustalk.net Staks

    Fair enough, how about, “the commonly held definition”?

  • AJ Bird

    This argument is very simple and refutes a definition of God held by many if not most theists. Many will, of course, attempt to change their definition once you’ve pointed out all the flaws. The only thing I would change is the last sentence. Rather than say, “Therefore, God does not exist.”, I would say, “Therefore, this typical notion of God does not exist.”

  • Pingback: Dangerous Talk » Liar, Lunatic, Atheist Argument

  • Pingback: Dangerous Talk » Science Can’t Prove It Doesn’t Exist