The Nirmukta Freethought Community

If creation is possible then god(s) can exist and if creation is possible then an Apple can pop out of nowhere? No need for an Apple TREE? If we can divide an apple into two parts we mean 1/2 and if we can destroy an apple into zero then it is 1/0 but an apple can't be destroyed into nothingness and an apple can't come out of zero. If 1=0, creation and destruction are possible but " ONE is not equal to ZERO " So, creation and destruction are not possible thus, god(s) can't exist.

(13-02-2011 01:30 PM)way12go Wrote:  If creation is possible then god(s) can exist and if creation is possible then an Apple can pop out of nowhere? No need for an Apple TREE? If we can divide an apple into two parts we mean 1/2 and if we can destroy an apple into zero then it is 1/0 but an apple can't be destroyed into nothingness and an apple can't come out of zero. If 1=0, creation and destruction are possible but " ONE is not equal to ZERO " So, creation and destruction are not possible thus, god(s) can't exist.

Let me set down here several objections about this 'proof', NOT because of any theistic agenda, but just so that we ourselves don't base arguments on the very fallacies that we readily (and rightly) lambast the other side for using.

It is a non-sequitur to say that 'The Law of Conservation of Mass Energy implies the non-existence of a supernatural being'. Specifically, one type of non-sequitur in this argument ( 1) If creation, then God, 2) No creation 3) Hence no God) :
is denying the antecedent. Addressing just one reason, here creation, for the possible existence of God(s) does not eliminate all other reasons.

The term 'God' itself is left so undefined that any claim for His/Her/Its existence would be unfalsifiable. It is only falsifiable statements that can be demonstrated to be false and even when unfalsifiable statements are false, no demonstration can be provided for the same. What we CAN do is to falsify claims of religion whose consequences are empirically discernible, but we CANNOT do is demonstrate the falseness of the unfalsifiable claim that 'God exists'.

Once again just in case, I am not saying that God exists and all that I am saying is that what has been provided is not a proof for the same.

This may seem like hair-splitting but when we claim to be advocates of reason, we cannot afford to use terms like 'proof' so loosely and cannot base our arguments on such flimsy foundations and end up unwittingly supplying fodder for our opponents.