If I may critique the article:
They violate the most fundamental law of logic-the law of noncontradiction-which says that nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time. So one way to prove a universal negative is to show that the notion of a thing is inconsistent.
This is actually a very strange false dicotomy. While on the surface, it makes sense, we now know of phenomena in the universe that
do have a property and lack it at the same time. The real world is more complex than simple binary (yes/no) logic would have us believe. So, right from the get go, his argument has a real world flaw, even though it is valid within the philosophical context it is presented.
To prove that God does not exist, then, one only has to demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent.
This would only be true if (1) the above assumption were true and (2) there were a concrete, non-floating definition of "God"
Traditional theism defines God as a supreme being-a being than which none greater can be conceived, as St. Anselm would have it. We know, however, that there is no supreme number because such a notion involves a logical contradiction. Every number is such that the number 1 can be added to it. If there were a supreme number, it would be such that the number 1 can and cannot be added to it, and that's impossible. Many believe that the notion of a supreme being is just as incoherent as the notion of a supreme number.
Is the heirarchy of "being" completely analogous to the concept of numbers? What he presents in this passage is not an argument, but an opinion. As such, it is unproductive to the discussion.
Consider, for example, the claim that god is all-good and thus both perfectly merciful and perfectly just. If he is perfectly just, he makes sure that everyone gets exactly what's coming to them. If he is perfectly merciful, he let's everyone off. But he can't do both. So the notion of a supreme being may be internally inconsistent.
Okay, this is a valid contradiction, but I have a few problems with the way he presents it. First, the author claims that this is an example of the analogy with numbers given above and I'm not sure I see the connection. If someone can explain how this exemplifies or supports the connection, please let me know.
Second, this is, yet again, another of the many free-floating definitions and criteria for the term "God". He's not found an internal inconsistancy for the concept of "God" but for one definition of "God".
What if it's logically possible for the God of traditional theism to exist? Does that mean that one cannot prove that he does not exist? No, for in order to prove that something does not exist, one need not show that it is logically impossible. One need only show is that it is epistemically unnecessary-that it is not required to explain anything. Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan.
Oo. This is flat out incorrect. These various thing were disproven, not because other explinations were found that didn't require them, but they predicted things that did not occur. Ether, for example, predicted an "ether drag" that was never observed. I'm not that familiar with "phlogiston", but Vulcan would have been predicted to be certain places at certain times based on orbital calculations. Obviously it was a no show.
proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt.
Hey, he got one right!
Screw the rest of the article. The author's premises and general understanding of science is enough off base that any evidence presented toward those premises would be pointless.
I'm sorry, Yahwah, but I can't see any merit in this piece.
