Taking It Back

In my last blog, I said I'd move on to the topic of debate, but I'm not going to. I have to tackle an argument previously presented by explaining the logic behind it. I previously made the statement, "There is no proof that God or "god" does not exist." I also mentioned that this statement is invalid. Here's the idea behind that:

The process of making this statement follows the conclusions and premises:

There is no proof that God exists.
If there is no proof that something exists, then it must exist.

Therefore, God exists.

This argument should be obviously invalid. I think what makes it obvious is the "then it must exist" part. Most people can see the problem when it's broken down like this. Another way to put it:

There is no proof that God exists.
If you cannot prove to me that something does not exist, then you cannot logically deprave me of that belief.

Therefore, because there is no proof that God does not exist, then I am free to accept this as truth.

This is not quite as invalid, but does not show an argument for God alone. If you are willing to believe that lack of proof of something deems its credibility, then any basic premise of science becomes invalid. Our entire belief in science and reason is based on logic and proof. Without that, it all becomes invalid.

This isn't so much as a reason to refute this argument as it is a rule for establishing a basis of accepting what CAN be true. Without this rule, we can replace God with any silly thing we want. And in that case, there's no limit to what we can claim as true. We need restrictions here, so we have to validate possibilities by evidence. This is the whole idea of not having to prove a negative.

If for something to not exist, you have to provide truth, then you cannot reasonably argue your point versus anyone. This doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong, but it does mean that you can't enter a debate about proofs. You're not within the guidelines of what is acceptable for proofing. And if that's your stance, stop reading this blog. Also, do not enter debates opposing anyone else's beliefs. You have no basis for argument.

Anyway, I'm drinking and may have to rewrite this to make sure it isn't gibberish when I'm sober later, so I'll just sum up the point and call this a blog. The argument that God exists because there is no proof of the lack of his existence is an invalid argument because it doesn't follow any guidelines that allow us to establish a basis of debate. It violates the reason for accepting even our most basic laws of science.