LogFAQs > #979180694

Toonstrack posted...

There being no "evidence" isnt itself proof of non-existence. The planet neptune always EXISTED, but there was no evidence to humanity that it existed until they found it. Megalodons always existed, there was no evidence of its existence until we found it.

The difference is that no one was claiming, "Hey these things exist and I discovered it and I call it this," prior to actual evidence being found. The theory of ocean super predators or considering the lineage of modern sharks can lead to evidence or hints of Megalodon existence. Fossils led to Megalodons being proven. Evidence of gravitational perturbations caused by Neptune was used to track it down in the sky and prove its existence.

The onus is on you to provide evidence that a god exists, not for others to provide proof otherwise, from a perspective of logical evidence.

"Proof of non existence" is a failed concept on an open set. I can make the claim, "There is no such thing as a six leaf clover." The only way to prove this is untrue is to go around the world and check every instance of the plant at a minute level of detail, which is impossible from a logical standpoint. Therefore the statement is meaningless. Proof of non existence only works on a closed set, such as, "There is no six leaf clover in this box." If the box's contents can be verified, the statement can then be true.

A person can say they believe in a god, and that is not a fallacious or meaningless statement. But for that same person to say that god is objectively real is a statement that they must then prove. Until it is proven, the statement may or may not be fallacious, but it can be no better than meaningless.