tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22685205.post3918972522125772615..comments2007-09-11T12:43:53.856-04:00aafsa.ufhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01223941246119748796noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22685205.post-73935906798454500732007-09-11T12:43:53.856-04:002007-09-11T12:43:53.856-04:00Hey Jared,<BR/><BR/>You're right, universal negative propositions *can* be proven---but only by demonstrating a contradiction in terms. (I suppose I'm employing the analytic-synthetic distinction here.) There's a difference between proving "No bachelors are married" and "No ravens are blue." The first can be shown to be true merely by analyzing the meaning of the term "bachelor" and the term "married." The second, however, could never be shown to be true, but only to be probable.<BR/><BR/>But you're right, strong atheism *does* make sense in cases when "God" is taken to mean "the omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient entity which exists 'outside' of space and time." If we analyze the meanings of words like "outside" and "space," or "omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence" taken together, we may come up with a contradiction in terms and thus "prove" that this sort of god could not exist--just as a married bachelor could not exist. But if these qualities are not packed into the meaning of "God," then this cannot be done.<BR/><BR/>So you're absolutely right, and I will qualify the bit about strong atheism. But I do think that we ought to make the distinction about which sorts of universal negative propositions can be "proven"---i.e., only those that are true by virtue of their meaning.<BR/><BR/>(That said, I'm persuaded by Quine's critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction in his "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," so I'm not entirely sure where that would leave us in the case of strong atheism and God... which is fascinating and something I've never thought of before. I'd love to hear your thoughts about that if you have any you'd like to share.)<BR/><BR/>-ryanryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15414257787420519097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22685205.post-17047797469098452342007-09-11T11:02:52.274-04:002007-09-11T11:02:52.274-04:00With regard to point 2 on Atheism and the alleged fallaciousness of proving an universal negative proposition:<BR/><BR/>It seems to me clear that we can (properly) prove universal negative propositions. I take these to be some proposition of the form:<BR/><I>For all x, x is not F</I><BR/>or equivalently,<BR/><I>There does not exist an x such that x is F</I><BR/><BR/>Mathematicians prove propositions of this sort quite frequently, I think. Take for example the rather famous proof that the square root of two is irrational. From a <I>reductio</I>, it is shown that for all x, if x is a square root of two, x is irrational. To put it another way, there does not exist a square root of two that is rational. These are univeral negative propositions.<BR/><BR/>To return to the issue of atheism at hand, it seems to me that a strong atheist can have very good reason for claiming to know that God does not exist. Perhaps omniscience is impossible given the nature of the past and future and quantum mechanics. Perhaps omnipotence necessarily conflicts with omni-benevolence. Perhaps the existence of unnecessary suffering is good justification for believing that a good God cannot exist. In each of these atheistic positions, the knowledge claim (of a universal negative proposition, that for all x, x is not God) seems very much justified.WhatRoughBeasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00052751379404837848noreply@blogger.com