It’s often said by skeptics and scientists that ‘You can’t prove a negative’ or
that ‘It’s impossible to prove that god doesn’t exist’. Hell, I even used to say this, but it’s simply not true… you can prove a negative,
and you can prove that god doesn’t exist (depending on the definition of god)...
It's widely believed that one can't prove a negative - that one can't, to name but a few examples, prove that Santa, Unicorns, God,
or Russell's Celestial Teapot doesn't exist, but this isn't necessarily true...
Take Russell's Teapot for example; if Russell was to assert that between Earth and Mars there is a microscopic teapot orbiting the
sun, then, in this case, it might well be impossible (or as good as impossible) to prove the negative.
But if Russell was to also assert that the teapot is both entirely made of china and entirely made of steel, then we can prove the
negative because this concept violates the Law of Noncontradiction, which states that contradictory statements cannot both be
true in the same sense at the same time.
Nothing can be made entirely of china and simultaneously entirely of steel – this isn’t possible – and hence, by proving the
negative, we can prove the non-existence of such a teapot.

Now some will object to this by saying that we don’t know, with absolute certainty, that nothing can violate the Law of
Noncontradiction, but I would reply by saying that, with the exception of our own existence, we know absolutely nothing with
absolutely certainty, and so to demand that we have absolute certainty when proving a negative, but not absolute
certainty when proving a positive, is unjustifiably inconsistent – and so, this objection doesn’t stand.

Now before I tie this to the various concepts of the Abrahamic god, I just want to point out two things – the first is that the reason
why people say ‘You can’t prove a negative’, is actually to convey that the Burden of Proof is on the those who make an assertion,
and that those who dispute the assertion don’t have a Burden of Disproof. And of course, this is true – and this is the very purpose
of Russell’s Teapot – it illustrates the nature of the Burden of Proof – it doesn’t illustrate that you can’t
prove a negative.
And the second thing I want to point out is that many negatives are actually extremely easy to prove, both colloquially and
scientifically.
For example, if I were to say that ‘You can’t prove that this cup isn’t full of tea’, and you had access to the cup and clear
understanding of all definitions, then of course you can prove the negative – it’s not full tea… but it should be What’s
more, and to really knock this out the park, scientific papers prove negatives all the time!
For example, the assertion that ‘cell phones cause cancer’ has been overwhelmingly proven
false – or in other words, the negative assertion that ‘You can’t prove that cell phones don’t cause cancer’ has been proven!

Now again, such proof isn’t absolute, but neither is any proof, positive or negative. Anyhow, with this all said, let’s move on to the
non-existent entity that is the Abrahamic god.
Over the thousands of years since its inception, there have been countless definitions asserted for this entity. Some of which
insisting that it’s a white man who physically manifests above the clouds, and others that it’s three entities rather than one, who all
care deeply about who you sleep with and in what position.
But the most popular definitions, at least today, are one, ‘A transcendent and eternalbeing who created absolutely everything’
(which is actually a definition of the deistic god, not the Abrahamic god), and two, ‘A transcendent and eternal being who created
absolutely everything, who’s omnipotent (meaning that it has unlimited power), omniscient (meaning that it has unlimited
knowledge) omnipresent (meaning that it’s everywhere at all times) and omnibenevolent (meaning that it’s all-loving and infinitely
good)’.
Oh, and it’s worth noting that many theists additionally define this being to be just, merciful, and responsible for imbuing mankind
with ‘freewill’.
Now admittedly, the first definition can’t be proven false, because, like the existence of an intangible, invisible, and undetectable
celestial teapot, one would need unavailable and perhaps even impossible resources and knowledge to do so.
But the second definition can be proven false – and we can do so by demonstrating that one or more of its attributes are internally
contradictory; that one or more of its attributes contradict a law of thought; or that two or more of its attributes contradict one
another.

And so, let’s name but just a few of these contradictions, starting with omnipotence. As observed by the twelfth century polymath
Averroes, one can prove that the very concept of omnipotence is self-contradictory by asking the simple question “Can an
omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?”
If the answer is yes, then the being’s power is limited because it cannot lift the stone; but if the answer is no, then the being’s
power is limited because it cannot create the stone; and hence, an omnipotent being cannot exist.

Moving on, let’s now look at just some of the attributes that contradict one-another. First off, if a being is omnipotent then it’s
necessarily already omniscient and omnipresent, because it must already know everything and be everywhere in order to have
‘unlimited power’.
And so saying ‘god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent’ is like saying ‘the sea contains water, hydrogen and oxygen’…
considering that hydrogen and oxygen are constituents of water, one might as well just say ‘the sea contains water’.
Now sure, this isn’t so much of a game-ending flaw, but it certainly demonstrates that theists tend not to understand the nature of
these concepts.
A contradiction that is a game-ending flaw, however, is the combination of omniscience and human free will, because if a being
has unlimited knowledge (omniscience) then it knows all things, including the future, but if the future is known, then free will (the
ability to consciously do otherwise) isn’t possible. And finally, let’s look at two omni-attributes that are incompatible with reality –
that being omnipotence and omnibenevolence.
If a being existed with these attributes, then it would necessarily create the best possible universe, because it has unlimited power
(omnipotence) and it’s infinitely good (omnibenevolence), but one can easily think of a universe that’s better than this one – for
example, one in which innocent babies aren’t born with cancer!
Or to put it another way, and to expand upon a quote from the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus: Is god willing to prevent evil,
but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.’
Now there’s no two ways around this: if a being exists that is willing to prevent evil (that is, omnibenevolent) but is not able (that is,
does not have the power to do so), then this being is not omnipotent.
Epicurus continues, ‘Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.’
Again, this sentence is logically valid.
If a being exists that is able to prevent innocent babies from being born with leukaemia, but is not willing, then this being is
malevolent colossus prick! Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil? And again, this sentence is logically valid, and I personally think it’s the nail in the coffin for most
theists. If a being exists that is able and willing to prevent evil, then it logically follows that evil cannot exist… but evil does exist,
and therefore this being does not exist, despite the countless backflips apologists do in
the attempt to rebut this.
And Epicurus concludes with: Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?

So, to recap: Even though the Burden of Proof is on the one who makes an assertion, in many cases you can prove the negative
(even though you don’t have the burden to do so), and, depending on the attributes assigned to the Abrahamic god, you can prove
that god doesn’t exist.

And I’ll leave you with just one more version of the Abrahamic god whose non-existence can
be proven – that being one that’s ‘just’ and ‘merciful’. I’m sorry theists, but this isn’t possible, because mercy is by definition the
suspension of justice.