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.

Peace is defined as a lack of conflict and a freedom from fear of violence. It’s tranquility and harmony, and a critical component to happiness… and Islam my friends, is precisely not that…

For the purpose of clarity, I want to first put this assertion in a syllogistic form:

Peace is defined as a lack of conflict and a freedom
from fear of violence.
Islam acts according to and in seek of, peace. Therefore,
Islam is a religion of peace.

In my opinion, when someone employs this argument the first thing to do is to identify exactly how they’re
defining the word “peace”. The reason being is that there are two versions of this
argument;

The first is one in which the proponent is sincerely asserting that Islam is a religion of peace as defined colloquially, and the second is one in which the proponent is periodically using an Islamic definition of the word “peace”. Hence, this is why it’s important to get
them to define “peace” from the outset.

To debunk the second version first, it’s important that we first understand what exactly Islam means
within the Islamic world. The word “Islam” is derived from the Arabic word “salaam”, a word literally meaning “peace”, and Islam as a religious practice refers to a
person submitting herself or himself to the will of Allah in order to seek eternal peace and tranquility. Or to put it more bluntly, in the Islamic world, Islam is the definition
of peace, and therefore Islam is, by definition, a religion of peace.

Now if this isn’t an obvious example of *Circular Reasoning, I don’t know what is…



Defining Islam as peace and then asserting that Islam is peaceful is as circular as defining Nazism as love and thenasserting that Nazism is loving… not only is this confusing, it’s deceitful!

What’s more is that when the proponents of this argument use the colloquial definition of the word
“peace” within their first and third premises, but use the Islamic definition of the word “peace” for their second premise, they’re actually committing a classic *Equivocation Fallacy.



By interchanging between two different definitions of “peace” throughout their premises, their argument is incoherent and therefore invalid.

But what about those who assert that Islam is a religion of peace as defined colloquially? How exactly have these people come to the conclusion that Islam is indeed a religion of peace? Well, to begin, while they recognize that countless atrocities have been committed in the name of Islam, they nevertheless maintain that these acts are the result of fanatics, extremists and militants taking Islamic teaching out of context. But to raise an immediate objection, this claim is simply false. Flat out, demonstrably, false as the Quran and Hadith possess countless violent verses that instruct Muslims, and moderate Muslims do indeed endorse and commit many reprehensible atrocities with explicit reference to Islamic teaching.

What’s more is that they do incessantly claim jurisdiction over the experience of others, and so they are therefore not peaceful.

To name but a few examples, a poll of over 38,000 Muslims from over 39 different countries found that:
• 40% of moderate Muslims want the death penalty for those who leave Islam;
• 60% want Sharia law to be the official law of their country.


What’s more is that even 61% of “moderate” British Muslims believe that homosexuals should be punished…

[Source: Pew Research Centre: Religion & Public Life

So, as Sam Harris says, “the problem is not religious extremism, because extremism is not a problem if your core beliefs are truly non-violent. The problem isn’t fundamentalism. The only problem with Islamic fundamentalism, are the fundamentals of Islam.”

To hammer home this point, Harris often uses the example of Jainism as an actual religion of peace, as its central tenet is non-violence and respect towards all living beings… the more extreme a Jainist becomes,
the less we need to worry about them. But so far as I am aware, the same cannot be said for any other religion, and especially not for Islam.



To quote Harris again – “the problem is that Islam isn’t a religion of peace, and the so-called extremists are seeking to implement what is arguably the most honest reading of the faith’s actual doctrine.”

A second prominent objection that the proponents of this argument present, is that of contextualization. For example, to paraphrase Maajid Nawaz, “Muhammad and the history of Islam must not be judged by the standards of civilization that we, after an accumulation of thousands of years have arrived at. Islamic history must be judged by the standards of its time”.

But this is simply nonsense – and here’s why…

Islam has always uniquely claimed that its teachings are the final and unalterable revelation from the almighty,and that by extension its edicts are absolutely final!
Therefore, it can be said that because Muhammad practiced and Islam endorses and encourages
elderly men to take young girls as wives, this rule is final. For a Muslim to now contextualize this edict and practice is to reject that Muhammad’s example and revelation is final. In fact, it’s worth pointing out that in Saudi Arabia there isn’t an age restriction for marriage whatsoever… and of course, the reason for this is explicitly Islamic…

What’s more is that even if Islam didn’t claim to be the final and unalterable word of the creator of the universe, we still can and should judge its historical acts despite its context.
Future generations will most certainly look back at our actions today and judge us… and they should!

A third prominent objection that the proponents of this argument present is the assertion that Christianity
is not a religion of peace either – often by referring to the Crusades etc. Now of course, this is true – Christianity is definitely not a religion of peace, but to bring this up is simply a *Red Herring – it’s a distraction and a redundant use of energy. It’s the
equivalent of someone saying in a debate about Hitler’s atrocities that Stalin was worse…
it’s irrelevant, and a because of this it can be dismissed without serious consideration.



And finally, a small point I’d like to make before I recap is the fact that yes, pretty much any religion, or any ideology for that matter, can indeed be practiced peacefully – but this doesn’t mean that the religion or ideology is peaceful itself. To be a peaceful Muslim you need a very peculiar interpretation of the Islam indeed; you must reject the vast majority of its teachings and pick a mix the peaceful verses…


So, to recap, the second variation of the argument that Islam is a Religion of Peace is flawed because;
• It commits a Circular Reasoning Fallacy,
• It commits an Equivocation Fallacy.

And the first variation of the argument that Islam is a Religion of Peace is flawed because;
• Moderate Muslims do promote and commit atrocities in the name of Islam (not just fanatics)
• Contextualization is irrelevant,
• Some, but not all proponents of this argument, commit a Red Herring Fallacy.

Thank you kindly for reading and instead of leaving you with an overwhelming powerful argument to consider, I’m instead
going to leave you with a quote from Douglas Murry: “The fact is that Islam is many things…
many many things – but to say it’s a religion of peace is nonsense; it’s to ignore reality;
it’s to ignore very difficult, but necessary facts; not paradigms, but facts!”

*Circular Reasoning Fallacy: Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

* False Equivocation Fallacy: equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion.

* Red Herring Fallacy: Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue. In literature, this fallacy is often used in detective or suspense novels to mislead readers or characters, or to induce them to make false conclusions.




.
DSoj(m), otuekong1(m), farem, stalwart123(m), hakeemhakeem(m), davillian(m), vincoye, Righteousness89(m), okorotalkative, Birdeyeview(f), damble, chiefolododo(m), StrikeBack(m), vastolord4(m), uzohrome(m), SimDan95(m), MGab25(m), Spongia1(m), lordrayne(m), Therock5555(m), johnpaschal(m), kilokeys(m), DrayZee, Lhimeet(m), SIMPLYkush

Truth they say is a bitter pill to swallow. Yet a lot of people claim to be truth seekers. If the truth came to you, are you 100% ready to accept it?



.