Francis asked:

Can you prove that God does not exist?

============

A good question! I am so used to tackling the argument for God's existence that this has rather
caught me on the back foot.

First, taking the two questions side by side: "Does God exist? — "Does God not exist? — It might
appear on the surface that both questions are in the same category, and that each argument could be
commenced at the same point, but this is not the case. Perhaps philosophers like A J Ayer might say
that you are asking the wrong question. He might say that, like the unicorn, you have invented
something simply to prove that it does not exist. He would insist that the position is: Now that you
have posited a God, prove his existence.

Taking on this question could mean taking the arguments for God's existence and simply saying that
such arguments are invalid. For example, many who claim that God exists use the argument from
'order in nature,' those opposed would simply have to say that there are other explanations for order
in nature, which could be backed up by scientific argument. Evolution could press its claim to be
simply a series of fortuitous accidents. All religious writings could simply be dismissed as mythology
and illusion. In fact, all we would have to do is sit back and claim that science will eventually come up
with an answer. There is no need to build up an image of God simply to knock it down. The onus is on
the believers to prove that there is a God.

My conclusion is that to answer your question would involve us in an interminable search for proof of
an argument which lacks a positive, authentic, basis to start with. The question is in a very different
category to — 'Does Mount Everest not exist?' It falls within the same category as, — 'Do unicorns
not exist?' Though believers would say that there is more supportable evidence for God than there is
for unicorns.

John Brandon