In any debate between a theist and an atheist you can find this monster. Atheists demand proof for the existence of God. But they never welcome a demand for proof of non-existence of God. Immediately throw up this argument and hide behind this argument. Hide is what they do.
This is how they do it. They immediately ask “Prove to me that a ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’ or a ‘Pink Unicorn’ does not exist.” Then they say “You can’t prove the non-existence of something”.
- Let us take a close look at this argument. This argument two parts – an object in argument and a statement. So in this argument:
Object: Flying Spaghetti Monster
Statement: Its non-existence cannot be proven.
I put it down in this way to make it clear to all. So the statement being true is dependent on the object. When you place object as “Flying Spaghetti Monster” then the argument is true. But will it still remain true if the object is changed? This is what they conveniently ignore or are not aware of. They claim that this argument is true even if you change the object. Well that is not so. What happens if the object is replaced with say “Obamma”. Well since “Obamma” is not a non-existent object, the argument falls apart. Therefore this argument cannot be used as an absolute argument
- Another way to look at this is as follows. It is a fact that a spaghetti monster does not exist. Therefore it’s non-existence cannot be proved. But is God non-existent? If God was non-existent then the statement would be true. But since God’s existence is question this argument cannot be used and is invalid.
This is an old argument. It has been refuted by many people. But still they do not want to accept what has been logically explained. Because if they were to let go of it then they would have to think for themselves and bring out new arguments.
Are atheists and skeptics capable of this? Are they honest? Do they have the courage and sincerity to throw away old and stale arguments and present valid logical arguments by themselves?