I read this a lot. The claim is false, however, in general.

For example, I can prove a negative any time that the negative can be proved by examining a finite number of cases, simply by examining all of them.

So “No coins exist inside my pocket” is a negative, which can be proven by checking my pocket for coins. So, from a logic standpoint, the claim that proofs of negatives are impossible is false.

I read this a lot. The claim is false, however, in general.

For example, I can prove a negative any time that the negative can be proved by examining a finite number of cases, simply by examining all of them.

So “No coins exist inside my pocket” is a negative, which can be proven by checking my pocket for coins. So, from a logic standpoint, the claim that proofs of negatives are impossible is false.

You cannot prove God does not exist. Nor, does the atheist have to. The atheist is not making a positive claim. The theist is making the claim, therefore the theist has to prove that God DOES, in fact, exist. To date, there has been no valid proof of God’s existence. (I would add, “that I know of,” except for the fact that if there WAS a valid proof of God’s existence put forward at some point in the past, no one would be arguing the point.)

You cannot prove God does not exist. Nor, does the atheist have to. The atheist is not making a positive claim. The theist is making the claim, therefore the theist has to prove that God DOES, in fact, exist. To date, there has been no valid proof of God’s existence. (I would add, “that I know of,” except for the fact that if there WAS a valid proof of God’s existence put forward at some point in the past, no one would be arguing the point.)

One is that they disagree from a fundamentally philosophical standpoint. They might accept that supernatural events are not obviously manifest and that God only reveals himself to those willing to make the leap of faith. They accept only balls >100 are drawn but that the evidence for God lies somewhere else: in the human quest for meaning or the structure and order of life. In which case, the urn example lays explicit the areas of agreement and disagreement. In which case, Occam’s Razor is a valid counterargument and you can then move forward from there.

The other is that they simply disagree with you on a factual level. To them, faith healing is real and demons have a manifest effect on the world. Miracles happen all the time and you would have to be *stupid* and *blind* to be an atheist. To them, it’s so obvious that supernatural events are happening that they never even consider that another person could view the world differently. What this example demonstrates is that yes, atheists too would be convinced by supernatural events. A ball with the number 417 would convince an atheist the urn is red just as easily as a bona fide miracle would convince them of God’s existence. The point of contention is on an interpretation of evidence, not philosophy and you can go into why the ball they think looks like a 417 actually looks like a 17 to you and thus, completely comfortably fitting into the green urn.

If you differ on a factual level, then Occam’s Razor is completely a non convincing argument. If miracles are happening on a daily basis, then the simplest explaination really is that god exists.

One is that they disagree from a fundamentally philosophical standpoint. They might accept that supernatural events are not obviously manifest and that God only reveals himself to those willing to make the leap of faith. They accept only balls >100 are drawn but that the evidence for God lies somewhere else: in the human quest for meaning or the structure and order of life. In which case, the urn example lays explicit the areas of agreement and disagreement. In which case, Occam’s Razor is a valid counterargument and you can then move forward from there.

The other is that they simply disagree with you on a factual level. To them, faith healing is real and demons have a manifest effect on the world. Miracles happen all the time and you would have to be *stupid* and *blind* to be an atheist. To them, it’s so obvious that supernatural events are happening that they never even consider that another person could view the world differently. What this example demonstrates is that yes, atheists too would be convinced by supernatural events. A ball with the number 417 would convince an atheist the urn is red just as easily as a bona fide miracle would convince them of God’s existence. The point of contention is on an interpretation of evidence, not philosophy and you can go into why the ball they think looks like a 417 actually looks like a 17 to you and thus, completely comfortably fitting into the green urn.

If you differ on a factual level, then Occam’s Razor is completely a non convincing argument. If miracles are happening on a daily basis, then the simplest explaination really is that god exists.