Can anyone prove that something DOESN’T exist?

It may be a waste of time, but I keep hearing the ol’ “it’s not for me to prove God doesn’t exist, YOU have to prove He exists” burden of proof shift. So, I’ll try my best to get rid of this excuse so that proper conversation can take place.


First things first, though.

A scientific proof is different than a philosophical proof.

When people say “prove that God exists” or that “pink unicorns don’t exist” there tends to be a scientific proof undertone that doesn’t really belong.


Science can’t prove things that aren’t physical.

So, no science hasn’t proven that God doesn’t exist o that He does exist. It can’t. Assuming God exists, He cannot be a physical being. C.S. Lewis put it this way: it’s like expecting the architect of a building to be a wall inside that building. Since God isn’t a part of the physical realm, science cannot prove or disprove God.

Last thing before we continue: Science is not the only way to obtain truth. We can be certain - absolutely certain - of things in philosophy; it’s called an apodictic certainty. Really. It’s important to note that philosophy CAN be use to prove things that aren’t physical. Like God or unicorns.


Let’s take pink unicorns, for example. I use it deliberately, since I’ve literally read: “You can’t prove that pink unicorns don’t exist.”

Well, I’m about to try it anyway. But first you should know that I mean the classical view of a unicorn - what a person first thinks about when they hear the word “unicorn.” I do not mean a rhinoceros, or a one-horned anything or an altered common horse. 

  1. Premise 1: Intentionally fictional things and/or characters don’t exist.
  2. Premise 2: Pink unicorns are intentionally fictional things and/or characters.
  3. Conclusion: Pink unicorns don’t exist.


Allow me defend the premises:

Premise 1: Intentionally fictional things and/or characters don’t exist.

When a character or something is made with the intention of being intentionally fictional, that something is not real - even though it may be based on true events and/or characters. Santa Claus, for example, is an intentionally fictional character that we stop believing in because people don’t believe in intentionally fictional characters, even if they make them feel good about themselves.

Premise 2: Pink unicorns are intentionally fictional things and/or characters.

This is pretty self-evident since the only time the term pink unicorn is thrown around is as a mockery of Christianity and it’s something that is usually made up on the spot, with the clear intention of making it fictional.

The conclusion flows inevitably: Pink unicorns don’t exists.


There you have it. Anytime someone asks for prove that pink unicorn don’t exist, do just that.

Have a great day everyone!

Tell me about yourself :) what's your denomination? Can you tell me what the difference between the major denominations are? This is partly because I'm curious, and partly because I'm wary of getting advice about my faith from the internet :P

Hey, there, Anon!

There’s a link with all the stuff you need to know about me. Click away, kiddo.

As for denominations, there’s Three Doctrinal levels we need to understand:

  • The Essential Doctrine
  • The Secondary Doctrines
  • The Tertiary Doctrines

It’s important to understand that the Secondary and Tertiary Doctrines both “live” within the Essential Doctrine. In other words, when we talk about the last two Doctrines, we’ll be assuming that we’re talking about people/churches that have already accepted the Essential Doctrine as true.

With me, still? Awesome.

Read More

My little niece, who’s had to pee almost since the movie “Frozen” started, finally got up and went to the bathroom after Elsa’s big number.

And she’s singing: “Let it flow! Let it flow…”

C.S. Lewis on the existence of God

C.S. Lewis on the existence of God

How I feel all the time

How I feel all the time

The reason behind the low self-esteem of every Mildred in their late 20’s, early 30’s.

Really funny stuff from! Go check it out!

Really funny stuff from! Go check it out!

Why Doesn’t God Heal Amputees?


This argument is an internet sensation, but I find it utterly unconvincing for a few reasons: 

1. This objection assumes that God has never healed an amputee.  However, how can one know that God has never healed any amputee ever in human history?

2. It is possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for not healing amputees. Since this is at the very least possible, this objection fails.

As philosopher J.P. Moreland has pointed out, it is possible that:

“God maintains a delicate balance between keeping his existence sufficiently evident so people will know He’s there and yet hiding His presence enough so that people who want to choose to ignore Him can do it. This way, their choice of destiny is really free.”

3. Even if God has never healed an amputee at any moment in human history it still does not follow that He doesn’t exist.  One still must deal with the positive evidence that suggests God does exist.

4. I believe the person making this objection is operating under a false assumption.  Let us imagine that an amputee prays to be healed and wakes up the next morning with their once missing limb fully in tact.  I could easily imagine those who would still search for a naturalistic explanation for how the limb returned in spite of the evidence that a miracle had occurred.  This objection assumes that the problem is intellectual.  However, it could be that the objector is suppressing the truth simply because they do not want to be accountable to God.  In other words, it could be that their problem with God is not an intellectual one, but a moral one.

(*) rights not owned, original source here

-Richard Wurmbrand, The Answer to the Atheist Handbook

-Richard Wurmbrand, The Answer to the Atheist Handbook

The true mercy of God chose this most powerful way to destroy the devil’s work; He would not use the power of force, but the reason of justice.
Henry De Bracton
Newfound identity in Christ compelled me to live in obedience to God whether my temptations changed or not. The gospel is about more than just correct beliefs; it leads to correct living as a result of correct beliefs. Biblical change is not the absence of struggles but the freedom to choose holiness in the midst of our struggles.
Christopher Yuan
When I say Christianity is true, I mean it is true to total reality - the total of what is, beginning with the central reality: the objective existence of a personal-infinite God. Christianity is not just a series of truths, but Truth - Truth about all reality.
Francis Schaeffer (from A Christian Manifesto)
Gay is NOT the new Black

[Awesome article by Voddie Baucham.]

It’s hard to deny that homosexual marriage appears to be a foregone conclusion in America. This is a frightening prospect not only for those of us who understand marriage to be a testimony of the relationship between Christ and his bride, the church, but also for all who value the family and its contribution to the well-being of society and human thriving. And while it’s difficult to watch a coordinated, well-funded, well-connected propaganda strategy undermine thousands of years of human history, it’s especially disconcerting to witness the use of the civil rights struggle as the vehicle for the strategy.

The idea that same-sex “marriage” is the next leg in the civil rights race is ubiquitous. One of the clearest examples of the conflation of homosexual “marriage” and civil rights is Michael Gross’s article in The Advocate, in which he coins the now-popular phrase “Gay is the new black.”1 Gross is not alone in his conflation of the two issues, however. At a 2005 banquet, Julian Bond, former head of the NAACP, said, “Sexual disposition parallels race. I was born this way. I have no choice. I wouldn’t change it if I could. Sexuality is unchangeable.”2

Read More