Replies

"Did you even read the story you linked? The author does not make the claim that he has disproven the existence of God.

I have a hunch that you don't even have a definition for what "God" means."

Watkins does claim that the concept of God cannot be "disproved," but only because it has been constructed as outside the realm of proof and scientific investigation, outside the capacities of the human mind to ever fathom or interact with. Therefore, it must be rejected as arbitrary (since, being outside science, no evidence can be presented in its favor, and it attains a status equivalent to that of my hypothetical microscopic purple polka-dotted slime bugs from the previous post) and inviable, as, according to Rand's Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Man's mind is CAPABLE of fathoming reality in full using the tools of the mind (including the ability to make technologies that extend the realm of the senses). Therefore, ANY construct that purports to be unfathomable or SUPERIOR to the human consciousness must be automatically discarded as false, however many variations on it there may be.

This is a sort of "disproof" of God, in a different sense than Watkins means it. Watkins focused on "disproof" as meaning the demonstration that God is NON-EXISTENT in all possible ways. I interpret "disproof" as meaning that the CONCEPT of God is UNTENABLE in all possible ways. Ergo, by that alternate consideration, I can be said to have used reasoning furnished by Rand, Watkins, and Occam to have disproved God.