You can't prove God doesn't exist
It is not uncommon for apologists to make statements like, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," when they are challenged to support their own claim that God exists. Such statements are intended to shift the burden of proof, and therefore represent a logical fallacy.
- "Since we do not know everything, no one can disprove the existence of God. God might be somewhere outside of our knowledge. Moreover, if we knew everything—which is the only way to disprove God—we would end up being God ourselves and, thus, atheism would be false! "
Argument from ignorance
Arguments similar to, "Belief in proposition X is justified because you can't prove it's not true," are based on the premise that belief in something is justified until sufficient evidence refutes its existence (i.e. argument from ignorance). In this case, the theist is asserting that belief in God is justified even without evidence. While this view may seem reasonable to those who already accept the existence of God, this approach to belief merely represents a form of compartmentalization. If we were to broadly accept the general premise (i.e., "belief is warranted because you can't prove a negative"), we would be unable to develop any useful picture of reality because every claim would be necessarily accepted as true until it was disproved. This is a burden that is impossible to meet when dealing with supernatural claims. The theist is compartmentalizing his or her supernatural beliefs and applying standards different from those applied to other beliefs. To put it more bluntly, a rational person does not seriously claim that leprechauns or unicorns must be assumed to exist because we have not disproved their existence.
Tellingly, apologists typically apply this premise only to questions pertaining to their particular religion — and not to questions pertaining to other religions. The Christian who argues, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," would almost certainly reject such an argument from a Hindu who says, "You can't prove Vishnu doesn't exist!" This compartmentalization, in which one's cherished beliefs are subjected to a special set of standards, is a form of special pleading.
Burden of Proof
Apologists have the burden of proof for the existence of god since they are making a knowledge claim and their view is unfalsifiable. Philosopher Bertrand Russell compared the attempt to disprove god to attempting to disprove the existence of a celestial teapot. Since it is impractical to expect a disproof of either and are therefore unfalsifiable, the burden of proof cannot lay with the skeptic.
Great pumpkin objection
- Main Article: Argument from divine sense
Many people might object that if belief in God is basic (i.e., rational without evidence), why can't any belief, such as a belief in the Great Pumpkin, also be basic? Therefore, the view that synthetic propositions, such as the great pumpkin exists, can be basic is a broken compass argument. Alvin Plantinga, a Christian philosopher of theology, responds to this objection by arguing that our culture and our society help form our understandings of rationality, and that we should move away from a foundationalist account for basic beliefs. If the paradigm can be shifted such that belief in God can be considered properly basic, then no further justification is necessary, and the assumption of God's existence is warranted. The problem with Plantinga's response is the absence of universal standards for judging whether a particular belief can be reasonably taken to be basic. Ultimately, shifting the argument to validating God as a basic assumption forms the dubious basis of presuppositional apologetics.