russell as practical philosophy

“I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.”

― Bertrand Russell , Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects

This ladies and gentlemen is what i'm talking about. Sam Harris basically said the same thing. It is pandering to the Christian vacuum. You CAN prove it doesn't exist, simply, because things that lack definitions, by definition, cannot exist. Even IF someone came up with a consistent definition, and they cannot, that definition if at all similar to the historical incarnations, would contain contradiction. A thing cannot know all, for example, without knowing nothing; cannot know all, without knowing evil; cannot know all and be all-powerful without being able to stop it. It's not hard. There is no definition here. Never has been. And any pandering atheist that says God "could" exist but isn't proven, is as simple and ignorant of reality and logic as any Christian. Sorry Russell. You're an interesting guy, but not that bright. Go eat lunch with Sam Harris and, for that matter, invite Richard Dawkins, he said the same crap.

I'll say it again: It is not about how much evidence you do or do not provide. There's no amount of evidence that sheds any light on a contradictory concept. Try to prove that you're married next door neighbor is a bachelor. It's a dumb idea. Maybe Kant should have focused on synthetic a priori bullshit.