You can Prove a Negative:

Both some atheists and theists alike claim you can not prove a negative. By this, they mean you cannot prove something does not exist.

This is untrue, and is based on poor understanding of the basic laws of logic.

- For example, one can safetly say a squared circle does not exist. This is due to the law of non contradiction. It is the case that something cannot be both what it is, and what it is not simultaneously. Example:

-> 'A' cannot be both 'A' and 'B' simultaneously, as to be 'A' it must not have the nature of being 'B' which has the nature of being itself and not 'A'. - So, 'A' can only be 'A', and 'B' can only be 'B'. They cannot exist as one simultaneously.

-> For a circle to exist, in its nature is to be completely round with no edges. A square has the nature of having four corners and in no way round. For a circle to be both a circle and a square simultaneously, it would need to have the nature of being both completely round and have 4 sides at the same time. But this is abusrd. The nature of a circle and square are distinct from one another, and to be both simultaneously would show a contradiction. To be more clear, both the nature of a circle and square cancel the other out, so they cannot exist as one thing.

-> Due to the above, you can prove that something does not exist. If something has contradictory properties as a squared circle would, then its the case that this cannot exist.

-> This is important to the theist/atheist debate. The relevancy is due to the existence of certain God's having properties that are contradictory with reality or itself.

Example: Some Atheists say a God cannot both have freewill and be omniscient. This is because to be omniscient, a God would know every possible action prior to its realization. If this is true, then a God would necessarily know every action it will commit before the actions realization. If that is true, the God does not and cannot have freewill. God cannot both be free to act but know how God will act.

Example2: Some atheists claim 'An omnibonevolent God cannot exist if there is gratuitous evil'. The argument claims that if a God is all loving, then gratuitous evil would not exist. This is because an all loving God would want gratuitous evil to not exist, and being omnipotent would allow it to prevent such evil. So the Atheist would say the existence of gratuitous evil is inconsistent with a God that is both Omnibonevolent and Omnipotent.

Due to the above examples, it is clear that people try to show that God has attributes that are inconsistent with reality, and therefore 'Proving a Negative' is both possible and very relevent to the question of 'Does God exist?'