If you find an electron with a positive charge, you will re-classify it as a proton. I have--you read it here first--discovered a new subatomic particle which I am tentatively calling a quarkerino because it has properties of both quarks and neutrinos. Prove to me it doesn't exist.
The problem is not single-property or multiple-property analysis, but unfalsifiable claims of the supernatural and the miraculous. Nearly everyone in the world (we atheists are a smallish bunch) believes in both. Even many people who don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god believe in ghosts and fairies and such. Prove they don't exist. Then we can move on to Russell's tea pot.
It sounds like the real issue is what I'd call null statements of the form "X is conceptually possible but physically unsubstantiated." These kind of statements are a necessary stopgap between expectations and actualization, but they are relentlessly misunderstood by most arguers.
Null statements can be refuted by the simple recognition that they are empty claims, so they have no bearing on anything physical and they have no power over other ideas. They are nothing more than floated expectations until a positive or negative statement can be made. Intellectually, null statements are like prehensile tails or inactive DNA; it's just refuse that gets carried along in the wake of living things.
Despite the obvious issue that your quarkerino can be refuted by logical contradiction, it has the same fundamental problem as ghosts and fairies and such: they don't have any noticeable impact whatsoever on the rest of the (non-believing) world, so they're simply irrelevant to everyone else. The ultimate demise of null statements is obscurity.
It can be proven there is no Omnipresent God.
Just look in front of you, to the left of you and to the right of you, behind you, up and down. You will not see him. You can do this experiment at home or in the office, in America or Saudi Arabia. And at any time. You will never see the omnipresent God.
For me this is proof there is no Omnipresent God.
There are many things that exist and are not detectable by the normal senses, like radio waves or neutrinos. (Neutrinos are pretty much omnipresent)
If a god existed, I wonder if there is any argument that a god-detector could be invented.
Someone, somewhere, in prehistory was the first to invent the baloney idea that purporting there was a god could explain a lot of things that were not otherwise understood.
Billions of people have accepted the baloney ever since. This does not make the baloney god any more believable than before. In fact no more believable than the many other fictional story inventions like pink unicorns and Russell's orbiting teapot.
That is why I cannot accept the baloney god idea, even to the level of 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%
The proof, apparently, is that we exist. If there was no god to create us, we would not exist. but then the kind of person who is ready to accept this as true is not the kind of person who will listen to logic, science or any other kind of truth that doesn't come from their bible.
Electrons with a positive charge are called Positrons, kind of.
or are you redefining the meaning of words.
So there are electrons with positive charges? Or there's another kind of particle? In any case, the process of logical exclusion doesn't work with supernatural claims.
Craig, Discoverer of the Quarkerino
I Google statements that I think are interesting here. And at least try to find out if there is an example of that statement in the real world.
To put it simply; electrons with a positive charge are called positrons. They exist. And experiments can be done with them.
the process of logical exclusion doesn't work with supernatural claims.
To put this statement into layman terms: If one supernatural claim exists other supernatural claims can exist at the same time.
If the process of logical exclusion does work in the supernatural world, only one supernatural claim could exist and no other supernatural claims could exist at the same time.
So, what do you mean exactly by your statement.