Prove creationism...I'll shut up!

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
What I meant is it applies to God in a general term, not exclusive only to Christianity.

Do you now comprehend? Or do I need to use simpler words?

So, when someone asks you a question, you assume they don't understand? Have you considered the possibility that I understand what you are saying, but I want you to back it up with more thought?

How can there be a unified god among all religions when they disagree and contradict each other?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How can there be a unified god among all religions when they disagree and contradict each other?

The same way Star Trek is one continuity despite not always matching up.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The "non-existence" of anything is a negative.

You might be able to show how it's existence is unlikely.
You might be able to prove that belief in it is illogical.
You still can't prove that it doesn't exist without violating logic.

What is "exist" in this case?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is "exist" in this case?

What are you smoking? Exist as in exist, to be real.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Prove to me that creationism is the true origin of life

What a peculiar line... How can a theory be the origin of life?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What are you smoking? Exist as in exist, to be real.

If I imagine something, doesn't that exist in my mind?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If I imagine something, doesn't that exist in my mind?

🙄

Physical existence then, the fact that you had to add a qualifier should have made that obvious. And if you're using that version then we can logically prove that the Christian god DOES exist.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
🙄

Physical existence then. And if you're using that version then we can logically prove that the Christian god DOES exist.

I was only asking for clarification. Some people jump between the two.

If something is not logical, can it be real?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

How can there be a unified god among all religions when they disagree and contradict each other?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If something is not logical, can it be real?

Sure.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
facepalm

Try answering the question.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sure.

Then you cannot prove or disprove anything.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then you cannot prove or disprove anything.

You can prove plenty of things by providing positive evidence for them.

Barring omniscience there is no circumstance in which logic will ever allow you to prove a negative. Take the teapot example: we have no way of proving that there is not a teapot orbiting Pluto, we have no way of checking. The same applies to pretty much any omnipotent being.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You can prove plenty of things by providing positive evidence for them.

Barring omniscience there is no circumstance in which logic will ever allow you to prove a negative. Take the teapot example: we have no way of proving that there is not a teapot orbiting Pluto, we have no way of checking. The same applies to pretty much any omnipotent being.

However, it is illogical for a teapot to be at that location in space, therefore, that is enough proof for me.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You can prove plenty of things by providing positive evidence for them.

Barring omniscience there is no circumstance in which logic will ever allow you to prove a negative. Take the teapot example: we have no way of proving that there is not a teapot orbiting Pluto, we have no way of checking. The same applies to pretty much any omnipotent being.

Actually, Shakya is right, if you believe that illogical things can exist, then you can't prove anything. You can get some amount of certainty, maybe, but you can't sufficiently prove something in the real world.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, it is illogical for a teapot to be at that location in space, therefore, that is enough proof for me.

Then you aren't using logic. You're using statistics.

Amazing how dumb this debate gets. Scientitic 'proof' (for as far as it exists at all) is not the end all.

Take Quantum Mechanics for instance... it's worked as a theory for some odd 50-60 years. But slowly but surely scientists are beginning to abandon it, because it doesn't always work. Yet, the theory has logic, it helps to understand the very basic beginnings of how matter is formed, it is logical. But reality on molecular level seems to be even more complex than the theory can fathom. So what's scientific proof worth in the end? It's only theory that hasn't been debunked yet. It's al very important what they do, but proof, hard proof... that is something one shouldn't adhere to too quickly.

Originally posted by queeq
Amazing how dumb this debate gets. Scientitic 'proof' (for as far as it exists at all) is not the end all.

Take Quantum Mechanics for instance... it's worked as a theory for some odd 50-60 years. But slowly but surely scientists are beginning to abandon it, because it doesn't always work. Yet, the theory has logic, it helps to understand the very basic beginnings of how matter is formed, it is logical. But reality on molecular level seems to be even more complex than the theory can fathom. So what's scientific proof worth in the end? It's only theory that hasn't been debunked yet. It's al very important what they do, but proof, hard proof... that is something one shouldn't adhere to too quickly.

it is interesting how quick people are to apply the lessons of post-modernism to science, which readily embraces such findings, and less how much less willing they seem to be in the application of the same logic to matters of belief, to which post-modernism is an anathema.

Originally posted by queeq
Amazing how dumb this debate gets. Scientitic 'proof' (for as far as it exists at all) is not the end all.

Take Quantum Mechanics for instance... it's worked as a theory for some odd 50-60 years. But slowly but surely scientists are beginning to abandon it, because it doesn't always work. Yet, the theory has logic, it helps to understand the very basic beginnings of how matter is formed, it is logical. But reality on molecular level seems to be even more complex than the theory can fathom. So what's scientific proof worth in the end? It's only theory that hasn't been debunked yet. It's al very important what they do, but proof, hard proof... that is something one shouldn't adhere to too quickly.

I think you are mistaken theories, which are supported by findings, for actual right out proof. And people follow such scientific evidence, because it has turned out to be the most favourable. A healthy scepticism is certainly a good thing, but a "well, I will go with what I believe unfoundedly, over what has accumulated a mind boggling amount of evidence in its favour cause it mightturn out to be wrong" seems a bit silly seeing what the scientific method has done in the past.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think you are mistaken theories, which are supported by findings, for actual right out proof. And people follow such scientific evidence, because it has turned out to be the most favourable. A healthy scepticism is certainly a good thing, but a "well, I will go with what I believe unfoundedly, over what has accumulated a mind boggling amount of evidence in its favour cause it mightturn out to be wrong" seems a bit silly seeing what the scientific method has done in the past.

There's even a name for it, the 100% fallacy.