Originally posted by Seraphim XIII
If you're going to make a claim, back it up. He doesn't exist? Prove it!
Statement of a fool.
Once more- it is not the business of science to prove negatives. The burden of proof is upon people to prove he DOES exist. No-one needs to prove he does not.
If you think the two positions are equitable you are simply displaying total ignorance. That is not the way that logic and rationality works. It's also part of a horrific double standard, because you do not apply this standard elsewhere in science, expecting it to give credit to the existence of things just because it cannot directly prove it wrong, even though that just about never happens in science and would involve observing the entirity of the universe, all places, all times. It's beyond unreasonable- and it is also entirely unneccessary. We don't give credence to the idea that a man can fly by flapping his arms simply because it might happen in future and we haven't observed it yet.
Science works on one thing alone- the interpretation of observed/discovered evidence. The fact that absolutely no evidence exists to show that he is real makes it reasonable for people to come to the conclusion that he does not. THAT'S the bottom line.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Statement of a fool.Once more- it is not the business of science to prove negatives. The burden of proof is uponn people to prove he DOES exist. No-one needs to prove he does not.
If you think the two positions are equitable you are simply displaying total ignorance. That is not the way that logic and rationality works. It's also part of a horriffic double standard, because you do not applky this standard elsehwere in science, expecting it to give credit to the existence of things just because it cannot directly prove it wrong, even though that just about never happen in science and would involve observing the entirity ofg the universe, all places, all times. It's beyond unreasonable- and it is also entirely unneccessary.
The fact that absolutely no evidence exists to show that he is real makes it reasonable for people to come to the conclusion that he does not. THAT'S the bottom line.
I fully agree with the bottom line there.
Originally posted by Lord Rock
God doesnt exist.
Everyone can write a book about something you cant prove not exists.
I just saw an flying rhino outside my window... You cant prove i dont saw it, its about believing... Doh... God doesnt exist as there is no proofs on his existence and will never be
The reason why this debate remains kinda unsolved is that there is no clear definition of "God" The definitions of God can vary widely, despite the use of the same term for them all. You must define what you mean by God before you attack it. If you picture god as a male figure that possesses certain morals etc, then you must acknowledge the fact that that is merely one definition of god. To simply say that god does not exist is kind of illogical. Yes, the probability of a flying rhino existing is far, far from reality. I can't prove that it doesn't exist but the chance of it existing is so farfetched that there is no point in addressing that definition of god.
Originally posted by Seraphim XIII
If you're going to make a claim, back it up. He doesn't exist? Prove it!
If I may expand on Ush's comment "The fact that absolutely no evidence exists to show that he is real makes it reasonable for people to come to the conclusion that he does not. THAT'S the bottom line."
We're not just talking about scientific evidence, we're talking about logical evidence. There is no evidence for his existence, so its entirely illogical to assume his existence.
A response of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is totally out of line. You are making an assumption without no prior evidence. An assumption that, therefore, is totally unjustifiable. Then asking people to disprove an unjustifiable assumption is ludicrous.
Part of that disproving would be that we would need to logically disprove every other possible idea (as Symmetric noted, that would require omniscience, which we don't have) including the existence of any other gods (Zeus, Allah, Shiva, Huitzilopotchli,...). This makes your argument about disproving god to be even more ludicrous, because we would have to disprove every god and every combination of gods to git to yours, something illogically impossible to do with a divine being that could take any form or tell us anything.
You have made the first claim. Prove it.
Re: You cannot Prove God's existence.
Originally posted by JacopeX
Or prove that the bible is all fake. It is actually based on [B]faith. I am catholic and I believe that faith is what you have even if your a non believer, or Christian, catholic, Muslim, etc. You cant prove god is real or not. Thats impossible really, as well as proving the existence of god wrong. All I have is faith, and I will always believe in god and my religion, holy spirit, Holy Catholic church, and life everlasting.So, I think it is pretty pointless to try to prove that God and the bible is true or false. If you don't believe in god, that is fine with me. You just don't have faith with it. You don't believe in a god. Does not mean you should try to ruin it all with so many things. We have our defence of our religion as well, but in my opinion, its all faith. So lets end the whole debate and move on. 😄
Thoughts? [/B]
You can, with one question:
Why does the universe exist when it doesn't need to (without a point! 😱 )?
Science is about answers, and according to science there is an answer for everything.
Christian Answer
The universe exists without needing to because someone made it, for a reason that only he knows, but atleast we know he made it because he wanted to!
Atheist Answer:
Whack (means nothing)
or it could be; Because it just does...(that's the answer people would have given for the rain falling back in the medieval days! it means you don't have a damn clue!)
If any atheist has a different answer, please, let me know!
Re: Re: You cannot Prove God's existence.
Originally posted by BananaKing
You can, with one question:Why does the universe exist when it doesn't need to (without a point! 😱 )?
Science is about answers, and according to science there is an answer for everything.
Christian Answer
The universe exists without needing to because someone made it, for a reason that only he knows, but atleast we know he made it because he wanted to!Atheist Answer:
Whack (means nothing)
or it could be; Because it just does...(that's the answer people would have given for the rain falling back in the medieval days! it means you don't have a damn clue!)
If any atheist has a different answer, please, let me know!
Your question unecessarily presumes that existent things must also be purposed.
Originally posted by BananaKingInteresting answer...hmm
You can, with one question:Why does the universe exist when it doesn't need to (without a point! 😱 )?
Science is about answers, and according to science there is an answer for everything.
Christian Answer
The universe exists without needing to because someone made it, for a reason that only he knows, but atleast we know he made it because he wanted to!Atheist Answer:
Whack (means nothing)
or it could be; Because it just does...(that's the answer people would have given for the rain falling back in the medieval days! it means you don't have a damn clue!)
If any atheist has a different answer, please, let me know!
Re: You cannot Prove God's existence.
Originally posted by JacopeX
Or prove that the bible is all fake. It is actually based on [B]faith. I am catholic and I believe that faith is what you have even if your a non believer, or Christian, catholic, Muslim, etc. You cant prove god is real or not. Thats impossible really, as well as proving the existence of god wrong. All I have is faith, and I will always believe in god and my religion, holy spirit, Holy Catholic church, and life everlasting.So, I think it is pretty pointless to try to prove that God and the bible is true or false. If you don't believe in god, that is fine with me. You just don't have faith with it. You don't believe in a god. Does not mean you should try to ruin it all with so many things. We have our defence of our religion as well, but in my opinion, its all faith. So lets end the whole debate and move on. 😄
Thoughts? [/B]
And as such you can not prove God exists either. Usually when I am presented with a situation where two choices exists - say to believe in something or not, then I will go with not if there is no proof of any kind for either.
I just find it very hard to go "Ok, so I will believe despite the lack of evidence since it clearly makes more sense then assuming the lack of evidence is indicative of there being nothing to create evidence, since it doesn't exist."
And by your logic, well, shouldn't you be believing in every other faith as well? I mean - you can't disprove them either, now can you? They are faith based. So either every religion might be true and right, or none might be true or right.