Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MrWiggles]

There is no scientific evidence either for or against the existance of any God.

That's......... not true.

Please enlighten us all. I'm sure that If it was 'proved' either way, then it might have been mentioned somewhere in the morning papers. Tucked away somewhere between the stories of earthquakes and cat's stuck up trees. I'm no theologist or philosopher, but it would seem pretty impossible to prove the existence or non existence of a God. If I am wrong then maybe someone can explain in language that we can understand, pre-coffee. Argembarger, religious debates are always going to be endless and go in circles, because they can have no conclusion. I'm still pissed off that some peoples lives are heaviliy affected by others' beliefs many thousands of miles away. It's not about to stop overnight though. At least this debate has been civilised and respectful.

Well, this silly statement of proof one way or the other, is well, silly.

You dont need proof one way or the other.

If those which believe in their god cannot proofer evidence then you can functional as if doesn't exist. There no burden of proof on the nay-sayers. Theist have the burden of proof. Until its there, the default position must be held that there is no god.

[Realmfighter]

Your talking like this is some sort of court case between god and an uncaring universe.

[Neonivek]

Your talking like this is some sort of court case between god and an uncaring universe.

I've heard of that Comic. Shehulk was on the side Universe!

[Leafsnail]

If this experiment were somehow pulled off (wiping memories or whatever) they probably wouldn't attach much significance to their racial differences, as they wouldn't know any different.  It'd be like hair colour is to us.

[Realmfighter]

We cannot know until we try.

TO THE MAD SCIENCEMOBILE.

[MrWiggles]

Its not a court case. Its asking for the proponents of god(s) to give evidence, and in the face of no evidence then there is no reason to accept it.

[fqllve]

Yeah, but most theists don't really care whether or not you accept it.

[MrWiggles]

Yeah, but most theists don't really care whether or not you accept it.

Most theist never placed in real thought in what they believe and why.

[ECrownofFire]

Wiggles, why do theists have the burden of proof when atheists don't? You seem to be going on the assumption that if it isn't proven, it's false.

Yeah, but most theists don't really care whether or not you accept it.

Most theist never placed in real thought in what they believe and why.

Congratulations, you have stumbled into a minefield, enjoy your (short) stay.

[fqllve]

Most theist never placed in real thought in what they believe and why.

That's a bold generalization. But even if it is true, what's it matter? Most musicians don't place any real thought into why they use the diatonic scale.

Wiggles, why do theists have the burden of proof when atheists don't? You seem to be going on the assumption that if it isn't proven, it's false.

Because the burden of proof generally rests on the person making the positive statement.

[Leafsnail]

Well, if you're putting forward a hypothesis that has never been observed, yes, you have the burden of proof.

It's not that you can't be wrong, it's just that, if your hypothesis is untestable (note: not "unprovable", "untestable".  As in, no evidence for or against it), you have to take a sceptical position.  And, indeed, even if you are right... if the world is exactly the same as a world without the untestable hypothesis, who cares?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Wiggles, why do theists have the burden of proof when atheists don't? You seem to be going on the assumption that if it isn't proven, it's false.

Because theists espouse that somthing is, while atheists only espouse that it is not.

Ex: A child who never learns of religion would never adhear to one, unless they somehow managed to found the concept independently, but would otherwise remain an implicit athest.

In addition, theists make an extraordinary claim, and thus must provide proof to match. Atheists make a claim that is simple, and only exists as a reaction to theism. The world can exist without god, so god must be proven to exist. As such, theists have the burden of proof.

Ex: I could claim invisible mice are preparing at this very second to devour your toes while you aren't looking, but you have no reason to believe me unless I show you proof of these invisible mice rushing to devour your toes, perhaps through an infared photograph.

[Realmfighter]

If you simultaneously not tell a child of god and of science, then you would have them trying to explain whats going on around them.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

True, they would likely use fokelore-esq tales of their own invention to explain the world, as these were historically the earliest attempts to explain reality as we know it.

[Realmfighter]

Most theist never placed in real thought in what they believe and why.

You know all those silly idiot who say that they have had near death experiences, or have been saved by their angel?

They've thought about it.