Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
You aren't reading what I'm writing. Atheists say god doesn't exist. The theist argument against that is that atheists can't disprove god's existence, therefore they are wrong to say that god doesn't exist. Don't strawman.
|
It wasn't a straw man. You come up with the same scientifically-based, illogical arguments over and over and over again (Which are nothing more than pseudo-science, at best). Following a purely scientific reasoning, if you can't disprove God's existence then you can't say that He doesn't exist. It's not rocket science. In fact, it's just plain old normal science.
To accept B you must reject A. If you can't reject A then you can't accept B.
It's really that simple.
Quote:
|
No, it's both. It's equally about proving what's right and disproving what is wrong.
|
No, it's not. Science isn't what you want to make it. I'm not going to re-state what I just wrote out a few minutes prior as you can look up a couple of posts and re-read what I wrote.
Quote:
|
There is no given data outside outdated religious texts and word of mouth. If there is zero proof of something, then the suggestion that it is not real is more reasonable than the suggestion that it is. That's where most atheists, myself included, stand.
|
The proof which you require is not the proof a theist requires. My beliefs only require a proof of faith. That is, God exists because the Bible, which is God's Word, states that He exists. You, by your own admission, seek scientific proof. The only way for you to definitively state that God doesn't exist is for science to definitively disprove His existence-- Something which science is unable to do. Arguing that God doesn't exist based on scientific reasoning when science reasoning clearly states that God might exist is-- For the umpteenth time-- A
logical fallacy.
Quote:
|
I'm glad you responded to this. What if I said that god was going to use my remote to turn the coke can into the sun?
|
It's impossible to disprove, as God can't be measured nor can He be qualified by science as, once again, science only deals with the
known and not the
unknown.
Quote:
|
No evidence exists, and no one can offer any reason to believe in the existence of god. It's incorrect to make the argument that a complete lack of evidence for something doesn't suggest it's non-existence.
|
Once again, no it's not. For as long as you argue based on science, then I'm going to continue to hold you to the rules of scientific reasoning/proof. In science a lack of evidence does not equal non-existence.
The only way to prove something non-existent is to disprove it's existence.
Quote:
|
Some theoretical evidence exists to suggest that the multi-verse is real. No evidence exists to suggest god exists. There's your razor.
|
I just responded to this. The statistical probability of God creating the universe is higher than that of the statistical probability of there being millions upon millions of multiverses, one of which being able to sustain life. Rather than admit that there could be an omnipotent and all-power Divine Creator, most atheists (Including Dawkins) argue that there is some other option which humans either haven't discovered or will be incapable of understanding (Which is just a fancy term for "God", but to each his own).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Why don't you folks have this discussion of proof in a thread that isn't about how unsuitable any one standard of proof is when one attempts to apply it to everything?
|
Hehe... Sorry. I'm done now anyway >_<