OK, now we are getting somewhere. Based on the answers to this question:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkMzAvzs40njVz19YoztMVrsy6IX?qid=20060728104224AAtCNVo
We can conclude that a lack of evidence that something has been done isn't a valid proof that the thing can never be done.
If I say something like "curing Alzheimers is impossible", then it is fair for someone to ask me to explain why I think it is impossible. Right?
2006-07-28 06:55:59 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
haterhater, Nope I have not been using the same argument over and over. I broke an old argument, that no one seemed to understand, down into small palatable steps. By the way, you didn't answer the question.
2006-07-28 07:09:19 · update #1
thomasrobins, at this time, yes. But isn't medical knowledge advancing? Couldn't evidence for a cure for Alzheimers crop up some time in the future?
2006-07-28 07:12:57 · update #2
starcow: Actually, I am a supporter of the concept of evolution.
2006-07-28 07:14:34 · update #3
I prefer to say improbable, or impossible at this point in time with our current technology (i.e. the mars question). It's not that I'm uncomfortable taking a stand. But there are very few things in life that adhere to absolutes.
"It is impossible for me to jump in the air 20 feet". I would say improbable, or impossible with current limitations. Because you never know what the future holds. (OK silly example, but hopefully you get my point)
2006-07-28 08:33:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Your logic eludes me Will. Your last line: Medical knowledge at this time tells me that Alzheimer's is incurable. Your argument is no further by saying things like that and your analogy could be taken by Atheists that nothing has been proven either way. Therefore they are entitled to their opinion that there is no God until you can prove it. As a Catholic, I am playing the Devil's Advocate, so why don't you just leave it as a matter of Faith. You gain no points by playing into their hands.
2006-07-28 14:05:13 · answer #2 · answered by thomasrobinsonantonio 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like a great argument for not giving up evolution simply because we haven't found all the evidence to support it yet
2006-07-28 14:03:42 · answer #3 · answered by starcow 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i believe in god
but i think the burden is up to the person claiming that something is true to provide evidence
atheists are often very enthusiastic about giving you reasons why they think it isnt true
every question in life ultimately comes down to what is more probable, and in the case of the atheist, i think what they are getting at, is not that it is impossible that god created the universe, but that it is unlikely
2006-07-28 13:59:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is true, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, but not all athiests are that hardcore about the issue. I'm a passive one. I don't believe in a god, but I will never say one never exists.
2006-07-28 14:00:21 · answer #5 · answered by Brandon W 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a "straw man" logical fallacy. You have no obligation to prove or disprove that God exists, but neither do you have the right to assert knowledge that he does exist.
2006-07-28 14:03:54 · answer #6 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well Athiests don't go by faith, so YES you should have to explain and show proof. Otherwise you are being a hypocrite to your non belief.
2006-07-28 14:01:08 · answer #7 · answered by blaze 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is no law that says u have to do anything. But if u want to have a rational debate, or discussion I think it's fair to explain it.
2006-07-28 13:59:10 · answer #8 · answered by zatte 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hey, you've been using this argument over and over. I think they got the point.
2006-07-28 14:00:01 · answer #9 · answered by haterhater 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
only if you want to be taken seriously. People believe all kinds of impossible stuff, that's why there's insane asylums.
2006-07-28 13:58:00 · answer #10 · answered by Kenny ♣ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋