1) God doesn’t exist because you can’t prove that He does.
2) God must exist because you’re unable to prove that He doesn’t.
2006-10-28 10:56:58 · 11 answers · asked by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
1: Non sequitur (non-existence doesn't follow from being unable to prove existence).
2: Non sequitur (existence doesn't follow from being unable to prove non-existence).
2006-10-28 11:07:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The burdon of proof rests upon the shoulders of those who make the positive assertion. Saying "I am without belief in god because god has not been proven" is NOT unreasonable. The philosophical default stance is nonbelief until proof is provided. Now saying "God doesn't exist" as opposed to "I am without belief in God" are two different things. Some people may not appreciate the distinction but it's there.
Oh, and appealing to lack of proof of the negative applies specifically to #2.
2006-10-28 11:08:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, it's not the same.
"There is a God" is a positive claim. You are saying a being exists as an explanation for the world.
By Occam's Razor, since we do not need God to explain the world, the hypothesis is not needed and can be ignored.
Since there is no proof at all of the hypothesis, then it is discarded. It is not placed into an 'unknown' category, but rather a 'false' category. It is much like the justice system; hypotheses are considered to be false until proven true, and not 'undecided' until proven true.
2006-10-28 11:01:48 · answer #3 · answered by Michael 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Assigning an absolute answer without any evidence to back-up the conclusion.
The problem is in the aristotolean bias of the english language meme. It requires a statement to be either true, or false. Binary in it's requirement. The problem is that it is very difficult to deal in concepts of maybe, or anything less than an absolute assignment of value to a statement.
2006-10-28 11:04:01 · answer #4 · answered by Hatir Ba Loon 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Which is more absurd-to think that this oasis of a planet with its finely balanced eco system. its interdependece of creatures and species, the alternation of night and day, the food we eat which grows from the ground-the mastery over millions of other species-our own creation-from a drop of semen, to an embryo to a foetus to a developing baby to birth, to childhood to maturity and then to old age and then to death-Which is more absurd-to think it just happened without a Supreme Power called God (who is not an old man with white beard) or that it was created for a purpose?
Faith is like intelligence or good looks. you either have it or you dont. If you dont have it you are destined for the Hellfire. If you have it, you are destined for Paradise.
Peace
2006-10-28 11:15:27 · answer #5 · answered by destinyembracer 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
association fallacy: asserts that characteristics of one are inherently characteristics of yet another, in straight forward terms by technique of association. obviously "communism" doesn't inevitably inherantly lack idea in gods, so the association doesn't continually even exist for the fallacy to ensue.
2016-12-05 08:04:48 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem with these questions is they both require Empirical data.
If i have a thought and you cannot see or hear this happen does this mean the thought never occurred?
2006-10-28 12:25:56 · answer #7 · answered by ormus 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the existence of God is based on faith...so either way, you are asking for proof, but faith is belief without the existence of proof.
2006-10-28 11:01:38 · answer #8 · answered by littledrummergirl 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
icarus the rodent says it correctly.
2006-10-28 11:10:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
ad hominem
2006-10-28 11:10:30 · answer #10 · answered by Random 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋