I'm in a debate with my buddy (an rabid atheist, yes rabid..lol) and I say there is no proof either way.
I tell him staunch Atheists are just as much a cult as staunch believers. They are just the cult of man.
2007-06-25 06:33:24 · 13 answers · asked by Peace Maker 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
He tried that with me. That the believer has to prove it.
Well, you believe in Gravity and its just a theory.
In math, proving something isn't true is easier than proving something is.......Mathmeticians make careers out of this....hmmmmm
Onus is on anyone who has stance either way to prove their position.
2007-06-25 06:42:28 · update #1
Hey KG...did you read the details...
I said there is no proof either way.
thats my stance on it.
Thanks for reading though.
2007-06-25 06:43:46 · update #2
There is no Santa...lol....ready I can prove this.
I have seen satellite photos of the North Pole and his purported residence is NOT THERE..
lol...lol
2007-06-25 07:04:01 · update #3
Adam T....ready... there are no purple zebras on the moon because we can watch the moon 24/7 and have not seen any. LOL
Who know, maybe they move in heards only on the darkside of the moon.
2007-06-25 07:05:26 · update #4
Many things are "proven" by proving the opposite is wrong.
Its done all the time in Math and Science...sorry if you don't know this.
2007-06-25 07:07:17 · update #5
They can't do it.
2007-06-25 06:47:22 · answer #1 · answered by JayDee 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A mathematical proof is different than a scientific proof. In science, you cannot prove a negative. That is a given.
Now, as to the proof here. You claim something exists, yet you have no evidence to support your claim. That lack of evidence, while not proving that it does not exist, should be enough, logically, for you to stop claiming that it does exist. I cannot prove conclusively that it does not exist, especially since, by definition, it is something which is beyond human understanding. However, as I am not the one claiming it exists, it is not my responsibility to disprove it. Imagine if nobody had ever said that god existed. Would anybody have to prove that there was no god? Of course not. Now, you have people saying that god does exist. Why should the burden of proof now be shifted to those who still say that there is no god? Does that make any sense to you?
2007-06-25 13:57:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Something is not considered to be real unless there is evidence for it's existence. There is no evidence for the existence of god, so he would be considered to be nonexistent.
If something was considered real because "there is no evidence either way", then we would have to consider anything that anyone makes up to be real. Anything from the tooth fairy to purple zebras on the moon could be argued to be real by your logic.
The existence of something is no based on if the absence of that thing has been proven. We define reality by how much evidence for something. So logically, and scientifically, god does not exist.
edit: no, those zebras are invisible. The purple part is an educated guess. Every 25000 years they move to the other side of the universe. They will not be back for a long time. If your friend has told you all this and you still rant on about it ...... then you have "blind faith". Therefore, there is no further reason to educate you, because it is going in one ear and out the other. Good day.
2007-06-25 13:46:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I can't prove there is NO god, but I think there is good enough proof for me that god of the bible does not exist. Check out George Carlin's test on praying or try this.
Flip a coin 100 times praying to god each time for heads.
Do the same praying to a pile of doggie doo outside.
Repeat both sets 10 times.
Religious responders will say this is a silly test, which god will not respond to. But I say, if your faith to believe or not believe rides on this test, is it really silly?
2007-06-25 13:48:03 · answer #4 · answered by John K 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are incorrect, and this has been done to death in here. Atheists differ very widely on almost everything except no belief in god.
As for proving that there is no god. It is a stupid statement. Can you prove that there is no Santa or Tooth fairy? It is exactly the same. In order for a thing to be disproven, there must first be some evidence that it exists in the first place.
2007-06-25 13:50:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I can prove to you that there is no God. But I'm going to have to kill you first....
Alternatively, the only "evidence" that God exists is found in ancient religious writings... testimony from people who claim to have actually talked to "God". But when you actually read these testimonies in their entirety (instead of just cherry picking verses you like) you find not only that these Holy Books are riddled with inaccuracies, contradictions, atrocities, and absurdities, but that "God" is a raging lunatic and homicidal maniac. Even if he did exist, why bother worshiping such a Being?
Despite what Theist and Creationists are taught, evidence from a lack of evidence is very compelling. If you take a strict approach, even my initial example would not "prove" that God doesn't exist. It would only prove that Jesus' alleged promise of eternal life/punishment as generally interpreted through the book we call The New Testament is false. However, if you play Pascal's Wager with every conceivable variation of "God" you've really created quite a conundrum.
Are you prepared to worship the 25-story Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man who lives on the other side of the Universe? You can't "prove" that he doesn't exist, can you? And I say that he created you and will punish you will hell-fire if you do not fall down immediately at his feet and beg forgiveness for your transgressions.
2007-06-25 13:39:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
"It seems to me that Bertrand Russell closed the door to this kind of thinking for all time with his 'celestial teapot' argument. Can we prove that there's not a china teapot in eliptical orbit around the sun at this moment? No. Does it make it reasonable to believe in the existence of such a teapot? No. Is it reasonable to be agnostic about such a teapot? Not quite. It's obvious that the burden is not on the atheist to prove the absence of celestial teapots.
"Every religious person recognizes this with respect to the other guy's religion. Every Christian knows exactly what it's like to be an atheist with respect to Islam. The Muslims think they have a book, the Quran, which is the perfect word of the creator of the universe. Why do they think so? Because it says so in the book. Not a good argument. Every Christian recognizes this with respect to Islam, but they don't turn the same criticism upon their own discourse. I think we must oblige them to." ~ Sam Harris
2007-06-25 13:36:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Foe someone to prove there is no God, they would have to know all that there is in the universe---not likely.
2007-06-25 13:43:48 · answer #8 · answered by paul h 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The onus is on the believer to provide proof otherwise you could just believe in anything.
2007-06-25 13:37:04 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
no one can prove that there is no God or that the is one. In my heart I know that God exists but no atheist can look me in the eyes and tell me out of his heart that there is no God.
2007-06-25 13:48:52 · answer #10 · answered by bullion 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
can you prove to me that there is a god
to the guy above me props that was a good one ha
2007-06-25 13:39:15 · answer #11 · answered by KG 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋