I just don't see how it's theoretically possible to disprove God's existence

Take this first instance.

Obviously we have the bible, and obviously this tells us of scriptures of the old.

Well, what about the stories of Pharoah back in the days of Moses? These stories stemmed from actual historical events.

So why is it so hard to accept the fact that these events had some divine intervention, if the authors of said scripture used actual truth, therefore shouldn't it be assumed that since their writings stem from truth, that they wouldn't deviate from that philosophy?

Look at Greek Mythology, it's gone because it's been disproven. No God is holding the sky up and such, we've proved these things with Science

But christianity is persistant. It has withstood repeated bludgeon after bludgeon by the scientific community, only to come out even strong a thousand years later.

And it's obvious that science is not flawless. We only know it's truth until disproven otherwise. In Science theories have been disproven and we have found new truth. Christianity has survived these claims at disproven such a notion. So therefore, wouldn't it make sense to wonder why such a religion is so strong? Why there have been millions upon millions of believers? It's because it provides strong evidence of its existence, but at the same time it is not conclusive proof of its existence.

So, what I'm really trying to say is, Christianity, in essence, is much like science. Both have strong evidence of their existence, and yet, at the same time, there is no definitive proof of either one (such as subcategories of science like Quantum Mechanics and theories such as the one electron universe)

You cannot disprove something that never fvcking existed.

Why did you think this needed yet another thread? Just curious.

You cannot disprove something that never fvcking existed.

Communist_Soul

Here we go again.

You cannot prove that something doesn't exist. The burden of proof, however, does not lie on the sceptic. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

You cannot prove that something doesn't exist. The burden of proof, however, does not lie on the sceptic. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

worlock77

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

You cannot prove that something doesn't exist. The burden of proof, however, does not lie on the sceptic. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

SaintWalrus

Yes, it does. The burden of proof lies on any claim.

[QUOTE="Communist_Soul"]

You cannot disprove something that never fvcking existed.

SaintWalrus

I actually love the world, I'm going to Africa this September to volunteer...

Anyways one you don't have a thesis, I did use logic because you can't disprove a negative. Atheism is not a belief that a god doesn't exists more over it's the defacto state of all humans when they are born and learn a fairy tale to be taken as truth.

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

You cannot prove that something doesn't exist. The burden of proof, however, does not lie on the sceptic. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

worlock77

Yes, it does. The burden of proof lies on any claim.

You cannot disprove something that by it's very definition is beyond our comprehension. It's based on belief, not logic or intelligence.

FFS, I'm using this one way too much.

Here we go again.

Xeogua

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"] Burden of proof does not apply to ideas that have garnered billions of followers... Maybe to the church of the Jedi, But not something as ancient and strong as ChristianitySaintWalrus

Yes, it does. The burden of proof lies on any claim.

From this point forward I will try my best to never argue with a religious person. It's pointless and seems self destructive.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"] Burden of proof does not apply to ideas that have garnered billions of followers... Maybe to the church of the Jedi, But not something as ancient and strong as ChristianitySaintWalrus

Yes, it does. The burden of proof lies on any claim.

You can choose not to believe in it if you want, but take a step off a cliff and tell me what happens.

Take this first instance.

Obviously we have the bible, and obviously this tells us of scriptures of the old.

Well, what about the stories of Pharoah back in the days of Moses? These stories stemmed from actual historical events.

So why is it so hard to accept the fact that these events had some divine intervention, if the authors of said scripture used actual truth, therefore shouldn't it be assumed that since their writings stem from truth, that they wouldn't deviate from that philosophy?

Look at Greek Mythology, it's gone because it's been disproven. No God is holding the sky up and such, we've proved these things with Science

But christianity is persistant. It has withstood repeated bludgeon after bludgeon by the scientific community, only to come out even strong a thousand years later.

And it's obvious that science is not flawless. We only know it's truth until disproven otherwise. In Science theories have been disproven and we have found new truth. Christianity has survived these claims at disproven such a notion. So therefore, wouldn't it make sense to wonder why such a religion is so strong? Why there have been millions upon millions of believers? It's because it provides strong evidence of its existence, but at the same time it is not conclusive proof of its existence.

So, what I'm really trying to say is, Christianity, in essence, is much like science. Both have strong evidence of their existence, and yet, at the same time, there is no definitive proof of either one (such as subcategories of science like Quantum Mechanics and theories such as the one electron universe)

SaintWalrus

What makes you think that those stories are necessarily divinely inspired? Why I can't I say that some people just made them up?

Also, it's unreasonable to assume that everyone writes down the truth. It's quite possible that it's been distorted somehow over time.

That Christianity has existed for a long time does not make it more likely to be true.

Lastly, Christianity is nothing like science, because it is not based on the scientific method. And like all other religions, it has no justification save appeal to absurdity ("Hey, it just has to be from a divine source, guys! Anything else would be absurd!").

Your argument is pure sophistry. I'm sorry.

How do you disprove evolution? Hell, how do YOU prove the earth is round and the Earth isn't the center of the universe? Have you calculated how the stars move, flown around the world? Science is all about faith as well. It just has more substantial evidence to back it up. If you like to think everyone is lying to you then power to ya.

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Yes, it does. The burden of proof lies on any claim.

worlock77

You can choose not to believe in it if you want, but take a step off a cliff and tell me what happens.

[QUOTE="Communist_Soul"]

You cannot disprove something that never fvcking existed.

SaintWalrus

Well, you're not using logic in the formation of your argument. The essential element of your argument is that if a text includes actual historical events then it is completely accurate, which is entirely ridiculous. Speaking of which, most historians and anthropologists think that most of the events in the Bible are purely fictional. We have far more information on pharohs other than the one depicted in the Bible, for instance, and they have found more support for alternative explanations for the exodus than the one in the Bible. The Old Testament makes more sense as an allegorical tale meant to be indicative of culture than a true history, as history it's inaccurate and spotty at best.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

You cannot prove that something doesn't exist. The burden of proof, however, does not lie on the sceptic. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

SaintWalrus

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, what was that you were saying about poor logic?

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Yes, it does. The burden of proof lies on any claim.

Communist_Soul

From this point forward I will try my best to never argue with a religious person. It's pointless and seems self destructive.

They remain in the upper world, but this must not be allowed; they must be made to descend again among the prisoners in the den and partake of their labors and honors, whether they are worth having or not.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"] Ok, Gravity is ridiculous and I choose not to believe it in Because we have no conclusive proof on it's origins Therefor, it does not apply to meSaintWalrus

You can choose not to believe in it if you want, but take a step off a cliff and tell me what happens.

I'll end up ether in the hospital or the morgue, but I'm not going to move my plan up by three decades just to humor you. And you're probably not keen on falling off a cliff I'd imagine so try this instead: grab a piece of paper, roll it into a ball and toss it into the air. Tell me the result.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"] Burden of proof does not apply to ideas that have garnered billions of followers... Maybe to the church of the Jedi, But not something as ancient and strong as ChristianitySaintWalrus

Yes, it does. The burden of proof lies on any claim.

Are you, by any chance, a dumbass?

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"]

Take this first instance.

Obviously we have the bible, and obviously this tells us of scriptures of the old.

Well, what about the stories of Pharoah back in the days of Moses? These stories stemmed from actual historical events.

So why is it so hard to accept the fact that these events had some divine intervention, if the authors of said scripture used actual truth, therefore shouldn't it be assumed that since their writings stem from truth, that they wouldn't deviate from that philosophy?

Look at Greek Mythology, it's gone because it's been disproven. No God is holding the sky up and such, we've proved these things with Science

But christianity is persistant. It has withstood repeated bludgeon after bludgeon by the scientific community, only to come out even strong a thousand years later.

And it's obvious that science is not flawless. We only know it's truth until disproven otherwise. In Science theories have been disproven and we have found new truth. Christianity has survived these claims at disproven such a notion. So therefore, wouldn't it make sense to wonder why such a religion is so strong? Why there have been millions upon millions of believers? It's because it provides strong evidence of its existence, but at the same time it is not conclusive proof of its existence.

So, what I'm really trying to say is, Christianity, in essence, is much like science. Both have strong evidence of their existence, and yet, at the same time, there is no definitive proof of either one (such as subcategories of science like Quantum Mechanics and theories such as the one electron universe)

ghoklebutter

What makes you think that those stories are necessarily divinely inspired? Why I can't I say that some people just made them up?

Also, it's unreasonable to assume that everyone writes down the truth. It's quite possible that it's been distorted somehow over time.

That Christianity has existed for a long time does not make it more likely to be true.

Lastly, Christianity is nothing like science, because it is not based on the scientific method. And like all other religions, it has no justification save appeal to absurdity ("Hey, it just has to be from a divine source, guys! Anything else would be absurd!").

Your argument is pure sophistry. I'm sorry.

[QUOTE="Communist_Soul"]

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"] Ok, Gravity is ridiculous and I choose not to believe it in Because we have no conclusive proof on it's origins Therefor, it does not apply to metheone86

From this point forward I will try my best to never argue with a religious person. It's pointless and seems self destructive.

They remain in the upper world, but this must not be allowed; they must be made to descend again among the prisoners in the den and partake of their labors and honors, whether they are worth having or not.

Each and every foray into the world of philosophy is personal. All I can do is provide is logic and reason, but to argue with them strengths their false beliefs, we must let them descend on their own and discover our den.

Probably made zero sense, miss-interrupted your statement, time to read more.

Your argument amounts to Russell's Teapot argument. And its a fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Who cares? We'll never know if God exists. The end.

Well you can't prove it either, so its more of a stalemate then any kind of victory in whose right.

Take this first instance.

Obviously we have the bible, and obviously this tells us of scriptures of the old.

Well, what about the stories of Pharoah back in the days of Moses? These stories stemmed from actual historical events.

So why is it so hard to accept the fact that these events had some divine intervention, if the authors of said scripture used actual truth, therefore shouldn't it be assumed that since their writings stem from truth, that they wouldn't deviate from that philosophy?

Look at Greek Mythology, it's gone because it's been disproven. No God is holding the sky up and such, we've proved these things with Science

But christianity is persistant. It has withstood repeated bludgeon after bludgeon by the scientific community, only to come out even strong a thousand years later.

And it's obvious that science is not flawless. We only know it's truth until disproven otherwise. In Science theories have been disproven and we have found new truth. Christianity has survived these claims at disproven such a notion. So therefore, wouldn't it make sense to wonder why such a religion is so strong? Why there have been millions upon millions of believers? It's because it provides strong evidence of its existence, but at the same time it is not conclusive proof of its existence.

So, what I'm really trying to say is, Christianity, in essence, is much like science. Both have strong evidence of their existence, and yet, at the same time, there is no definitive proof of either one (such as subcategories of science like Quantum Mechanics and theories such as the one electron universe)

SaintWalrus

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"] Burden of proof does not apply to ideas that have garnered billions of followers... Maybe to the church of the Jedi, But not something as ancient and strong as ChristianitySaintWalrus

Yes, it does. The burden of proof lies on any claim.

You can't use science to prove religion is wrong, and likewise you can't use religion to prove science wrong.

You can't use science to prove religion is wrong, and likewise you can't use religion to prove science wrong.

Vari3ty

You only need logic to religion is wrong.

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

You can't use science to prove religion is wrong, and likewise you can't use religion to prove science wrong.

XaosII

You only need logic to prove religion is wrong.

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

You can't use science to prove religion is wrong, and likewise you can't use religion to prove science wrong.

XaosII

You only need logic to religion is wrong.

I wouldn't say wrong, but if you apply a logic-based system of ontology then certainly religion is almost infeasible. Most of logic relies on truth value of statements, and given that the truth value of religiously-based statements is dubious at best you cannot make a logical proof for the existence of god, though that is always subject to new evidence. There is also inductive logic, which relies less on truth value and more on probabilities, though it is generally considered weaker than deductive logic. God is possible using inductive logic, but even then given the evidence at hand an argument for the existence of god could at best be described as inductively weak. In essence, any belief in a god goes beyond any facts and what we can deduce from those facts, hence the term faith.

may as well rename OT to the religous Vs Atheist section.

thanks for another useless thread you fcking churchie.

It first and foremost depends on how we define God, if we are talking about certain religions say Christianity there is a way to disprove that God, one simply has to show beyond all question that Jesus Christ did not raise from teh dead while explaining the historic facts surrounding the events. But if we are talking about just a bland theistic view of God, An All knowing, ALl Powerful, All Good being then it becomes very hard to disprove that being.

"i just dont see how it's theoretically possible to prove gods existence"

"i just dont see how it's theoretically possible to prove gods existence"

almasdeathchild

If you can establish he is necessary then one certaintly can show God's existence.

[QUOTE="almasdeathchild"]

"i just dont see how it's theoretically possible to prove gods existence"

Philokalia

If you can establish he is necessary then one certaintly can show God's existence.

[QUOTE="almasdeathchild"]

"i just dont see how it's theoretically possible to prove gods existence"

Philokalia

If you can establish he is necessary then one certaintly can show God's existence.

.

It first and foremost depends on how we define God, if we are talking about certain religions say Christianity there is a way to disprove that God, one simply has to show beyond all question that Jesus Christ did not raise from teh dead while explaining the historic facts surrounding the events. But if we are talking about just a bland theistic view of God, An All knowing, ALl Powerful, All Good being then it becomes very hard to disprove that being.

Philokalia

To disprove that god exists must mean that there is prove (or at least plausible evidence) that he does exist. That proof has not been established in the first place.

.

washnwax

:lol:

That meme always gets me.

[QUOTE="Philokalia"]

It first and foremost depends on how we define God, if we are talking about certain religions say Christianity there is a way to disprove that God, one simply has to show beyond all question that Jesus Christ did not raise from teh dead while explaining the historic facts surrounding the events. But if we are talking about just a bland theistic view of God, An All knowing, ALl Powerful, All Good being then it becomes very hard to disprove that being.

XaosII

To disprove that god exists must mean that there is prove (or at least plausible evidence) that he does exist. That proof has not been established in the first place.

That makes no sense, I don't have to prove there is a purple unicorn in my room in order to prove there is no purple unicorn in my room.

I just don't see how it's theoretically possible that you're going to persuade anybody on this forum to agree with you.

His existence isn't necessary, though.ghoklebutter

I beg to differ, but needless to say if his existence can be shown to be necessary in some way thats good grounds for believing he exists.