[(posted by eyewtkas) My inability to disprove your hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it's true.]
Eye, it goes the same for us who believe in God. Our inability to prove our God exists doesn't disprove He isn't real!
72 comments
lets see...
inability
doesn't
disprove
isn't
hmm a quadruple negative, i think my head just exploded- you seriously couldn't have stated that in a more straightforward manner?
Was that a quad-negative?
First, we can't disprove what you haven't adequately defined. You can't prove its existence for that very reason.
But it's all moot since all definitions of 'God' differ -most containing contradictory properties, thus the definition implodes upon itself.
Besides, you're the ones trying to sell the idea; it's not our responsibility to just buy it. Make a better case. Try again. Thanks for playing.
@Creedence Leonore Gielgud
"Absence of proof is not proof of non-existence."
Except when there should be a massive body of evidence pointing even the smallest bit in the direction of existence, and after 2,000 years, not a single bit of the evidence has been shown.
It's not proof of non-existence, but it sure leaves a mighty large void to be explained.
This is why I am an agnostic, not an atheist.
Lack of proof of a positive is not the same as proof of a negative. And vice versa I suppose.
Derp derp.
Someone can't disprove a hypothesis doesn't make it true
someone can't prove a god so it is true
What?
I don't think you get how that doesn't work
Inability to prove that something exists doesn't disprove its existence, but believing in something which has absolutely zero evidence of its existence is completely stupid.
But basically what you're saying is "We can't prove God exists but we know he does anyway." It's a prime example of blind faith.
And that's great. However, if you expect me to pattern my life and moral code around this entity, you gotta do better than "he just is, okay?"
That same "argument" can be used for: Mithra, Aphrodite, Thor, Ahura Mazda, etc. to infinity.
So then your're down to the thological equivalent of Coke vs. Pepsi, with your sort claiming Coke is better because you know it's better. And Pepsi drinkers are evil and going to hell!
"Our inability to prove our God exists doesn't disprove He isn't real!"
That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
image
@Philbert McAdamia
'Eye'?
"As we sailors say, "Eye, eye, Captain." ?"
@Noneofyourbusiness
"@Philbert McAdamia
She's responding to eyewtkas."
I have an alternative theory: HisDaughter thinks she's Cirno the ice fairy (from "Touhou"), who says "Eye'm the bestest!" .
Look at that baka (9).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touhou_Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touhou_Project#Characters
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. But absence of evidence is evidence of absence. We can't prove the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, but we have no evidence that he exists, to the point that a reasonable person would be justified in believing he doesn't exist. The best evidence for the non-existence, or at least the irrelevance of God is the fact that there are 40,000 different religions all making different claims about him and offering different opinions on how to affect his behavior toward us.
I think you mean it doesn't prove he isn't real, or it doesn't disprove he is real. You are the one making the claim, so you must provide evidence before it is accepted as true. My inability to prove the dragon in my garage doesn't prove it isn't real, but in the total absence of any evidence whatsoever, it would be a reasonable assumption by someone to disbelieve my claim.
Double negatives are tricky, dearie.
You're absolutely right, we can't prove that God is either real or imaginary. Each person must form their own conclusions about religion.
Well, you're correct up to a point. But, at least, be consequent on using God as your reference to all your misdeeds.
@#1307026
By far the most offensive part of this post is his spelling. Eye? Fucking EYE? It's Aye.
Actually, it's "eyewtkas". "Eye" was a shortened form of the name of the poster this quote was replying to.
Yeah, but you can say that about ANYTHING. I can't prove that invisible unicorns live on Venus, it doesn't disprove Venusian unicorn but it's still unreasonable to think they exist. The time to believe something is when it's demonstrated to exist.
I think you are missing the point HisDaughter. You can assert the existence of whatever god or gods you feel inclined to. It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, as Jefferson said.
However, if you wish to force my children to study your bible's creation myth as fact, re-work the laws of my country to reflect your interpretation of your god's laws and torment peaceful and productive citizens who happen to be attracted to members of the same gender, you'd better have something a bit more solid than "well, you can't prove my god isn't real."
Got it now?
Meh. Past the mind-boggling multiple negatives, all I see is her trying to point out that nobody knows either way. I looked at the entire thread and couldn't find her arguing that everybody should believe what she believes or that her beliefs should be forced on anybody else. Unless you've seen other threads where she did that I think that maybe you guys are confusing her with some of the actual fundies on this site.
Some of the other posters on that thread, with their attempts at debunking evolution, on the other hand...
Our inability to prove our God exists doesn't disprove He isn't real!
doesn't disprove he isn't real
Bit of a Freudian slip there, HisDaughter?
Scientist: "Okay, there, now my circuit works!"
Fundie: "NA-Uh... we NEED to have GOD in thurr... he make Electromicity go ROUND AND ROUND!!!"
Scientist: "What? Huh? But... it was... it was already working! How is this god thing helping? You're only adding stuff we don't need!"
Fundie: "NO!! We NEED god, because HE not BEING HERE means he is DEFINITELY SOMEWHERE ELSE THAT's whY weNeed HIM! BLARGHZ!"
@ Kamism
Not nice to call someone an idiot, especially when you're wrong!
It's impossible be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time, they are mutually exclusive positions! An atheist is one who has come to the conclusion that there is no god, and hence is a-theistic (without theism) an agnostic is one who either has not decided if there is a god or not, or one who believes the question is unanswerable a-gnostic (without knowledge).
If you are an atheist you have come to the conclusion there is no god, if you're agnostic you haven't come to a conclusion yet.
Therefore the two positions are exclusive.
You can be an agnostic leaning towards atheism, or theism, but once you have decided you favour one or the other then you become either an atheist or a theist, and you are no longer an agnostic (because you "have the knowledge")
Get your facts right before calling people names!
@Anon : Nice try, but wrong. "I can't know with absolute certainty that there are no gods but I'm pretty sure there aren't" is a perfectly reasonable stance, especially when you're up against the type of fundie who wants to know if you've searched behind every single molecule in the universe (ugh!). I'll bet you a cookie that HisDaughter is one of those.
@Kamism
"#1306938
You're as stupid as any fundie.
You can be both a agnostic and an atheist you idiot."
No. That is have-your-cake-and-eat-it logic. An agnostic is not fully convinced of either the existence or non-existence of God, and therefore remains open. An atheist prefers to take a firm stance that God does not exist.
However the pathetic language you use in your "response" suggests your issue is less to do with my personal view and is more of a personal gripe, which means you are trolling. If you want to contribute to any discussion stay off the name calling and strawmanising. Thank you.
Atheism address what one believes.
Agnosticism address what one knows.
One can be an agnostic (believing that the existence of god is an unanswerable question), while not believing that any god claim has met it's burden of proof.
Fundie shifts the burden of proof, part 323,654,095. Which doesn't bother me, but if you want to convince me your god is real, I'm going to need something more than "we can't prove he doesn't exist."
Not fundie at all. Kinda wondering why this is here...
As long as your Atheism/Theism lies on the Agnostic side (as opposed to tho Gnostic side), you are a reasonable person.
Holy double negative batman!
I think she meant "Our inability to prove our God exists doesn't prove He isn't real."
And, incredibly as it sounds, she's correct.
However, neither does it provide any good reason to believe he is real.
@Agahnim
"@A Pedant
Santaist fundamentalists are worse than Bunnyist fundamentalists, because they get to threaten people with the naughty list concept."
However, Santaist fundamentalists at least do give chocolate Santas on Dec 25th, like the Bunnyists do with chocolate bunnies on Eostre. Even Satan ist fundamentalists give chocolate on Valentine's Day:
image
Don't you just want to give her chocolate a month later on White Day?! <3 :3 Even if she is tsundere!
(Awwwwww, I love "Panty & Stocking [with Garterbelt]"'s Kneesocks! X3 )
"Our inability to prove our God exists doesn't disprove He isn't real!"
No, but after thousands of years of pulling false proof, fallacious logic, and arbitrarily attributed causality out of your respective Christian asses, it practically proves He isn't real.
@Alleyprowler:
No, you're assuming that one must have complete certainty before arriving at the decision to become an atheist, which is not true, mostly for the reason you stated (can't search everywhere).
This is not the case, it's perfectly possible to decide that the probability of a god is so vanishingly low as to be discounted (which I have) without having 100% evidence for that conclusion.
The point is that the atheist has come to a conclusion that there is no god, an agnostic (by the very meaning of the word itself) has not come to any conclusion one way or another.
There is literally no possible way that you can hold both positions at the same time, either you have come to a conclusion or you have not.
I really can't think of a simpler way to explain it.
For clarification, this is the example you gave:
"I can't know with absolute certainty that there are no gods but I'm pretty sure there aren't"
This is an example of an atheist, because the hypothetical speaker has come to the conclusion that the no-god hypothesis is more likely than the god hypothesis (as illustrated by the use of the words "pretty sure there aren't") and has therefore reached a conclusion.
To be clear, I have no problem with agnosticism, I disagree, but I find it to be an entirely valid and reasonable position, I do however dislike the way people try to dress it up as something more than either intellectual laziness (no bothering to think enough about it to decide) apathy (not caring enough to decide) or some kind of weird fence-sitting that allows them to take either side dependent on the company they feel the need to impress.
Continued...
If you're an agnostic because you feel there's not enough evidence to make a choice then all power to you, but if you're an agnostic because you either can't be fucked to think about it enough, or can't be fucked to commit, then you're not an agnostic, you're a pretentious moron using what they think is a big word in place of the truth, which is "I dunno".
****Just re-read that, in the last paragraph when I use "you" and "you're" I am not referring to you Alleyprowler, it's written in the form of a hypothetical conversation with one of the pretentious "I'm an agnostic, admire me because it's slightly difficult to spell." type people.
"Our inability to prove our God exists doesn't disprove He isn't real!"
Ok, let's break it down.
"doesn't disprove He isn't real!"
If you take the negatives, "disprove" and "isn't" to make a positive, then this could be translated as, "doesn't prove he's real." So basically, it sounds like he's saying...
"Just because we can't prove he's real, that doesn't prove he's real!"
Right. You can't prove he's real, therefore you can't prove he's real. That seems like a fair assessment, but what's the point in saying it?
Technically I am agnostic because I haven't seen compelling evidence for existence or nonexistance of deities or other supernatural beings. But I'm "functionally atheist" because, in the absence of any evidence, I assume for the time being the null hypothesis: no god.
Laci Green (otherwise known as gogreen18) once shocked the World by stating that she was agnostic to the concept of a God in general, but was atheistic to the Biblical God. I identified with that view, but it leaves the definition of God completely open, ie: if the Biblical God is not real, what is the definition of a "God"?
@#1307410
"I can't know with absolute certainty that there are no gods but I'm pretty sure there aren't"
Agnostic atheist.
"I can know with absolute certainty that there are no gods and I'm pretty sure there aren't"
Gnostic atheist.
"I can't know with absolute certainty that there are gods but I'm pretty sure there are"
Agnostic theist.
"I can know with absolute certainty that there are gods and I'm pretty sure there are"
Gnostic theist.
Our inability to prove our God exists doesn't disprove He isn't real!
So wait. Let me get this straight. You're saying that your inability to prove that God exists does not disprove the idea that God is not real?
Well, DUH.
You were supposed to say that your inability to prove that God exists does not prove the idea that God is not real, but then again, fundies have never been real big on either definitions or semantics, have they. >_>
Keep in mind that there are things other than the existence or non-existence of any given god, about which we can be agnostic. The easiest example is the question of whether or not life exists on other planets. Because of the sheer size of the cosmos, there's bound to be a near infinite number of planets out there. And unless and until we can confirm no life exists on every single one of them, we can't be sure of the existence of life everywhere.
(note that, due to a general lack of falsifiability, that makes SETI more if a pseudoscience than real science)
HisDaughter had better not watch the film "Dark Star", if she knows what's good for her:
Doolittle: 'Hello, Bomb? Are you with me?'
Bomb #20: 'Of course.'
Doolittle: 'Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?'
Bomb #20: 'I am always receptive to suggestions.'
Doolittle: 'Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist?'
Bomb #20: 'Well, of course I exist.'
Doolittle: 'But how do you know you exist?'
Bomb #20: 'It is intuitively obvious.'
Doolittle: 'Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist?'
Bomb #20: 'Hmmmm... well... I think, therefore I am.'
Doolittle: 'That's good. That's very good. But how do you know that anything else exists?'
Bomb #20: 'My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun.'
(later )
Pinback: 'All right, bomb. Prepare to receive new orders.'
Bomb#20: 'You are false data.'
Pinback: 'Hmmm?'
Bomb #20: 'Therefore I shall ignore you.'
Pinback: 'Hello... bomb?'
Bomb #20: 'False data can act only as a distraction. Therefore, I shall refuse to perceive.'
Pinback: 'Hey, bomb?'
Bomb #20: 'The only thing that exists is myself.'
Pinback: 'Snap out of it, bomb.'
(then...; emphasis added ):
Bomb#20: 'In the beginning, there was darkness. And the darkness was without form, and void.'
Boiler: 'What the hell is he talking about?'
Bomb#20: 'And in addition to the darkness there was also me. And I moved upon the face of the darkness. And I saw that I was alone. Let there be light.
KER-BLAMMO! '
A theocratic country like Iran & it's own nuclear ambitions. Right-wing Fundamental ist Christian Dominionists. 'The Football'. You do the maths.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.