I accept that science cannot prove the non-existence of God. But . . . (page 4)

cofty

Being rational means our beliefs should be comensurate with the evidence.

There is no claim bigger than the existence of an almighty deity. Circumstantial evidence just won't do.

KateWild

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_PjaKkmTgQ

These are a few of my favourite things and proof God exists

Sam xx

cofty

Sam - That video is as strong as the evidence gets and yet millions of people organise their lives around the premise that it is true.

designs

Robert Jastrow Phd. "God and the Astronomers" is a good read.

KateWild

Really, and how about Shrodinger's wave equation? The way sub-atomic particles move and vibrate. When are you going to talk about science that I know about?

But if you want to talk about whiskers on kittens that good too

Sam xx

adamah

TEC is likely referring to me, in reference to Bible God, Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I say there's sufficient evidence to convince anyone beyond a reasonable doubt that Jehovah doesn't exist (at least anyone who's willing to examine the available evidence); God is but a product of ancient minds that has been handed down generation to generation. Tools needed are scholarly analysis of the Bible, study of ancient history, archaeological findings, sociology (cultural anthropology), biology, geology, etc. Cofty, you obviously agree, or you likely wouldn't be an atheist.

We've been over this countless times how people get hung up on the definition of "proof" from mathematics (and it's usually spoken by someone who hasn't taken upper-level maths and doesn't understand what it means to "prove" a theorem, which simply means 'harmonious with other accepted principles'). Even math proofs are not absolute: there's multiple possible proofs.

Claiming you cannot prove God's non-existence is an old fallacy premised on religious thinking that ABSOLUTES exist, which is particularly insidious, since belief in absolutes is about as disabling to rationality as any other claim that is accepted without evidence.

In fact, the claim "you cannot prove a negative" is incorrect and commonly cited in folk-logic, since logicians and laypeople alike can and do use inductive reasoning to prove a negative all the time:

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Adam

adamah

Sam said-

Really, and how about Shrodinger's wave equation. The way sub-atomic particles move and vibrate. When aare you going to talk about science that I know about?

And how would the Universe be any different in appearance, if God hadn't dun it?

Would children perhaps be born with birth defects? Oh, no: wait, that already happens....

I accept that science cannot prove the non-existence of God. But . . .

Share this