The fallacy of no proof equals proof

reply to post by caballero


Buenos noches caballero,

I am not questioning anyone's belief. Merely looking for answers.

Thank you for contributing.

but thats just it there are no answers for either side.

If im atheist then the big bang created the universe. But what created the first universe? we dont know possibly god seems to work in perfect in the creation of reality as we know it.

If im christian then i believe god created the universe in a week. but i have scientific proof going against that saying that the universe goes back billions of years.

We can not imagine creation of reality without god, and we cant use reality to prove gods exsistance
God and science contradict themselves on a surface level but beneath that they compliment themselves beautifully. because either theory (science and religion) has god at the very base.

Originally posted by caballero
If im atheist then the big bang created the universe. But what created the first universe? we dont know possibly god seems to work in perfect in the creation of reality as we know it.

We can not imagine creation of reality without god, and we cant use reality to prove gods exsistance.

God and science contradict themselves on a surface level but beneath that they compliment themselves beautifully. because either theory (science and religion) has god at the very base.

An Athesist is a person with a lack of belief in Deism. The question of the first universe or creation is non falsifiable so it is disregarded. We don't base our beliefs on unknowns.

I can easily imagine a universe without a creator. It is once again non falsifiable. If a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific; if it is not falsifiable, then it is not open to falsification.

Science does not have God at it's base. A statement must be in principle empirically verifiable in order to be both meaningful and scientific. Science is not based on invalid inferences.

A Creator is non falsifiable because there is no way to test whether such a Creator does or does not exist. So to science it is not meaningful endeavor.

It's the same reason University labs are not set up the study the viability of the tooth fairy. The tooth fairy is non falsifiable.

Non-falsifiable theories can usually be reduced to a simple uncircumscribed existential statement, such as there exists a Creator. It is entirely possible to verify whether or not this statement is true, simply by producing the Creator.

But since this statement does not specify WHERE the Creator exists; it is simply not possible to show that the Creator does not exist, and so it is impossible to falsify the statement.

Ah, mi amigo that is an excellent point.

When we put evolution side by side with Genesis, we see some amazing similarities.

Many people feel that there is no 6 day creation. The 6 days mentioned in the bible is the number of days Moses spent receiving the knowledge of creation.

science does not have god at its base?

tell me then, how did everything come to be? you cant say i disregard this and that. Its illogical to do so, you have to examine this topic from every angle. Science is not complete, we dont know how everything started but we do know that matter cannot be created or destroyed, so tell me how did the matter for the first universe just become created? and if science is not complete then how can we say that anything is meaningful? what we know as truth today may be a lie tomorrow.

Science is always changing just a few hundred years ago science was completely different than it is today. So to say that science is perfect and is the undeniable truth of the universe is false because science is still changing and correcting itslef as we learn observe and discover.

You are using the whole no proof is proof argument stated in the first post of this thread. You cant tell me that a creator doesnt exsist because science says so. Science says a lot of things cant happen they still do. like spontaneous human combustian, science has yet to come up with a definate answer as to how or why this would happen but that doesnt stop it from happening. Which goes back to my first point that science is not complete.

The creator is everything in the universe. there you go. even in the bible god says he is everything. thats why we cant have a graven image of him because he is everything.

[edit on 20-5-2008 by caballero]

reply to post by garyo1954


i didnt know that before. very well it goes to further my point that science and religion compliment themselves.

PROOF –

There is no proof for god – god does not exist
There is no proof for an invisible pink flying unicorn – the unicorn does not exist
There is no proof for a flying spaghetti monster – the spaghetti monster does not exist

The fact is there is as much proof for god as there is for any other supernatural ‘thing’ you can imagine from your head. Can I prove gods existence? Can I prove an invisible pink flying unicorn’s existence? The answer to both is no, so why do billions of people believe in god and not an invisible pink flying unicorn – I guess that’s the mystery…..



[edit on 20-5-2008 by andre18]

Originally posted by caballero
science does not have god at its base?

tell me then, how did everything come to be? you cant say i disregard this and that. Its illogical to do so, you have to examine this topic from every angle. Science is not complete, we dont know how everything started but we do know that matter cannot be created or destroyed, so tell me how did the matter for the first universe just become created? and if science is not complete then how can we say that anything is meaningful? what we know as truth today may be a lie tomorrow.

Science is always changing just a few hundred years ago science was completely different than it is today. So to say that science is perfect and is the undeniable truth of the universe is false because science is still changing and correcting itslef as we learn observe and discover.

You are using the whole no proof is proof argument stated in the first post of this thread. You cant tell me that a creator doesnt exsist because science says so. Science says a lot of things cant happen they still do. like spontaneous human combustian, science has yet to come up with a definate answer as to how or why this would happen but that doesnt stop it from happening. Which goes back to my first point that science is not complete.

The creator is everything in the universe. there you go. even in the bible god says he is everything. thats why we cant have a graven image of him because he is everything.

[edit on 20-5-2008 by caballero]

No science doesn't have God at it's base. It has the Scientific method at it's base.

How did everything come to be. Hmmm.. I dunno. Neither creation nor destruction has ever been witnessed by anyone ever. They are not falsifiable. So let's just say The Easter Bunny did it.

If your child tells you leprechauns made him wreck your new car do believe him ? Why not ? You can't prove they didn't.

It is absolutely not illogical to disregard that which is not falsifiable. Logic is the study of the principles of valid inference and demonstration. Neither which we can do in reference to God. Wishing or guessing or hoping are not valid forms of inference.

"Whole proof" or no proof, what does that even mean ?
How about the smallest bit of falsifiable proof. How about one single, solitary proof. Just 1 falsifiable proof and we can form a hypothesis.

Science Will Never Explain Everything:That is Why it is So Useful. The nature of science is to expand its very boundaries continuously so as to include unexplained subjects. Not to throw it's arms u and say..Well must be that Sky Djinni that done it.

So in the bible God says he is everything. So God came down and took pen to paper ? Have any falsifiable proof of that ?

Originally posted by andre18
PROOF –

The fact is there is as much proof for god as there is for any other supernatural ‘thing’ you can imagine from your head.

...why do billions of people believe in god and not an invisible pink flying unicorn – I guess that’s the mystery…..

[edit on 20-5-2008 by andre18]

Actually andre18 there are plenty of reasons to believe on God that don't apply to flying pink unicorns.

For example:

Every successful society that we have been able to identify has had some concept of a divine creator which has formed a basis for morality and social order. It appears that a belief in God is to some extend hardwired into us.

Many (credible) people claim to have direct experience with God or some kind of divine creator. You're calling a lot of people liars if you make an outright assertion that God does not exist without backing it up with some kind of alternative explanation.

You're making two assertions in your post:

1. There is no evidence that God exists (even if you reject the evidence as you're free to do this is false, the evidence does exist whether you like it or not).

2. That God does not exist. This is a positive statement which flies in the face of what millions of people claim to have experienced. Since you are making the statement, you should have evidence to back it up.

Denying that the evidence exists and making silly analogies about flying pink unicorns are not evidence or logical argument, they are just and silly analogies.

God's existence (or otherwise) deserves more consideration than you have given it.

very successful society that we have been able to identify has had some concept of a divine creator which has formed a basis for morality and social order. It appears that a belief in God is to some extend hardwired into us.

It appears ancient civilizations pointed to god as an excuse because they weren’t smart enough to figure it out for themselves…. God mad the rain fall from the clouds….god made lightning strike today because I recently did something bad….etc

Many (credible) people claim to have direct experience with God or some kind of divine creator. You're calling a lot of people liars if you make an outright assertion that God does not exist without backing it up with some kind of alternative explanation. .

Credible people – I think not, through this logic there are people that claim they’ve seen god and there are others that claim they’ve seen ghosts, Bigfoot, Buddha etc… These people are just as credible “you're calling a lot of people liars “….god falls under these claims as illusions and hoax’s.

You’re the one claiming god exists you back it up…..



[edit on 20-5-2008 by andre18]

At last there is a proof of existing of God!

Silvia Night has direct line to him/her/it. Still don't know what god, so I don't know who to belive.
God's Favorite Person

...but these evil Finns won her....

The Evil Ones


[edit on 20/5/2008 by HoHoFoo]

reply to post by Ulster


i said you were using the whole, NO PROOF EQUALS PROOF argument.

you arent making any sense you contradict yourself in your argument. by saying that science proves or disproves everything and then agreeing with me by saying science is incomplete. if science is incomplete then we do not know what is falsifiable or not. we have been wrong with science before before we could have said "an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by another force" and one would argue against that by saying " if i push this ball its slows to a stop, there is no outside force" Then person #1 would say "well, friction slowed it to a stop" #2 would say "friction is falsifiable there is no proof saying that friction has slowed this ball to a stop".

The truth is that friction has slowed it to a stop. Much like god you are saying there is no proof so that means he isnt real, i am saying that we cannot say that at this point because science is incomplete. We do not know how it all started, matter cannot just be created so what fills in the gap of the creation of everything god does. until we can disprove that with actual proof god will remain at the base of the creation of everything theory. and thus at the base of science.

[edit on 20-5-2008 by caballero]

reply to post by andre18


your arguments are loaded with logical fallacies. first off a pink unicorn, or a flying spagetti monster are not everything as one now are they? those two things are sepereate identifiable beings that are a part of everything.
and there is proof for god in the simple fact that we cant explain the beginning of all matter that has lead to us. from that we have to fill it in with a resonable theory that god created the matter from himself that has lead to us. ther is no proof for the pink unicorn because it has no signifigance in the grand scale of things.

Originally posted by caballero
reply to post by andre18

 

your arguments are loaded with logical fallacies. first off a pink unicorn, or a flying spagetti monster are not everything as one now are they? those two things are sepereate identifiable beings that are a part of everything.
and there is proof for god in the simple fact that we cant explain the beginning of all matter that has lead to us. from that we have to fill it in with a resonable theory that god created the matter from himself that has lead to us. ther is no proof for the pink unicorn because it has no signifigance in the grand scale of things.

Err no i'm sorry, why is a unicorn more stupid than a god? Both are unprovable. The fact we cannot yet explain the start of everything doesn't make a god more real because you could easily argue by your logic, who made god? If you answer is "god was just there" then you could argue that about a piece of matter and anti matter that combined and created an enormous explosion.

Also what right do YOU have to say the pink unicorn has no signifigance in things? That pink unicorn is my god, how very dare you! This is where currently atheists and believers in god are at an equal footing. None can explain the start with evidence.

I would also like to addrss something else you posted "matter cannot be created or destroyed", i'm afraid you're quite wrong, the actual phrase is nearly right only you have to put it like this "energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred or changed". Matter is created all the time, plants for example turn sun energy into a host of things. Matter is destroyed all the time in nuclear reactors, creating huge amounts of heat and light.

So the obvious atheist arguement is this.

If god can just "be there", fromt he start, then why can't two pieces of opposing energy be there from the start? Logically that is a simple fact, that both of these ideas could be true. However we have no proof of either.

I want t clarify here that i am an agnostic and so i'm arguing this quite logicall from both sides, you could both be right, i have no idea

www.youtube.com...

Check this out. God is better!

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


Err i'm sory but where is god better here? I'ms orry i'm just very lost by what you mean, thank you.

I am not sure God is unprovable.

I suppose there are different degrees of prove that would be required to prove God's existence to satisfaction of anyone wanting to know. I think the same could be said for the unicorn or the teapot floating between Earth and Mars.

This is outside the scope of this thread, but if one presented documented proof, outside the bible, some could just not accept it.

suppose there are different degrees of prove that would be required to prove God's existence to satisfaction of anyone wanting to know. I think the same could be said for the unicorn or the teapot floating between Earth and Mars.

This is outside the scope of this thread, but if one presented documented proof, outside the bible, some could just not accept it.



reply to post by garyo1954


It's not outside the scope of the thread. Your thread said "The fallacy of no proof equals proof". I again point to the fact that you cannot proe a negative, no fact you have can be shown to be not true toa 100% accuracy because someone will always claim it's true denying the facts. 99.99% is all we have.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


1984 I have shown, or so I thought, that you can prove a negative.

I can prove there is no hard drive in my computer.
I can prove the sky is not orange.
I can prove toilet tissue doesn't exist in my bathroom.

What more would you like me to prove?

Therefore you can prove a negative. And I admitted in the beginning the only negative you can't prove is that a can of chicken noodle coup contains 3 negative noodles.

Originally posted by garyo1954
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

1984 I have shown, or so I thought, that you can prove a negative.

I can prove there is no hard drive in my computer.
I can prove the sky is not orange.
I can prove toilet tissue doesn't exist in my bathroom.

What more would you like me to prove?
Therefore you can prove a negative. And I admitted in the beginning the only negative you can't prove is that a can of chicken noodle coup contains 3 negative noodles.

You can prove it? Well my idea is abot god so if you treat god as your computer then again, god is like you can't open your computer so you can't prove there is no hard drive. The sky is not orange? Well god is like you cnanot look up. Toilet tissue i your bathroom, well i'm to polite to give a hypothetical for this one.

My point is when you talk about hypothetical being syou cannot prove it.


EDIT

Btw i wnat to apologise again for my long name, i tried signing up under so many names and i never got a reply to my email address. Sorry about that.

I should also point out that none of what you say is proof, afterall i'm her ein the UK, prove you don't ahve that toilet tissue in your bathroom!

[edit on 20-5-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]