The fallacy of no proof equals proof

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


LMAO......there is another thread floating around (ummmmm, it may have been flushed by now) for the toilet tissue issue......(was that scenic enough?)

But to the topic:

I am not contending that the computer is God. The computer is the universe in this case.

God is the hard drive.

In your example, and I totally agree, God would require a different set of evidences.

In my example, we open up the case and poke and prod until we find what we are looking for. Or on the other hand not find what we are looking for.

We are proving, or disproving, our hypothesis. But until we have that proof, we have to treat the hypothesis as if it were true.

If we say the hypothesis is false, we have investigated and found evidence to the contrary.

(Don't apologize for the name! It's a great name. I thought about changing mine several times, but I've had this one so long, it is easy to remember. )

reply to post by garyo1954


Well i like to think the idea of god as quantum, it's true and false at the same time, and yet true and true at the same time and yet again false and false at the same time again! Basically i have no clue


[edit on 20-5-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Well, I'm atheist, but... perhaps after finding or not Higgs particle, solving mystery of dark energy and dark matter, reading neutrons and gravity waves fluently, solving if there's any clue of anything in Lisi's E8-theory-of-everything , we can find something we can call god.

If God is making bushes on fire, he is natural phenomen and we can find him or not, call him and ask: "what's up dog?"

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 21/5/2008 by HoHoFoo]

It is not possible to prove absolutely the non-existence of Santa Claus, most people cease to believe in his existence by age 10. Although the existence of Santa Claus has not been disproved, the weight of evidence suggests that he does not exist. Likewise, although we cannot prove invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters do not exist, we tend to reject their existence. Shouldn't the same logic apply to the existence of God?

[edit on 21-5-2008 by andre18]

Originally posted by andre18
It is not possible to prove absolutely the non-existence of Santa Claus, most people cease to believe in his existence by age 10. Although the existence of Santa Claus has not been disproved, the weight of evidence suggests that he does not exist. Likewise, although we cannot prove invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters do not exist, we tend to reject their existence. Shouldn't the same logic apply to the existence of God?

[edit on 21-5-2008 by andre18]

Very well thought out post andre! I like the implications here.

Of course we have the history of Santa Claus which establishes Santa as a fable.

As to unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters, I don't know. At least I don't know anyone who would make a straight faced claim as to the existence of them.

If someone told me they existed, or didn't exist, I would expect they had reasons though.

It is a very interesting thought you have added. I'll give it some thought.

Thank you!

reply to post by andre18


you keep coming up with the most ridiculous examples santa claus isnt real because we lie about him and everyone knows we lie about him so we can disprove santa. and no one has stated valid reason why pink unicorns or spagetti monsters are real.

what we dont know about is god we cant prove or disprove him until we learn more about the beginning, and how our universe works as a whole.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by caballero]

and no one has stated valid reason why pink unicorns or spagetti monsters are real.

Pink unicorns or spaghetti monsters are real because I have faith in their existence - god is real because I have faith in its existence

Both exist entirely through faith and nothing more.... therefore there is as much credibility for the pink unicorn and the spaghetti monster as there is for god since only faith justifies their existence.

what we dont know about is god we cant prove or disprove him until we learn more about the beginning, and how our universe works as a whole.

I can simply say the flying spaghetti monster is the creator of the universe not god, how can you prove otherwise….using the same logic as a creationist I can point out I have faith in the spaghetti monster, thus it exists.

“what we don’t know about the spaghetti monster we can’t prove or disprove until we learn more about the beginning, and how our universe works as a whole.”

but the flying spagetti monster cant be the creator because the creator is everything in the universe and has no form.

I suppose then that one could argue that oxygen did not exist before it was proven? Of course not that would be silly. I liken it to does a tree make a sound when it falls if no one is around to hear it.
There is no conclusive proof that God exists. That however is not proof that there is no God only evidence that there is no proof.

reply to post by caballero


Taking the same side that belivers in god do then you could easily say that the flying spagetti monster can create a form when it requires it. I'm afraid saying having form is a reason it's not god is rather laughable and someone whos clutching at straws.

I'm agnostic, just stating that again so i argue both sides of all this.

The only proof a believer in god can give is that they have faith god exists. Nothing more can be said, therefore if i claim there is a teapot orbiting neptune, but it's an invisible teapot and i have faith it's there. then i have as much proof as a person of faith does.

However on the atheist side, they cannot say what happens after death. For all we know there is a soul, some form of energy we cannot measure that is released upon death and floats out of us, maybe it meets a creator or maybe it goes into a new body. Maybe it hangs out in the locker room at a local gym, who knows.

The point is neither side can prove they are right, however atheists do have more proof than belivers in god, just not enough proof for me to jump into the atheist camp.

My biggest question for the people who have a defined religion is this. How do you know you have the rigth religion? How do you know you're worshipping god in the way god wants to be worshipped? Afterall most people have their particular faith simply becuase their parents have it. Some people come to it later out of free will of course but they're in the minority.

There are hundreds of religions, thousands of possible gods to worship to, so how do you know you have the right one? I mean simply on a matter of mathmatical chance you don't have the correct god.

[edit on 26-5-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

I Might be into deep water but.. here we go..

Proving that what you (dis)belive is true or not is just simply impossible since you Belive something rather than knowing it.

And if someone claims to Know something - and want me to change my opinion on that subject.. they have to prove it to me. Convince me.

I selldom talk about gods, belives, religions or such since I don't give a rats ass about it.. apart from the point How it have affected the world untill today.

Looking around, both in our time and in passed times.. Religion have allways been a reason to fight each other.. even tho everyone claims that their God/Gods are "The God of Love and Understanding".. "Turn the other cheek" and so on.. Yet, "we" love our neighbours with fists and guns, and go to church/whatever every sunday to praise the loving and understanding God.

Humans psyche needs something to belive in, some sort of "truth", something that can explain all the things in the world.. merely due to most of us lacking the possibility to think as big as needed to see longer than 100 years back.. most of us can't even look 50 years into the future without being a little bit nervous.. Having a God to belive in offers people somewhat of a relife towards the "unknown", the "God's will"theories.

I have issues with religious people trying to convince me there's a God that loves all when I see what's going on around the world. But if they need to belive in it, they're free to do so - as long as they don't nag on me for Not doing so.

We're all looking for some sort of "truth", belivers or not... But My socalled truth is that Who ever started the first cult found the ultimate way to shape peoples minds.