If you could prove God doesn't exist...would you tell anyone?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Ignatian

Speaking of silly presumptive premises, you can prove a negative. Logic 101.

If you reach in your pocket and there is no money in there, that is proof there is no money in there.

The hilarious part is, "you can't prove a negative" is a negative.

no you can not be asked to prove a negative... but atheists wouldn't be being asked to prove non-existence of God if they composed themselves with grace and a true understanding of the rules of philosophy.

The statement "there is no God" is extremely childish in the realm of philosophy and even a learned person of the profession should be able to make this assumption.

It is a reason I like Einstein so much, no philosopher or scientist has been such composed since... everyone ruins their credibility the first time they respond to the question or better yet "pose" a statement.

you name it... among my favorites are Carl Sagan and Any Rand and also Neil Tyson. They have only shown their ignorance in making the statements without no one really even asking them. Tyson is realizing his mistake and trying to make amends for offending others with a plain and blatant ignorance and lack of compassion.

---

Einstein didn't go into the God debate, he just would not comply or respond or make unnecessary statements out of the blue.

herein lies wisdom and logic my friend...


plain, simple, direct and satisfying -Philosophy101

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

In short...would YOU destroy this group's belief system in order to PROVE they were wrong or because you believe the truth is more important? Or would you leave them alone to live in their fantasy world?

Truth is more important than everything, I wouldn't hesitate to show the world. That would also include if the reverse were true, too.

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

In short...would YOU destroy this group's belief system in order to PROVE they were wrong or because you believe the truth is more important? Or would you leave them alone to live in their fantasy world?

Truth is more important than everything, I wouldn't hesitate to show the world. That would also include if the reverse were true, too.

truth is subjective -- fact is objective

fact is the only truth!

and fact is that God/gods exist for the majority and the minorities influence and truth is subjective to only the minority.

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

In short...would YOU destroy this group's belief system in order to PROVE they were wrong or because you believe the truth is more important? Or would you leave them alone to live in their fantasy world?

Truth is more important than everything, I wouldn't hesitate to show the world. That would also include if the reverse were true, too.

truth is subjective -- fact is objective

fact is the only truth!

Truth and fact mean the same thing. A true thing is a fact, and a fact is truth.

There is no such thing as "subjective truth."

and fact is that God/gods exist for the majority

A thing is not true because a majority agrees with it. There is no evidence of the existence of a God, only the concept of God.

and the minorities influence and truth is subjective to only the minority.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say.

What a person “believes” is “truth” to them and it is subjective.The truth they believe may be what is known as fact however it is not fact because they believe it is true.Many people believe things are true that are not facts at all.The reality (another truth,fact type word) is there are no “known” known “ true facts” because what are known as fact are the perceptions through observation.

For instance a science experiment result is verified as fact if the observation of the experiments events prove to be the same conclusion with consistency.However “new truths” come to be known when new observations are contrary to the truths believed as facts.

That is the dilemma of truth, fact and reality.They have the possibility of being observed differently.The great physicist Niels Bohr conjectured about physics quantum entanglement(paraphrased)..it is not that we cannot know the facts of where the particles are it is that there are no facts.”

That is the conundrum of all conundrums. Niels went as far as to propose the definition of reality needs to be re defined.The universe we live in is a strange place.Truth is all around us but we cannot perceive it by observation because facts and reality are in effect “liquid” possibilities.The true fact of reality is it is literally “out there”.

originally posted by: Rex282because what are known as fact are the perceptions through observation.

precisely! and this requires a majority.

true or false... the absence of light is darkness?

Science can not even begin to enter the God debate with no formal education in Philosophy. Philosophy which has been practiced for quite a few millennia before the birth of science. Philosophy that which precedes science in every aspect. Philosophy that which defines and asks every question.

Scientist practicing philosophy with no formal education or degree in philosophy... it is an ignorant insult to both professions.


Deny Ignorance!

a reply to: AinElohim

Sorry but you can prove a negative. The law of non-contradiction is a proven negative.

Theists must provide a universe of discourse for their premise God exists. Where does it exist? What does it exist as? Of course, they cannot, and their God proves itself time and time again to be nothing more than a word.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE
I'd blast it all over....believing a lie is silly.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: AinElohim

Sorry but you can prove a negative. The law of non-contradiction is a proven negative.

Theists must provide a universe of discourse for their premise God exists.

yes... but it is atheists who make the statement, so it would appear that it is the responsibility of the minority to prove non-existence. But since they can't do that then they should learn that composure and conduct on becoming a human they so claim to possess.

Majority rules... until the minority can disprove beyond a doubt every theistic God/gods on the planet.

It's a heavy duty task, the minority has my sympathy.

---

in my opinion the most vocal and popular atheist are more like spoiled elitists who walk around thinking everyone is beneath them simply because of what they believe.

a reply to: AinElohim

Truth is not democratic.

Majority belief does not make a fact.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: AinElohim

Truth is not democratic.

Majority belief does not make a fact.

this is incorrect when perception of reality of concerned, the Ancient Greek already figured this out (you have to study a field called Philosophy) check Aristotle and Socrates.

Ignore Plato though, his philosophy is that truth is not revealed and there are major implications behind this.

www.historyguide.org...

a reply to: Grimpachi

afterall... the sky is blue, and snow is white.

even if those questions are still in the realm of 'unsolved', the "majority" knows otherwise.

so if a person walks around telling others that snow is florescent neon red, then others are going to think that person must be tripping on acid or some type of drug... the same goes for the person walking around telling people God doesn't exist, because the "majority" knows otherwise.

a reply to: FlyersFan

exactly! that's why I would rather Richard Dawkins and Neil Tyson just be a zoologist and physicist.

the world can do without scientist doning the robes of "Bringers of Truth" to the public...

leave that to the preachers because it seems out of the scientific element.

a reply to: AinElohim

What color is this dress?



It doesn't matter what you perceive the color to be because it is still the color that it is.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

If you could prove God doesn't exist...would you tell anyone?

scientist should do what science does and provide hard evidence.

Copernicus did it... why can't Dawkins and Tyson do it?

It is scientist who make the statements with no hard evidence in hand, and we're all supposed to just take their word for it... on faith?

a reply to: Grimpachi

What color is this dress?

it is two colors... the "majority" of it's color is white.

therefore the proper definition and the way it would be advertised is...

a white dress with beige stripes or trim.

it would not be marketed or described as...

a beige dress with white stripes.

the photo is of poor quality...but I hope I could help define this dress using logic and reason and conveying it clearly.

a reply to: AinElohim

The majority of people see white but the truth is not democratic.

a reply to: Grimpachi

and the point?

the photo is of poor quality so the little magic show is not very scientific...

/next

a reply to: AinElohim

Magic show, not really, it is just an illusion if you want the science then read this.

The point.. I guess you can say an illusion is still just an illusion regardless of how many people believe it to be something else.