"You cannot prove a Negative" Another Claim?

Quote:
Originally Posted by polscie View Post


It does require and believers require atheist to make a proof of their belief.

Believers: Do you believe in God?

Atheist: I don't believe in God.

Believers: Why?

Atheist: Because there is no God.

Believers: Can you prove it?

See.

polsice


You cannot prove a negative.

The burden of proof is on those who are making a POSITIVE assertion, not a negative one.

I cannot prove 'god' does not exist any more than you cannot prove that there isn’t an invisible pink panda living on my couch.

HOWEVER, once humans put attributes to a particular 'god', then that specific 'god' can be proven or dis-proven. Evolution proves the bible wrong, therefor the god the bible speaks of is fiction. This doesn't mean another 'god' cannot exist.




I am not actually talking about proving a negative.

I am pointing out that the believers are now requiring the atheist to prove about the latter beliefs.

And now it appears to me that this "You cannot prove a negative" is another claim.

I believe that anyone who makes a claim must produce a convincing proof of evidence beyond any reasonbale doubt, be it positive or negative

now that someone is making this claim "you cannot prove a negative" you have to defend and produce an evidence to support such claim.

polscie

 

Do you believe in god?

I don't believe in god.

Why not?

I see no evidence.

Prove there is no god!


That's the disconnect I think. Us atheists say one thing and the religious hear another.

 

Is there some logical reason that atheists keep making the same point over and over again in multiple threads, coupled with derisive presentations of their opponents position? Is science and logic about dogmatic repetition or is it about argumentation and evidence?

Well, there is plenty of evidence for God, but, that evidence is not scientifically conclusive. Its why religion has that logical requirement of, drum roll, faith.

Now for some reason, the exact same atheists claim that their position is not one of faith, and is in fact the result of evidence and pure logic, yet when asked to demonstrate this -is well, they don't actually have a requirement demonstrate the evidence they claim.

Worse, logic requires, indeed science, that a conclusion be supported. Yet atheists toss these requirements right out the door for their position, while claiming it is the other side that does not, indeed cannot, do this?

The question is why the overt hypocrisy? And the simplest explanation is emotion and simple human nature. Unable to back their claims with the evidence they claim, well, its far easier to make excuses and demonize.

Science does not support the conclusion of atheism. That is a simple fact.

 

That's a very accurate description.

To be fair, though, the religious may also say one thing while I hear another. For example, a religious person may say, "there is evidence of God", and all I hear is, "I have a vivid imagination".

 

There is 0 evidence. Show your "evidences".

 

Try godandscience.org.

Now, in order to make the claim that there is no evidence, the logical requirement is that you look out and examine to the extent possible locations where we would find evidence, and then, noon examination, clearly see none. Have you done that?

Its a rhetorical question, because if you had you would find the evidence out there but that it was indeterminate in nature.

For example, God claims miracles, answered prayers, callings, etc. Are there ZERO of these out there? Well, that stands in stark contrast to atheistic claims that there is both no evidence and no requirement for atheists to produce evidence.

Yet atheists are the most militant arrogant pricks in the world when it comes to matters of faith. Generally speaking when someone walks around with their nose in air spouting of definitives in defiance of facts, well, there is a term for that, and its nit science or logic.

Just remember most theologians consider atheism to be self worship. Probably a reason for that.

 

Atheism, the irrational belief that only atheists understand English or that the concept if not believing in God is complex and difficult to understand.

 

Bingo. I do not see many say there absolutely is not a god. It is a simply concept well outside the grasp of most theists.

 

See the post right before the quoted one.

Atheism is far too complex for mere mortals to understand. Such arrogance is palpable and clearly evidence something.

Tell me atheists is beingan arrogant prick necessary? Do you think such antics reflect poorly on that which you detest or yourselves?

 

what is the proof of big bang? or relativity?
there is a leap of faith for atheists too right?
towards unproven theories of science.

1) i don't see why they associate these two together.
one is abstract and concrete, the other is solely concrete thinking.

2) i don't see why people are so obsessive about evidences.
as if they are the only way we pursue our lives.

 

Turn your TV on w/o any cable...See all that static? That is proof of the Big Bang.

2 - evidence = real truth. Im sorry you cant see this.

 

not satisfied by the answers.
same way you won't get satisfied by these:

1)
open your window, see the sunset?
see the clouds?
see the system in the universe?
these are the proof a calculated design and a creator.

2)
show me the evidence to your migrane.

----

i really laughed hard when i saw richard dawkins
trying to explain this.
the question and the way it's put is idiotic too.

----

your answer should have been this:

"those things you mentioned (relativity etc...) are just theories.
so we talk and evolve those theories.
we don't accept them like a bigot!
we don't believe in fairy tales..."​

wouldn't you say it's more appropriate?

 

Tuff - Google the info then...Try learning some actually knowledge for once.

It would really be refreshing for once, if human pulled their heads out of their asses and logical looked at things, instead imagining a bunch of BS.

 

i don't rely on google for actual knowledge.

although i don't agree with the language,
i agree with the meaning.

 

Google is wealth of information. Why don't you? Google is simply a search engine that will lead you to actual knowledge.

Let me ask you, where do you get your 'knowledge' from?

 

not google.
not tv.
not newspapers.

those are just bits and pieces of knowledge, right?
might be false, might be true.

but i will keep silent about e-libraries.

 

Prove there is 0 evidence... What counts as evidence ?

 

Evolution never disproved the deity of Jesus Christ ..

 

But it did disprove the bible. Gen.1:24-25 and Genesis 2:7.

 

It does indeed contradict the creation account,yes but this is hardly the whole Bible.

 

How are you prospect? I hope you had a good New Years.

If the first book in the is wrong, why would believe the rest?

I will admit, the bible has some good advice on how to live ones life, but people take it over board when they say the god the bible speaks of is real. Why say Jesus is coming back? If you take the bible and read it to have a better attitude, hell have it. But the majority doesn't, and therein lies the problem.

 

Thank you Mr. Rstones and likewise ..

I'm not saying you "should," because telling anyone what they should believe is silly to me. I think you can agree .. But the knowledge is out there, science, religion, history ...

Jesus coming back is an issue of divide among Christians. Some are 'futurists' and then some believe that ship sailed long ago, meaning that his "second coming" happened around 70 AD..

 

I am curious - please elaborate on this supposed "second coming" (not the biblical concept in general, but rather the specific event that you have referred to). I do not believe I am familiar with it.

 

http://www.preterism.info/articles/jesus-predicted.htm


EDIT: And his 70 AD return "every eye shall see him" - http://www.preterism.info/articles/every-eye.htm

 

They are proven to the current limit of technology. No faith is required to believe in what to verifiable.