Prisme said:
Fascinating... how 'non-believers' cannot rationaly grasp that the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.... oh and can't manage an argument for ****.
Proof is on another thread, heres the link
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=269
I looked at the proof. To my surprise, it asked two very good questions:
“Why is there something rather than nothing?”
“What caused the Universe?”
The conclusion was that 'God' did it based on the notion that no explanation
currently exists that is adequate. In other words, "I don't know; therefore,
'God' did it". At this point the notion that 'God' exists has automatically been
assumed and used as a substitute for truth in the absence of knowledge.
While reading, I found this gem of an assertion:
The Steady State Theory is true even though it has been contradicted
by physical observations...
Which essentially says "I accept it's true and don't require supportive or
contradictory evidence for my acceptance". In other words, this is a 'belief'.
Next, I noted this gem of a questions:
"Did the Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing?"
This question by today's standards is lacking... to demonstrate this, I would
challenge anyone to:
* Show me an example where 'nothing' exists.
* Show me an example of anything that created itself.
Lastly, I came across this question:
"Why was the Universe Created?"
It makes the assumption that 'purpose' must exist.
Regardless of all the above, the article did not show any evidence to support
the notion that 'God' exists.
Oh and Prisme, you are correct... absence of proof does not mean that
something isn't true. I claim the 'easter bunny' exists and I have no proof that
it exists then it doesn't mean the claim is not true. So, how is it that we
both 'know' the 'easter bunny' doesn't exist?