Unproven for lack of evidence. Atheism/Theism

M

Mr. Hamtastic

whackawhackado!
Registered Senior Member
I propose that atheism and theism are sides of an unprovable coin. There will foreseeable future be the *possibility* that Deities exist. There will for the foreseeable future be the *possibility* that deities do not exist.

My belief is christian. I understand that there exists a possibility that God is not. I choose to have faith in christianity, and from this viewpoint can look at science and see further evidence to support my faith.

I suggest that the Atheist can understand this possibility of Deity. I further suggest that an Atheist chooses not to believe in a Deity. An Atheist can, from this viewpoint, look at science and find further evidence to back up their not belief.
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
I propose that atheism and theism are sides of an unprovable coin. There will foreseeable future be the *possibility* that Deities exist. There will for the foreseeable future be the *possibility* that deities do not exist.

My belief is christian. I understand that there exists a possibility that God is not. I choose to have faith in christianity, and from this viewpoint can look at science and see further evidence to support my faith.

I suggest that the Atheist can understand this possibility of Deity. I further suggest that an Atheist chooses not to believe in a Deity. An Atheist can, from this viewpoint, look at science and find further evidence to back up their not belief.
Click to expand...

You are obviously not aware that among numismatists there is something referred to as a "proof coin".

As for Jesus and Co., it seems to work for those who choose not to think too much.
 
I was unaware of such, perhaps-unprovable set of arguments?

As for Jesus and Co., why does belief mean that one fails to think? Perhaps by making a suggestion about one belief you are making a suggestion about them all? Thus-no one chooses to think very much?
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
I was unaware of such, perhaps-unprovable set of arguments?

As for Jesus and Co., why does belief mean that one fails to think? Perhaps by making a suggestion about one belief you are making a suggestion about them all? Thus-no one chooses to think very much?
Click to expand...

Belief is a poor substitute for knowledge, the unknowable side of the theist's coin. Bye
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
I propose that atheism and theism are sides of an unprovable coin. There will foreseeable future be the *possibility* that Deities exist. There will for the foreseeable future be the *possibility* that deities do not exist.

My belief is christian. I understand that there exists a possibility that God is not. I choose to have faith in christianity, and from this viewpoint can look at science and see further evidence to support my faith.

I suggest that the Atheist can understand this possibility of Deity. I further suggest that an Atheist chooses not to believe in a Deity. An Atheist can, from this viewpoint, look at science and find further evidence to back up their not belief.
Click to expand...
The onus of proof lies with the claim that god exists. Proof is not required for disbelief.

If it were, Christian theists (for example) would be obliged not only to give proof of Yahweh but to disprove the existence of Zeus, Odin, Ra, Brahma, etc, etc, etc.

~Raithere
 
If you believe what exactly?
That theism is unprovable, or that eternal damnation awaits everyone who doesn't accept Jesus as their savior, or both?
 
S.A.M. said:
You have to give proof of a falsification of a hypothesis. Otherwise, it is assumed to be true.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Please consider; if your assertion was correct and the default position was that any hypothesis given were true that I can simply create one on the spot which you must then presume is true until and unless you refute it.

For example:

I now postulate that the wind is caused by giant, undetectable, winged woolly mammoths flying around in the sky. An hypothesis, according to your assertion, you must consider true.

Absurd, no?

Care to reconsider? If not, you must now believe that the wind is caused by such creatures.

~Raithere
 
gb-no, I see no problem with it.

S.-I'd suggest that withoutproof of a falsification of a hypothesis, it is assumed to be possible.

Raithere-If that is your hypothesis, then I invite you to begin a thread to allow discussion on the topic. I'd be happy to argue for or against as evidence is provided of whether or not the wind is caused by the undetectable flying mammoths. Let me know which forum you plan on putting it, that I might join the discussion and be enlightened.
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
Raithere-If that is your hypothesis, then I invite you to begin a thread to allow discussion on the topic. I'd be happy to argue for or against as evidence is provided of whether or not the wind is caused by the undetectable flying mammoths. Let me know which forum you plan on putting it, that I might join the discussion and be enlightened.
Click to expand...
Do you share Sam's assertion that the default assumption for any given hypothesis is that it is true? If not, you and I have no contention on that point. If you agree with Sam then I am not required to give evidence.

My point to you, to reiterate, is that the burden of proof lies upon the claimant.

~Raithere
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
I propose that atheism and theism are sides of an unprovable coin. There will foreseeable future be the *possibility* that Deities exist. There will for the foreseeable future be the *possibility* that deities do not exist.

My belief is christian. I understand that there exists a possibility that God is not. I choose to have faith in christianity, and from this viewpoint can look at science and see further evidence to support my faith.
Click to expand...
Do you believe in Christianity, or in God and/or Jesus and/or Holy trinity ?

Mr. Hamtastic said:
I suggest that the Atheist can understand this possibility of Deity.
Click to expand...
Of course. I get the concept, if that's what you mean.

Mr. Hamtastic said:
I further suggest that an Atheist chooses not to believe in a Deity.
Click to expand...
Uhm.. is not exactly like we are confronted with a reality and then choose not to believe in it..

Mr. Hamtastic said:
An Atheist can, from this viewpoint, look at science and find further evidence to back up their not belief.
Click to expand...
Or find evidence to back up Christianity or evidence for whatever other god, I'm not holding my breath though.
 
S.A.M. said:
You have to give proof of a falsification of a hypothesis. Otherwise, it is assumed to be true.
Click to expand...
Kind of cute.. bit disturbing though.

Raithere said:
Wrong.

Please consider; if your assertion was correct and the default position was that any hypothesis given were true that I can simply create one on the spot which you must then presume is true until and unless you refute it.

For example:

I now postulate that the wind is caused by giant, undetectable, winged woolly mammoths flying around in the sky. An hypothesis, according to your assertion, you must consider true.

Absurd, no?

Care to reconsider? If not, you must now believe that the wind is caused by such creatures.

~Raithere
Click to expand...
Or you just spout the opposite theory: "God does not exist".
This theory cannot be disproven either so it must also be true.
So.. God exists and God doesn't exist at the same time.
Handy.
 
Mr H just out of interest how does one use science to find evidence to support your faith? What aspect of science rocks this for you?
 
An hypothesis has to be falsifiable to be legitimate, which the God hypothesis seems to avoid.

Atheists don't necessarily believe that there is no possibility of a God-like entity, only that there is not sufficient reason to consider it likely at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top