Unproven for lack of evidence. Atheism/Theism

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Well, can they be proven false, now?

 

[Myles]

No, it cannot, because we cannot even define God yet.

Now how do you entertain a concept of god without at least having some attributes in mind ?

If god cannot fully be defined, how about sharing with us those attributes which you take as given ?

 

[Enmos]

Well, can they be proven false, now?

No.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Then do we call them unprovable for the foreseeable future?

 

[S.A.M.]

Now how do you entertain a concept of god without at least having some attributes in mind ?

If god cannot fully be defined, how about sharing with us those attributes which you take as given ?

Do I have to? I've had this discussion with Pete and frankly, I don't feel like discussing it again.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

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.

It looks like we may have come full circle then... what a ride.

 

[(Q)]

Yes, I called my Mom and asked her to look at it. She said she couldn't see it through the phone

Never mind, then.

 

[KennyJC]

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.

That coin is not a 50/50 thing.

Toss the coin and chances are it will land on atheism every time.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Kenny-why do you say this? Are you suggesting Atheism/Theism are provable? Would you mind proving one of them?

 

[KennyJC]

Kenny-why do you say this? Are you suggesting Atheism/Theism are provable? Would you mind proving one of them?

It's simple really.

For all we know there could be a zillion reasons why the universe exists. But you are resting on one reason.

Of this coin you talk about, one side of the coin has one reason the universe exists, whereas it ignores the zillion other possible reasons on the other side of the coin.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

the universe existing is an entirely different topic.
this is Can we prove that any deity is or is not? I enjoy discussing the existence of the universe, though, perhaps, Free Thinking?

 

[Enmos]

Then do we call them unprovable for the foreseeable future?

No, they are inherently unprovable, for all time.

 

[Enmos]

the universe existing is an entirely different topic.
this is Can we prove that any deity is or is not? I enjoy discussing the existence of the universe, though, perhaps, Free Thinking?

I think some theists claim that God created the universe, though I could be wrong of course..

 

[KennyJC]

the universe existing is an entirely different topic.
this is Can we prove that any deity is or is not? I enjoy discussing the existence of the universe, though, perhaps, Free Thinking?

It's not an entirely different topic. Beleivers in god say that he made the universe and made us.

 

[Cellar_Door]

Kenny-why do you say this? Are you suggesting Atheism/Theism are provable? Would you mind proving one of them?

Can I try? Two sides of an even coin? I think not...

1. The fact that evolution is the most complete and concise theory (with a lot of evidence to support it) on how we came to be that is known to man. That which has even made creationists bow down to accept it (while they of course cling to their one remaining fairy tale, even though they have already compromised a large part of their own 'evidence'. Funny how the Holy Books are twisted to suit the reader).

2. The irrefutable proof that the body decomposes and is destroyed after death. Plus the fact that no-one has ever woken up a couple of hundred years after their demise.
Therefore it can be proved that no part of the body continues to live on after death. Heaven cannot exist, and neither can God.

Atheism has proof and evidence. Theism has some books that continue to be proved false. I don't know about irrefutable, but this is no fifty:fifty chance.

 

[greenberg]

gb-no, I see no problem with it.

So you think you bear no responsibility for what you say about God?

 

[iceaura]

Except science is limited by what we know or accept as known. Logic, ethics, philosophy, religion are all in the realm beyond these limitations. There, we can delve into possibilities.

You have now added "possibilities" to the realm of things excluded from science.

The list so far, in this thread, includes explanation, evidence, logic, argument, and the unknown. Now "possibilities".

If science is not a source of explanation, a means of investigating possibilities, an employment of reason and logic, a supplier and employer of evidence, and so forth, about the world, what is ?

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Can I try? Two sides of an even coin? I think not...

1. The fact that evolution is the most complete and concise theory (with a lot of evidence to support it) on how we came to be that is known to man. Which has even made creationists bow down to accept it (while they of course cling to their one remaining fairy tale, even though they have compromised a large part of their own 'evidence').


2. The irrefutable proof that the body decomposes and is destroyed after death. Plus the fact that no-one has ever woken up a couple of hundred years later. Therefore it can be proved that no part of the body continues to live on after death.


Atheism has proof and evidence. Theism has some books that continue to be proved false. I don't know about irrefutable, but this is no fifty:fifty chance.

Ah evolution. At what point does the Bible claim to be a book of biology?

So, you are saying that body=soul?

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

GB-As a christian, yes. I bear responsibility to God for what I say about God.

 

[Raithere]

Actually, Enmos, Raithere, That's kind of exactly the point of the thread. Nothing can be proven to perfection. Both sides are true and both sides are not true at the same time, until further evidence is given.

If we are waiting for absolutes we will wait forever. Pragmatically, this poses something of a problem. Inerrant adherence to reductionism leads to an incapacitating futility, we therefore need to be capable of forming an operating framework even if it is based ultimately in unproven assumptions.

The question therefore becomes; which assumptions do we make? Personally, I attempt to be parsimonious in my assumptions as this leaves the smallest possible window for error, reduces dissonance, and eliminates redundancy. Within this framework, and relating back to your OP, the lack of evidence excises the claim. No evidence for the claim of god provides all that is necessary to not believe in god.

While we can, and to some extent have, argue the merit of this on to the point of absurdity there are a couple of points that should be made.

First, is that parsimony is one of the basic principles of science. Sam is incorrect in stating that hypotheses are presumed true by default in this arena. She may well go on to argue on other grounds but in regards to science, she is simply wrong.

Second, the alternatives are infinite. Therefore one must provide another basis for evaluating hypotheses. Neglecting to do so will not leave one in an either/or, equal probability type of dilemma but instead leaves one with no basis of discrimination at all. In other words, all hypotheses are true in such a frame. As Sam clearly does not believe everything she is being intellectually dishonest in this regard. She is using some method to discriminate between the contending hypotheses; she simply neglects to tell us what it is and is using the presumption of truth argument as a smokescreen. Or perhaps she simply doesn't know why she believes as she does which is often the case.

~Raithere