Does God Exist?

[Daxx]

I'll try to sum up so it's easier to understand:

It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. In this instance, proving that God does not exist is impossible because there is no way to falsify his existance. This means that it is reasonable to assume that something like God, or an invisible pink unicorn, does not exist unless someone proves that it does.

You make a very valid point that God's existance changes nothing at all, given how little space there is for God to occupy in our lives. It's just a point of philosophy - coming into a thread titled "Does God Exist" and saying "It doesn't matter" is reasonable but doesn't help answer the question.

[tyranim]

a continuous stream of debate doesnt help answer the question either. if there is no proof of his/her/there existance/nonexistance, then what point is there to this thread? the question is unanswerable, correct?

[Daxx]

a continuous stream of debate doesnt help answer the question either. if there is no proof of his/her/there existance/nonexistance, then what point is there to this thread? the question is unanswerable, correct?

Not quite. If there is no proof that something exists, it is reasonable to assume that it does not. That is the primary contention of those who answer the thread's question in the negative.

[tyranim]

a continuous stream of debate doesnt help answer the question either. if there is no proof of his/her/there existance/nonexistance, then what point is there to this thread? the question is unanswerable, correct?

Not quite. If there is no proof that something exists, it is reasonable to assume that it does not. That is the primary contention of those who answer the thread's question in the negative.

i dont see how its reasonable. there is no evidence for either side. therefor, no argument.

[Daxx]

One side (the side not making the positive claim) doesn't need evidence, as it is the default position.

You may want to actually read that article on the burden of proof that I posted if you don't understand. It's really not very hard.

[tyranim]

im not going to make this a bigger debate than it already is. i said what i mean. interpret it freely. im done with this topic.

[Scaredgirl]

im not going to make this a bigger debate than it already is. i said what i mean. interpret it freely. im done with this topic.

Read the article like Daxx suggested. Otherwise it's pointless for you to even participate in this discussion.

Using your logic, I could make any claim without any proof, and you would have to prove it to be wrong. Don't you see how ridiculous that is?

If I tell you that my house cat (if I had one) was really an Alien King from the planet Epsilon 13 and is planning to attack Earth enslaving us all, would you give me the benefit of a doubt and maybe have a serious discussion about that subject?

Probably not. I'm guessing you would say I'm nuts.

So why is religion any different? There is no proof of God existing. All religions are based on faith, believing into something without any actual proof or believing despite the evidence says otherwise.

The only difference between my house cat the Alien King and religion is that religion has a huge following. If the Church of the Alien House Cat was a billion people strong, it would be generally accepted as one of the major religions. But since it's only me, it's crazy talk.

[vrt]

Just for fun:

If  an employee openly and repeatedly claims he sees a dinosaur walking around the office, it's fair grounds to fire him. If he would claim that the dinosaur is secretly Jesus, he can't be fired because of it.

[darkfrogger]

im not going to make this a bigger debate than it already is. i said what i mean. interpret it freely. im done with this topic.

Read the article like Daxx suggested. Otherwise it's pointless for you to even participate in this discussion.

Using your logic, I could make any claim without any proof, and you would have to prove it to be wrong. Don't you see how ridiculous that is?

Just a minor point, proof is more a mathematical term than a scientific term. Science deals more with theories.

[Scaredgirl]

im not going to make this a bigger debate than it already is. i said what i mean. interpret it freely. im done with this topic.

Read the article like Daxx suggested. Otherwise it's pointless for you to even participate in this discussion.

Using your logic, I could make any claim without any proof, and you would have to prove it to be wrong. Don't you see how ridiculous that is?

Just a minor point, proof is more a mathematical term than a scientific term. Science deals more with theories.

I was talking about math.

[Daxx]

Just a minor point, proof is more a mathematical term than a scientific term. Science deals more with theories.

s/proof/evidence that supports the hypothesis

[nkedwards90]

Personally, I believe in God, but I would most certainly not be angered by someone if they do not believe in my God. I believe that my beliefs are correct, but don't go around correcting people. Whenever I die, I will get into heaven if there is a God (which, by what you already read, I believe there is). If there is not, then I guess I will be gone for all of eternity. I don't even attend church, but I still believe.
The use of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is parodizing religion, and should not be used in a forum about God's existence.