Quote:
Originally Posted by downquark1
Again without being too pendantic, scientists generally define something that exists as something that is observable or has an observable effect. Philosophically you can't disproof the existance of something that doesn't match this criteria. So in that respect we agree.
The common atheist arugment is you could use the arguement for the existance of god for virtually anything (the flying spagetti monster etc.). So its mainly for the sake of sanity and consistancy that they refuse to believe in god. Plus if something does exist and has no observable effects does it really matter if it exists or not?
But in your last sentence you are assuming that there are powers that are above us.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ B
Not until people start demanding proof of what I believe in.
|
I dont think people do, Expect in cases where we are debating the existance of god. You cannot really prove or disprove god so any arguements such as that are pointless. Although downquark1 makes a good point from my point of view that there are many things you cant disaprove which begs the question "Why that belief?" etc
I only talk about proof when a religion is disagreeing with science. Such as evolution, if your going to say its wrong then proof should be argued. Also Dinosaurs, there is a whole peroid of history in between the newest dinosaur bones and the first humans? Including a mass extinction and an ice age