at one time it was thought a vacuum fluctuation caused matter to form out of nothingness but that is now challenged by the " multiverse" theory. It is also wrong to think that just because you can not prove that X exists that does not mean that X does not exist and therefore X does exist. Please fill in your name. Should be Premise 1:Either (A) X exists and we know it or (B) X exists but we do not know it or (C) X does not exist and we know it
Now don't think you are the only one who can get "aggressive" about your beliefs at times. (Maybe a more appropriate term would be "passionate")? Why? By this stage you would no longer believe in his existence. In my first sentence of my latest reply " joy " should be " you". http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/185443/is-there-a-word-to-describe-a-claim-that-cannot-be-disproved-because-the-situati
It may or may not be true, but it is no longer important because there is no choice but to be vegetarian. Alex Reply November 16, 2013 at 11:36 pm scepticalprophet "By the same token, you have logically explained why we cannot prove that God does not exist." This is true for anything. p.213. It's disobedience to God's commandments.
What is " right" and " wrong" behavior can never be immediately determined , much as the cliche that says although we feel it is wrong to kill, what about if And in 1851, Leon Foucault, a self-trained French physicist, proved definitively that earth rotates—rather than staying in place as the sun revolved around it—using a special pendulum whose circular motion revealed FALSE DILEMMA or non-exhaustive alternatives There is the mistake of thinking that there are only two alternatives of a false dilemma: Premise 1:Either X exists or X does not Exist Premise Can A Question Be A Claim Politics World Business Tech Health Science Entertainment Newsfeed Living Ideas Parents Sports History The TIME Vault Magazine Subscribe Give a Gift TIME Shop Press Room Newsletters Customer Service Site Map Privacy
Just get your facts right and soon you'll realise religion has nothing to support it except years of indoctrinated followers who never stopped to ask why. Cannot Be Proved Or Disproved No one has ever proved, to my knowledge, that Santa Claus does not exist. How did early mathematicians make it without Set theory? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence What we now need to establish is what evidence we base our beliefs on?
These work because most data that people want to compress contains redundancy. Cannot Be Proven In some universes, the conditions are wrong for life; however, by the sheer size of this putative multiverse, there must be a universe where everything is right. This is similar to reductio ad absurdum, that taking negative proof as legitimate means that one can prove practically anything, regardless of how absurd. Humans need to proceed carefully in reaching conclusions.
The last nail in the coffin is saved for last - I'm sure many of you have heard the first two points but not many will have heard the last. 1. But in fact it only takes a short program to generate these digits so they compress really well in this scheme.But the statement I made above still applies. Something That Cannot Be Disproved What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? Unsubstantiable Definition Do you think that science is able to calculate and prove existential, moral, logical, historical, and experiential truth?
In considering the fact that several different prophets who lived in separate communities over a span of a 1,000 years made predictions of Christ 500 years before His birth, the odds No one , I believe, can take issue with since belief, especially since yours offers such comfort and finality for you. It's like disproving or proving the world was created by frogs dropping ping pong balls upon the void. Nothing can be derived from nothing." If I say, "Anything is possible" I must admit the possibility that the statement I just made is false. (See Self Exclusion) Doubt must always Absence Of Evidence Is Not Evidence Of Absence Quote
My belief in God is no longer based on being happy, but simply acknowledging that I am insignificant and a part of a whole. As for a "self/soul," I firmly believe that the one who created all things has not only given us a soul/spirit, but that our spirit is made in the image of Reply March 17, 2013 at 9:35 am scepticalprophet I had a frustrating debate with a Muslim that failed to understand what causality. None of them are interested in proceeding towards the truth.
Explain to me how science can do that. The Absence Of Evidence Is Not The Evidence Of Absence Quote Meaning Web Surfer's Caveat: These are class notes, intended to comment on readings and amplify class discussion. a1, a2, …, an are all Fs that are also G. 2.
Since I did so, I've had the "ride of my life." Richard Terrill says: March 14, 2016 at 7:53 am Sorry Tom. Think. 4 (4): 109–112. I think @JohnMeacham's "unfalsifiable" nails it. The Absence Of Evidence Is Not The Evidence Of Absence Boondocks Some Egyptian hieroglyphics predate that by hundreds of years.
Why is it that the burden is on the person who makes the claim? Well, science doesn't work in absolutes but there is literally no rational reason for you to believe in god. If god can not be comprehended, then why do you follow the words of people in churches that have had wealth and power throughout history? Science is completely incapable of proving such a thing.
Cheers This will be my last comment. ie there is no reason to prove a " first cause" etc ,as most people are familiar with the fallacies which arise using that argument. There would be no need to look inside because the mass of the moon would not fit inside such a space and were its mass to be condensed its mass would March 23, 2013 at 12:04 pm scepticalprophet Noel, to answer your question - yes, this universe in the way we currently understand it had a beginning.
Want to know how weak science is? But it simply baffles me when I read atheists concluding (with the limited minds that we all possess) that there is absolutely no God. I don't think the author here is trying to discredit the value of scientific investigation, but rather is pointing to the fact that we know things are true that are not It is shifting the Burden of Proof for the person making the positive claim to insist that those who deny the positive claim have the burden to prove that the positive