|
Yep, Agreed. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Research Methods 1001, dude. Theories are neither proved nor disproved as "true" or "false" --
they are either useful for predicting events or not useful and therefore discarded.
ADDENDUM
The apparent point of your argument was that many concepts and beliefs cannot be tested using
scientific methods. I agreed. For example, we cannot determine whether today's society would be
better if Lincoln had not been assassinated. The assertion cannot be tested (unless we invent time
travel, and you how all those stories wind up in a muddle). The key to science is the ability to
make testable predictions that are either right or wrong.
To test whether God exists, we would have to assume that he interacts with our world, and that his
influence produce noticeable effects. Imagine the debate on what manifestations he creates. We need
to assume his actions are fairly consistent, and to hypothesize what circumstances would determine
his actions. We then predict that if event A is followed by B more often than expected by chance,
there is support for our hypothesis. Then we need to rule out confounding variables, manipulate
events, etc., So much more.,,
And even then we could not say we had proved or disproved our hypothesized cause of events, namely
God.
|
| |
 Lynn  13 Dec 2008 13:02
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Usually that's the case. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Your statement is correct, it is impossible to disprove the existence of something.
However your logic is flawed, why would you have to start with the assumption that God doesn't
exist? You only had to say that it is impossible to disprove god because there is no evidence of is
existence.
Once again it brings us back to the fact that arguments about god have no relation to proof because
they are based on faith and principle which can not be empirically proven.
Also, do you assume that something does not exist if science can not "prove" it's existence? |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Not entirely. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Well it might be possible if there was a concrete definition to work from. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
What Cephus said. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Well you do need evidence to prove that he exists..which is the Bible, but then again, it's just a
story, that can be fiction or non-fiction. It really depends if you want to believe...but then again
the saying is innocent until proven guilty, so you do need evidence before you can make it true. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think common sense more than anything will tell you what exist and what doesn't, unfortunately
that doesn't happen for everyone because not everyone has common sense. Common sense tells you that
flying elephants do not exist, or that a Pegasus does not exist. Does big foot exist, maybe, we
won't know for sure until a carcass is brought in. If we don't have undeniable evidence for its
existence than to those with common sense it continues to be non-existent. This includes ghost,
big-foot, loch-ness, Chupacabra and yes even god. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I would say that it's even harder to "disprove that something doesn't exist". |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Depends on what you're talking about. It is impossible to prove the nonexistence of something
universal, I cannot prove that no unicorns exist anywhere in the universe because I have no way to
verify my claim. I could, however, prove that there are no unicorns in the room I'm sitting in
right now. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
