AWKWARD ZOMBIE

What's the difference between absolute proof and normal proof then? Also, yes, everything is uncertain. Which supports my claim that it's just as reasonable to assume there is some sort of God than that there isn't. And again, yes you can logically argue to support your claim either way, but you ca...

Your own existence, or the idea that it's the only thing that can be absolutely proven

Syobon wrote:Then you said you couldn't see why someone would belief in a possibility with no absolute proof.

Man I keep saying that this has nothing to do with absolute proof either way

Technically nothing but your own existence can be absolutely proven

It's possible for some evidence to imply that something is true without necessarily outright proving it. Therefore, it may make sense to believe something without having outright proof. That's still proof though, even if it's not conclusive Evidence is not synonymous with proof. Example: if I come ...

It's possible for some evidence to imply that something is true without necessarily outright proving it. Therefore, it may make sense to believe something without having outright proof. That's still proof though, even if it's not conclusive But those people often say they can feel His presence or s...

And like I just said: I'm not saying that it's conclusive proof that he doesn't exist. I'm saying that if there's no proof that something exists there's no real reason to believe that it exists

There isn't any real proof one way or another that there's no teapot orbiting in the asteroid belt either, but it's still ridiculous to demand that people believe there is one I could say that the teapot is naturally occurring- that some elements in space just happened to align in such a way to cons...

That's not proving that apples can't fall upward. That's proving that they can fall downward. Why do you believe that they can't fall upward? Because there's no conclusive proof that they can.

Syobon wrote:

Chinmaster wrote:The point of Russell's Teapot is that it shouldn't be on scientists to disprove God's existence, but on believers to prove it.

Simply put, why?

Because asking someone to try and prove a negative is ridiculous

The point of Russell's Teapot is that it shouldn't be on scientists to disprove God's existence, but on believers to prove it. If they can't, then there's no reason to believe it. I'm not saying that it completely contradicts any argument for the existence of a deity, but it's a pretty good starting...

Syobon wrote:@Russel's Teapot, but in this case there is no substantial evidence for either party and there most likely never will be.

Uh isn't that the whole point of Russell's Teapot

Most of them, but it's pretty logical that it's impossible to conclusively prove or disprove the existence of an entity that by definition is impossible to describe . You can argue that one side makes more sense, but who said the universe makes sense? In the end, everyone should be entitled to thei...

Syobon wrote: no parties have conclusive arguments.

Have you heard all of them?

Silver_Wolf wrote:The thing is, countless cultures have creation stories. So singling out on and saying "this this the right one", always seemed silly to me.

Of course when you let go of supernatural stuff you're basically stuck with "At first there was nothing, which blew up"

He might have mentioned whatever it was already and doesn't want to go into it again