Why is that rational, science cannot prove that something does not exist, in fact it's a fundemental law of science that it cannot, it can only prove that something has evidence ergo, no evidence no proof that it exists or doesn't.
Ask an agnostic...
- Thread starter Sidhe
- Start date
Why is that rational, science cannot prove that something does not exist, in fact it's a fundemental law of science that it cannot, it can only prove that something has evidence ergo, no evidence no proof that it exists or doesn't.
Masquerouge
Deity
Mmm. As an atheist, I do indeed think our existence is a contigency in this Universe. Meaning, the goal of this Universe was not our existence, and it could have very well happened that we never came into being.
I agree this reasoning is based on faith not evidence therefore it is not rational, that said I cannot disprove his assertion so therefore I have to acknowledge that he may be right, but only because I cannot prove nonexistence any more than I can intangible existence.
Masquerouge
Deity
I knew we were heading the wrong way with the double negatives
I have a hard time understanding your post 
But I got it.
Science can not prove that something does not exist? So what! I say. As I explained earlier, every time we discovered something, every time we proved something existed, it was rational and logical.
Why then should we assume that the things we can not prove are supernatural, rational and illogical? Chances are, given the current evidencem they're more likely than not to be rational, logical things.
Rhymes
Drive 4 25 is back
And this doesn't go against my belief. We might, or might not, be part of the creator's plan. We will eventually find out, if man kind survives long enough
(I really get a kick out of calling it "the creator")
Masquerouge
Deity
I'm sorry for thread-jacking Sidhe, but I can't stand this example of trolling. If God told us his powers, then we would have to power to become God ourselves.
Perfection
The Great Head.
What it seems to me is taking an agnostic stand is rather a silly way of going about it. I think it's important to label absurdity as absurdity that for all intents and purposes has no bearing whatsoever on reality and move on. Agnosticism seems like just a fancy form of sophmoric philosophical skepticism.
I knew we were heading the wrong way with the double negatives
But I got it.
Science can not prove that something does not exist? So what! I say. As I explained earlier, every time we discovered something, every time we proved something existed, it was rational and logical.
Why then should we assume that the things we can not prove are supernatural, rational and illogical? Chances are, given the current evidence they're more likely than not to be rational, logical things.
How may times in science has it come to be understood that things we could not prove are actually proved to be true. Look at Einsteins veiw of the universe, without evidence his theory would have failed, but his conjecture actually stood up to scientific proof, what your asking me to do is say that because something does not have proof it must be false, this is illogical and what's more it's unproovable. We can say that proovable things are true but by scientific axiom we cannot say that unprovable things are false, all we can say is that they have no proof. Nothing more.
You might think that, but unfortunatley you have no rational reason to believe it. You can say that it's fancy but you cannot prove it. It's important to ignore absurdity, but it's also important to accept that such absurdity cannot rationally have a negative proof. For example String theory has no proof, by your reasoning it must be absurd, since it has nothing by which we could measure it, it is fanciful, what is more absurd a pink unicorn we can't measure or a mathematical system that has no means of proof or measure? And if you think one is more absurd than the other can you show me why?
Rhymes
Drive 4 25 is back
Well... he can tell us he exists without giving us the secret of his power.. can't he?
Bah, dont answer that or the existance of this thread is doomed.
Masquerouge
Deity
The big difference between God and a scientific conjecture is that you can actually prove or disprove the scientific conjecture.
Furthermore a scientific conjecture usually has a logical, rational basis, not a supernatural one.
So what I'm asking you to do is not assume something is supernatural because you can not prove it does not exist.
Rhymes
Drive 4 25 is back
Nah i disagree, its not philosophocal to make the difference between:
-I don't believe god exists
-I don't know if god exists
Xanikk999
History junkie
That wasnt trolling...
Perfection said:
I dont see what your beef is with agnosticism... The thing with agnosticism is that we dont really care. Its impossible to prove god or disaprove. But i see theres no logic in disaproving something made up.
But we dont know everything about the universe yet so im saying its valid to be agnostic.
Cheetah
Deity
Or, like me, accept that since I can not prove them not to exist they might exist, but since there is no reason to believe they exist, I think and act as if they do not.
I'm agnostic, but in practise I behave as an atheist.
I agree to an extent, but I'm trying to prove agnosticism as logically consistent not the supernatural or evidential. You can't prove scientific conjecture without experiment, a guess is merely that. Works both ways in philosophical argument. The essence is what you can prove logically, if you can prove either that God exists or doesn't: show me: if you can't then you have nothing scientific to work on and nothing philosophical either, therefore atheism falls down and so does theism under scientific remit. Here you've answered my question: why am I agnostic, because nothing proovable or rational can show me otherwise, is this logically consistent or is atheism or theism? If I'm wrong prove God exists, or doesn't?
That's consistent but it isn't logical but fair play.
Perfection
The Great Head.
That's a negative claim, so prove it! If you can't prove it, you must remain agnostic and withdraw your criticism!
You cannot prove the converse, therefore my belief in the unproovable stands. You cannot logically remain atheistic if you have nothing on your side, but I can remain agnsotic with nothing on my side, it's a simple logical argument, I can remain logical you can't.
No by all means bring religion in, agnosticism is the belief that I cannot know whether God exists so anything that doubts that is fair play. Go for it.
Perfection
The Great Head.
You cannot prove that I cannot prove the converse! So you must be agnostic on the existance of a rational argument for being an atheist.
You assume that I have nothing on my side because you see no evidence of it.
Hmmm.... what does that remind me of?
Quit applying double standards you crazy agnostic!
I'm not your simply applying proof to something you can't prove, my position is that I can't prove it. Therefore if you can't prove yours my postion is sound. cmon Perfection your out of means to prove God exists or doesn't therefore you have to accept you have nothing to work on. This is basic logic you can twist an turn all you like but you have nothing, if you don't like it then prove me wrong by proving God exists or he doesn't. Simple. It's not rocket science hell you study rocket science it's easier than this.
Similar threads
