Proof of God

[Paulhoff]

You may have a problem with it, but can you prove that it is not so?
I don't have to prove someone else's idea of a so-called god, they do.

This universe certainly does look like it started out simple and became more complex.

However, the beginning point of simplicity producing complexity is nothing producing something or something always being there meaning time/space without beginning.
Then what made the so-called god that explains nothing, meaning it doesn't show how the universe works, a so-called god is meaningless because it can be anything you would it to be.

If you can't get your head around these concepts then there may be othe concepts you can't get your head around.
I will tell you this again, there has been nothing that you or anyone else as wrote on this forum that I do not understand, that haven't already heard before, and I have not thought about etc, about the limited concept of a so-called big daddy in the sky.

Consider also that, if, according to a popular hypothesis, a quantum fluctuation produced the universe, then the possibility of a quantum fluctation had to exist before that quantum fluctuation actually occured. But that possibility of a quantum fluctation contains within it all of universe that developed from it because there was nothing else there to contribute to it.

Think of this, the universe could have had any set of conditions for the four forces, any, and just because they have the strength they have now means nothing, absolutely nothing.

Nevertheless, if you cannot provide evidence against it, it remains as a possibility (however remote you believe that possibility to be), especially when we haven't resolved the ultimate questions of our existence.

There is no question of our existence, we just are, just as we may not have been, and all of us now will not be in the future. We are in no way an end product of the universe, we just happen to be one now, and in the future something else will be the end product then. Also once again the idea of a so-called god does not answer anything, it only pushes off any question to another level, nothing is understood by that answer.

Yes, who or what made god?
Like the question: who or what made nothing produce something, which contained within it, and solely within it, the instructions and the matter/energy from which the whole of the universe evolved.

There are no instructions for this universe and/or any other universe that are needed, none, instructions are a human idea and are not needed by a universe. The universe does not have a need to evolve, it is a process, not a design, a design needs a designer, and a process does not.

Paul

 

[kmortis]

Yep! Orson Welles - legend!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_SQyCJega8

F For Fake and Citizen Kane are always on my top 10 film lists. The only reason I haven't seen either in the last two years is that I only have them on VHS, and my player randomly eats tapes.

Is ad populum a fallacy in any case?

Yup.
Ok, so I didn't put the "Argumentum" at the beginng. I've been fighting an intestinal bug and I was way over due for sleep when I wrote that. Forgive me.

Oh yeah! And in Annus Mirabilis 1905 a hitherto unknown assistant examinar at the Zurich patent office published three papers in the Annalen der Physik that changed the world. His Theory of Relativity actually made this aether approach void. Nevertheless, Michelson & Morley frenetically kept seeking a glimpse of the frikkin aether, millions of measurements but zero result.

Eh..where were we? Yes, there is no doubt about how science functions. I just doubt discussions between beliefers and non-beliefers function best in the same way.

But, you see that's my point. M&M were TRYING TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR the existance of the aether. Einsteins genius wasn't that he was the first to realize that the aether didn't exist, but that it wasn't the end of the world that it didn't. Oh, and the hair. You cannot be an influential scientist without great hair.
Um...ok, maybe that last part is streching it a bit. After all, Feynman had rather normal hair, and he was a great scientists. All the others, though, Newton, Gauss, Maxwell, and Plait all had/have great hair.

Anyhoo, the onus was on the aether-believers to provide evidence that it actually existed, right? Much like the Dark Matter believers. Aether failed, and thus far DM has succeeded.

When deity believers make claims that their deity had direct influence on this universe, we should be able to see the effects. Like prayer. However, every study has come up inconclusive.

Wait: deities are (mostly) supernatural. And claims about their existence are extra-/ordinary. Right?

Uh...yeah.

Existence of gods is mostly not against natural laws. Neither does physics even bother about gods. You wont get any support from science if you seek a disprove for common transcendental notions. These are non-falsifiabe anyways, not science business. Thus, you cannot hope for science here. You need to use your own head.

Yes and no. Here's the point where I actually whip out Occam's Shaving Kit^tm and say "Anybody wanna pizza?".

Um...sorry, what was I saying? Oh yeah.

You are correct, most descriptions of a deity are non-fasifiable. Which kind of tells me that they're, well, fictional. There's nothing wrong with fiction, unles you're basing your entire life on it. If I were to tell you that Gandalf the Grey was coming back soon and that we should get the Shire ready, you'd probably have me committed. But if you tell me that Jesus is coming back soon and we should probably get our affiars in order, I'm supposed to take you seriously?

Of course! But you might be curious to understand why someone believes in this and that. If not, why discuss with them in the first place? Your standpoint is clear anyway. So, what?

Oh, if you want that kind of discussion, have at. I'm more than happy to delve into why a believer believes what they do. I do that quite often, actually. It's a good way to get to know people.

However, in a thread called "Proof of God", it is reasonable to expect that a proof of god will be provided. However, none have been forthcoming.

Ha! It was the women, dont cheat on me!

You found me out. Nothing attracts the college wimmin like a hot engineer pa-tay!

I studied physics btw, so you couldnt surprise me with that aether thing. The more so as I cant help beaten off these c*ckheaded RT deniers in German forums.

Um...really, I don't wany to know who you're beating off....

RT deniers? I'm not familiar with that term.

I think, I referred to different candidates here, not to you. If so, I apologize.

Well, since you were quoting me, I assumed it was in response to me.

Now, thats the point! I dont think that natural science carries a mandatory worldview, naturalism. Christians, muslims etc. might as well become scientists without any cognitive dissonance. Science restricts itself to researching nature and thereby excludes supernatural areas altogether. As long as the areas dont conflict with each other - whats the problem?

Yeah, sure, Occam. I agree. But a believers notion might not be to research the world. It might be to get along with a personal crisis, to find meaning in life, to accept his own death etc.
Occam leaves you alone here.

Herzblut

Ah..the NOMA argument. That's fine. And to expand on what I said in a previous post, if you're using a deity to bring you comfort in a time of need, or to help provide a common sense of community, or other non-tangable thing, go for it. If you start saying that you cannot give your child a life-saving blood transfusion 'cause God said not to, I'm gonna call you a nutter.

Besides, it's fun to have a ready made argument that some of the best thinkers in history have failed to resolve.

 

[kmortis]

An animal is part of living nature and as such subject to scientific research. God is not. The analogy is invalid. Dont mix the areas, I said already. This only leads to fallacies.

Only if you have a Deistic view of god. For a more fundamentalist version, where He takes an active role in the day-to-day operation, there should be evidence; an amputee's limb growing back after 20 years of being missing, for example.

What you can think of and what is - with due respect - differ dramatically. Also, what evidence have we got after 1600+ years of ..well.. discussions? Exactly: ZERO.

Oh, i agree, which is why I put that final caveat ("I'm open to any evidence to the contrary, but I'm at a loss (I'm also over tired, so take it for what it is)") in. I have read most of the arguments for the existance of a divine being, and all have been refuted. To date, I know of no hard evidence beign put forth. That sort of evidence would be international headlines if it were found. Again, if you have any hard evidence, please provide it for inspection, the Nobel committee awaits.

Please read my statement (3), then return again and enlightenment is on the way.

The important point is actually this one:

(1)
the assertion "There is (no) Christian God" is no statement of facts. It is neither falsifiable nor verifiable such that evidence discussions are worthless.

(2)
"There is no God" cannot be taken literally because it faked a non-existing statement falsifiability. The two correct wordings are very well known and anything else is nonsense.

(3)
Whoever claims the (non-)existence of God can be verified/falsified whatsoever, has to provide evidence to this assertion by delivering scientific research results supporting his claim. If he cannot, he's an agitating, conniving, two-faced, slippery, lying weasel.

Good luck.

Herzblut

<sigh>

We've hit a roundabout. I'm not the one making the verifiable claims about a divine being, am I? It's the set of believers who point to the "power of prayer" or somesuch that do. When their claims are invesitgated, they fall short. If you're putting forth the idea of a divine in line with what a Deist believes in, then proving that would be a fool's errand. In that case, the god has almost no interaction with this world, and the time when he did is so long ago, as to be almost impossible to verify.

If you're a believer of the second sort (or a non-believer trying to make a point), then this is where our discussion ends. I agree with you. A Desitic god would be impossible to provide evidence for or against.

However, I don't just deal with Deists. Deists don't try to turn countries into theocracies. They don't try to make me live my life by their rules. I'm not really worried about a Desitic uprising. In fact, most Deists fight for the same things that I do (religious tolerance/freedom etc.).

It's the Fundamentalists and their god that bother me. That one, I do care if he exists or not. AS he is described by them, it is unlikely that he exists.

 

[Herzblut]

F For Fake and Citizen Kane are always on my top 10 film lists. The only reason I haven't seen either in the last two years is that I only have them on VHS, and my player randomly eats tapes.

Randomly? That's what you think. Dont forget: God sees everything!

Ok, so I didn't put the "Argumentum" at the beginng.

Dont wanna ride a dead horse to the slaughterhouse here, but I didnt really say "Idea I is popular. Therefore, I is correct." but instead "Idea I is popular. Therefore, I is an ordinary claim" which is not the same for a few people I know.

Einsteins genius wasn't that he was the first to realize that the aether didn't exist, but that it wasn't the end of the world that it didn't. Oh, and the hair. You cannot be an influential scientist without great hair.

That is so damn right! Einsteins hairdresser performed at least as well as Einstein himself, if you ask me.

If I were to tell you that Gandalf the Grey was coming back soon and that we should get the Shire ready, you'd probably have me committed. But if you tell me that Jesus is coming back soon and we should probably get our affiars in order, I'm supposed to take you seriously?

Come on! Be fair! I mean, what's bad about Jesus hair?

However, in a thread called "Proof of God", it is reasonable to expect that a proof of god will be provided.

Eh .. reasonable? Well, if you think so...

However, none have been forthcoming.

Yeah, to my sudden surprise I found no solution here to this dodgy problem of humankind.

RT deniers? I'm not familiar with that term.

Oh, RT= Relativitätstheorie.

Ah..the NOMA argument.

Thanks for the link! BTW, I really assume thats true. Look at Iran e.g. Lot of students hanging round on campus, even women! No probs with the Quran! Well, it might be they need engineers to build up their ..eh.. solar power plants or so.

That's fine. And to expand on what I said in a previous post, if you're using a deity to bring you comfort in a time of need, or to help provide a common sense of community, or other non-tangable thing, go for it.

Yeah, on turbulent flights there are no atheists, as we say.

If you start saying that you cannot give your child a life-saving blood transfusion 'cause God said not to, I'm gonna call you a nutter.

Better smack me in the face!

Herzblut

 

[D'rok]

...unless you are saying that something DOES NOT exist.
Then you need evidence that it DOES NOT exist.




An astronomical anomaly make lead you to the hypothesis that some planet exists at a particular point in space. When that planet is not found at that point in space, you have evidence that that planet does not exist.

Looked for but not found. Check. Same as god.

In any case, just because it is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to provide evidence for non-existence (ie unicorns exist somewhere in the universe), is neither here nor there (you still cannot legitimately say "there are no unicorns in the universe").

There are no unicorns in the universe. Show me otherwise. Militant agnosticism is not a reasonable position.

I don't mind if you take this as a practical stance.
Strictly speaking, though, both of these statements are not correct, the second less so than the first, which is almost certainly true.

According to everything that we know or are capable of knowing about everything, both of these statements are correct. Perhaps we will have a valid new way of knowing some time in the unknowable future, but that's not much of a basis for doubt.

See my demolition of his quotes.

You skipped the best one:

If there really were a large and unusual type of animal in Loch Ness, then we would have undeniable evidence of it by now.
We don't have undeniable evidence of a large, unfamiliar animal in Loch Ness.
Therefore, there is no such animal.

Same principle as your "evidence" for the non-existence of that planet. If you want to call this evidence, fine (but incorrect). By this definition, there is evidence for the non-existence of the god.

You don't accept these limits?

I certainly do. But they do not cause me to doubt my beliefs. In fact, the conditional nature of the framework allows me the luxury of certainty - I know that I do not need to cling to my beliefs if they turn out to be incorrect.

True "within the epistemological framework" may turn out to be false as that "epistemological framework" changes or expands.

Precisely my point. Flexible certainty.

"flexible certainty" sounds like another oxymoron.
Certainly evidence is the wild card - hey, I think deep down you really agree with me.

We're not oceans apart; we're peering at each other across a stream. C'mon over...the view is better from this side.

Not absurd. If you say "THERE IS NO GOD", you need evidence. Period.
If you are willing to qualify your view as "There is no evidence that there is a god", I have no argument

Your definition of the function of evidence is absurd. We look for a planet, don't find it where we think it should be, and that is "evidence" that it doesn't exist? No. That is failure to find evidence that it does exist. But it may be reasonable to conclude from this failure that it does not exist. If this is the standard that you are requiring for disbelief in god, then that standard has been well met. There is no god. We looked, he wasn't there. He is not.

 

[Mobyseven]

An astronomical anomaly make lead you to the hypothesis that some planet exists at a particular point in space. When that planet is not found at that point in space, you have evidence that that planet does not exist.

Nuh-uh! There is so a planet there! Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there and it doesn't have an effect on the universe! In fact, that planet has been there since time began! And there is a computer on the planet that knows everything! And when you die, you actually get sent to that planet and if you were good you get to live in one of the many million palaces there, but if you were bad you have to go work in the brimstone mines! And your silly 'science' can't detect the planet - you just have to believe the planet is there, then you'll see that it exists!

Go ahead, prove me wrong!

 

[kinkymagic]

Come on! Be fair! I mean, what's bad about Jesus hair?

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her (1 Corinthians 11: 14-15, KJV).

You heard the man Jesus, get rid of that god damn hippy hair and have a crew cut like any good, upstanding citizen!

 

[Mobyseven]

An animal is part of living nature and as such subject to scientific research. God is not. The analogy is invalid. Dont mix the areas, I said already. This only leads to fallacies.

So you believe that:

• God did not create the universe, or the earth, or any living creatures.
• Any suggestion that god was somehow involved in the creation of the OT or NT is rejected.
• Either Jesus did not exist, or he had a human biological father - either way he could not have been the son of god.
• You reject the notion that Jesus died and then came back to life three days later. Related to this, you reject the idea that he then ascended to heaven.
• You reject the notion that god can answer prayers.
• You reject the idea of the rapture, or any heavenly end-times scenario.

Does the list of ideas above accurately represent the Christian (Hebrew / Mulsim) god in any way, shape or form?

 

[Paulhoff]

I refer to the standard notion of e.g. the christian god which - as far as I remember - has not much to do with a big, fat animal paddling across a Scottish lake.

Thus, I only know what others said about God and nothing about God itself from personal experience.

Herzblut

Which so-called god, or if you like, which so-called christian god.

Paul

 

[Kopji]

I refer to the standard notion of e.g. the christian god which - as far as I remember - has not much to do with a big, fat animal paddling across a Scottish lake.

Thus, I only know what others said about God and nothing about God itself from personal experience.

Herzblut

There are religions that consider 'God' to be sort of like an advanced but natural lifeform we can aspire to become. There are others that deem God 'supernatural' in a more traditional sense. Believers make a choice about it, so how that choice is made interests me.

I thought your comment was interesting and worth some consideration, but I don't see the fallacy in comparing supernatural with natural (Nessie vs God). A true believer in Nessie, when faced with complete lack of evidence, could simply raise the bar and decide that Nessie was a 'supernatural' creature who is undetectable at will. That seems a logical (but circular) choice to make as belief becomes more difficult when faced with lack of evidence: After all, Nessie exists and since we can't detect it, it MUST be supernatural. The foundation is built entirely on the assumption that Nessie exists.

All arguments for God seem exactly the same way.

 

[BillyJoe]

Nuh-uh! There is so a planet there! Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there and it doesn't have an effect on the universe! In fact, that planet has been there since time began! And there is a computer on the planet that knows everything! And when you die, you actually get sent to that planet and if you were good you get to live in one of the many million palaces there, but if you were bad you have to go work in the brimstone mines! And your silly 'science' can't detect the planet - you just have to believe the planet is there, then you'll see that it exists!

Go ahead, prove me wrong!

Hey listen Mobyseven, you have to read and understand before you shout off. Everything is wrong with your answer. You are out of context, you misread, you misquote. Where do I start?

Some one said "You can't prove a negative". I replied that it is possible to prove a negative. And then I gave an example. That example was not wrong, but you made it wrong but misreading and misquoting it. And, even if it was wrong, the statement that you can't prove a negative is still wrong because there are lots of other examples where it is possible to do so and some have been used on this very thread. And, then, having misread and misquoted my example, you misuse it to cynically deride a position which I do not even hold - that it is always possible to prove a negative.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

Nuh-uh! There is so a planet there! Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there and it doesn't have an effect on the universe! In fact, that planet has been there since time began! And there is a computer on the planet that knows everything! And when you die, you actually get sent to that planet and if you were good you get to live in one of the many million palaces there, but if you were bad you have to go work in the brimstone mines! And your silly 'science' can't detect the planet - you just have to believe the planet is there, then you'll see that it exists!

Go ahead, prove me wrong!

Hey listen Mobyseven, you have to read and understand before you shout off. Everything is wrong with your answer. You are out of context, you misread, you misquote. Where do I start?

Some one said "You can't prove a negative". I replied that it is possible to prove a negative. And then I gave an example. That example was not wrong, but you made it wrong but misreading and misquoting it. And, even if it was wrong, the statement that you can't prove a negative is still wrong because there are lots of other examples where it is possible to do so and some have been used on this very thread. And, then, having misread and misquoted my example, you misuse it to cynically deride a position which I do not even hold - that it is always possible to prove a negative.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Paulhoff]

Geee, a double post, I've never done that

Paul



Too often..............

 

[BillyJoe]

It's not supposed to be possible!!!

Coincidentally, I just tried it on another thread on purpose as a joke.
But the forum would not allow it.
I had to add invisible text to make it do so.

May it allows it only if you don't intend it.

 

[BillyJoe]

Actually either this thread or I went off line after that duplicate post, perhaps that's how it got past. Anyway, because of that, now I don't have time to post any more replies.

 

[Mobyseven]

Hey listen Mobyseven, you have to read and understand before you shout off. Everything is wrong with your answer. You are out of context, you misread, you misquote. Where do I start?

Some one said "You can't prove a negative". I replied that it is possible to prove a negative. And then I gave an example. That example was not wrong, but you made it wrong but misreading and misquoting it. And, even if it was wrong, the statement that you can't prove a negative is still wrong because there are lots of other examples where it is possible to do so and some have been used on this very thread. And, then, having misread and misquoted my example, you misuse it to cynically deride a position which I do not even hold - that it is always possible to prove a negative.

regards,
BillyJoe

Oy vey.

The whole point of not being able to prove a negative is that people CAN say things such as I did. For every 'proof' of a negative you come up with, I can come up with a whole bunch of reasons why your proof is incorrect or incomplete. Perhaps the planet was there, but it spontaneously jumped three billion light years to the left a picosecond before you observed it. Look, it's back now! Wait, you just missed it again. Amazing how it does that, huh?

That is why the burden of proof is on the claimant, the one who makes the positive statement. Because every time you 'prove a negative', it is possible for me to rationalise why that may be. Were I to provide undisputible proof that the planet we were discussing really DID exist, you would be hard pressed to rationalise it away.

ME: Look, here's a photo of the damn planet, an astronomical equation showing that we predict a planet should be there, and a postcard from Jeff who went there last spring: "Hey guys, this new planet is great! And it's right where we thought it would be!"

YOU: Pfft. That planet doesn't really exist.

ME: But I'e got the proof that it does, right here!

YOU: Er...SHILL! CONSPIRACY!

Of course, sometimes positive evidence is rationalised away, usually by means of a conspiracy theory. I would not, however, be looking to the conspiracy theorists for a good lesson on critical thinking.

Perhaps a less 'distant' example is in order. If I tell you that I have in my hand a $1,000,000 bill, you'd probably ask to see it, right? You'd want proof. So I hold out my hands to you, and they're empty - you rightfully reply, "Hey, there's no $1,000,000 bill in your hands!" But what if I then told you that it was a special $1,000,000 bill - that you could only see the note if you truly believe that the note is there. So you try to believe, but the note still doesn't appear. You respond, "Hey, I believed, and the $1,000,000 bill still isn't in your hands! There is no $1,000,000 bill!" My response is, "Well, it looks like you just didn't believe hard enough!" I then storm off to spend my $1,000,000 bill.

Were you able to prove that I didn't have a $1,000,000 bill in my hands? NO. No you weren't, because for every seemingly flawless explanation as to why the bill wasn't in my hands, I had a counter-explanation as to why the bill WAS in my hands.

That is why the burden of proof is always on the claimant. In an attempt to prove a negative the believer always has an out: You didn't see the object because it moved, or you didn't see the object (or effect) because you are unable to (because you lack faith; because your equipment isn't powerful enough; because Venus is in line with the grand unicorn, and BOY is she PMSing right now!) By simply placing the burden of proof on the claimant, you are able to save yourself a lot of wasted time that would simply result in further rationalisation. You are saying, "Sure, this object/effect/entity might exist. But until you can provide me with proof that the object/effect/entity exists, I have no reason to believe in it."

So kindly don't tell me that I have to 'read and understand before I shout off'. I understand perfectly what you are saying, and you are - to put it simply - incorrect. You cannot prove a negative. I'll repeat that: You cannot prove a negative.

This public service announcement about critical thinking and science was brought to you by Mobyseven.

 

[BillyJoe]

Looked for but not found. Check. Same as god.

You've committed the same error as Mobydick.
Planet not found at the point in space hypothesised for it - planet doesn't exist.
God - still looking.

There are no unicorns in the universe. Show me otherwise. Militant agnosticism is not a reasonable position.

Again, the same error as Mobydick.

The statement was "You can't prove a negative".
Your reply, "There are no unicorns in the universe", is an example of where "You can't prove a negative" is true.
I don't need to refute that example to prove the first statement false.
All I need to do is supply one counterexample - which I did.

According to everything that we know or are capable of knowing about everything, both of these statements are correct. Perhaps we will have a valid new way of knowing some time in the unknowable future, but that's not much of a basis for doubt.

Permit me to disagree, on the evidence that this has happened before.
Newton gave way to Einstein, for example.
This is a sufficient basis for doubting that we have it correct this time and that the future is incapable of proving us wrong.

You skipped the best one:

If there really were a large and unusual type of animal in Loch Ness, then we would have undeniable evidence of it by now.
We don't have undeniable evidence of a large, unfamiliar animal in Loch Ness.
Therefore, there is no such animal.

The first sentence is a presumption like in all the other examples. They just inexpicably left it out for that example. In this case it's a pretty good presumption, but a presumption none the less.
It is a presumption because there are too many to look to be completely and absolutely sure without a shadow of a doubt.

Same principle as your "evidence" for the non-existence of that planet. If you want to call this evidence, fine (but incorrect). By this definition, there is evidence for the non-existence of the god.

The hypothesis was about the existence of a planet in a particular point in space. It wasn't found there, therefore the planet in a particular point in space hypothesis is proven wrong. Seems I have to be careful to pick more clearly understood examples, but there are many other examples that can prove that the statement "You can't prove a negative" is false.

I certainly do [accept the epistemological limits]. But they do not cause me to doubt my beliefs. In fact, the conditional nature of the framework allows me the luxury of certainty - I know that I do not need to cling to my beliefs if they turn out to be incorrect.

Our nemesis, Oxymoron, has his paw prints all over that paragraph.
You have no doubt within the framework, but you doubt the framework.
Good one!

Precisely my point. Flexible certainty.

Flexible certainty. Flexible certainty. Flexible certainty. Flexible certainty.
Yep, it's starting to sound true.

Your definition of the function of evidence is absurd. We look for a planet, don't find it where we think it should be, and that is "evidence" that it doesn't exist? No. That is failure to find evidence that it does exist. But it may be reasonable to conclude from this failure that it does not exist. If this is the standard that you are requiring for disbelief in god, then that standard has been well met. There is no god. We looked, he wasn't there. He is not.

To deal with this I would have to untwist it at several levels.
I will leave it for the interested reader.
Hint: The hypothesis was for a planet at a particular point in space (to account for the oberved astronomical anomaly).

 

[BillyJoe]

The whole point of not being able to prove a negative is that people CAN say things such as I did. For every 'proof' of a negative you come up with, I can come up with a whole bunch of reasons why your proof is incorrect or incomplete. Perhaps the planet was there, but it spontaneously jumped three billion light years to the left a picosecond before you observed it. Look, it's back now! Wait, you just missed it again. Amazing how it does that, huh?

Nuts.
Sounds like an argument of a conspiracy theory nature.

That is why the burden of proof is on the claimant, the one who makes the positive statement. Because every time you 'prove a negative', it is possible for me to rationalise why that may be. Were I to provide undisputible proof that the planet we were discussing really DID exist, you would be hard pressed to rationalise it away.

I am not three metres tall.
The ether does not exist.
...

ME: Look, here's a photo of the damn planet, an astronomical equation showing that we predict a planet should be there, and a postcard from Jeff who went there last spring: "Hey guys, this new planet is great! And it's right where we thought it would be!"

YOU: Pfft. That planet doesn't really exist.

ME: But I'e got the proof that it does, right here!

YOU: Er...SHILL! CONSPIRACY!

Of course, sometimes positive evidence is rationalised away, usually by means of a conspiracy theory. I would not, however, be looking to the conspiracy theorists for a good lesson on critical thinking.

Your irrationalising away of the proof of a negative sounds suspiciously like your irrationalising away of the proof of a positive.
Doesn't that sound just a little symmetrical to you?
I wonder why that should be...

Perhaps a less 'distant' example is in order. If I tell you that I have in my hand a $1,000,000 bill, you'd probably ask to see it, right? You'd want proof. So I hold out my hands to you, and they're empty - you rightfully reply, "Hey, there's no $1,000,000 bill in your hands!" But what if I then told you that it was a special $1,000,000 bill - that you could only see the note if you truly believe that the note is there. So you try to believe, but the note still doesn't appear. You respond, "Hey, I believed, and the $1,000,000 bill still isn't in your hands! There is no $1,000,000 bill!" My response is, "Well, it looks like you just didn't believe hard enough!" I then storm off to spend my $1,000,000 bill.

Were you able to prove that I didn't have a $1,000,000 bill in my hands? NO. No you weren't, because for every seemingly flawless explanation as to why the bill wasn't in my hands, I had a counter-explanation as to why the bill WAS in my hands.

Nuts.
Every rational person would accept that the case for "no million dollar bill in your hand" has been proven as much as anything can be proven to be true in any other context.
As with all proofs, there is always room for doubt.
The process is to assess that doubt.
In the above case there is not much room.

That is why the burden of proof is always on the claimant. In an attempt to prove a negative the believer always has an out: You didn't see the object because it moved, or you didn't see the object (or effect) because you are unable to (because you lack faith; because your equipment isn't powerful enough; because Venus is in line with the grand unicorn, and BOY is she PMSing right now!) By simply placing the burden of proof on the claimant, you are able to save yourself a lot of wasted time that would simply result in further rationalisation. You are saying, "Sure, this object/effect/entity might exist. But until you can provide me with proof that the object/effect/entity exists, I have no reason to believe in it."

The cases are perfectly symmetrical.

If you make the positive claim "There is a god", the burden of proof is on you. If no evidence is forthcoming, the conclusion is that "There is no proof that there is a god", not "There is no god"
If you make the positive claim "There is no god", the burden of proof is on you. If no evidence is forthcoming, the conclusion is that "There is no proof that there is no god", not "There is a god".

Perfectly symetrical as it should be.
I hope you are not going to deny that "There is no god" is not a positive claim.

So kindly don't tell me that I have to 'read and understand before I shout off'. I understand perfectly what you are saying, and you are - to put it simply - incorrect. You cannot prove a negative. I'll repeat that: You cannot prove a negative.

I am not three metres tall.
Irrationalise that away if you will, but I am still not three metres tall.

 

[volatile]

Nuts.
Every rational person would accept that the case for "no million dollar bill in your hand" has been proven as much as anything can be proven to be true in any other context.
As with all proofs, there is always room for doubt.
The process is to assess that doubt.
In the above case there is not much room.

So there's lots of room for God, thus he exists? This is a God of the Gaps argument, and is unfalsifiable...

 

[BillyJoe]

Double post.
Must be a conspiracy.