"You cannot prove a Negative" Another Claim?

a theory is not proven,
a theory is a thought in progress.
it "makes sense" regarding the current facts.
if it was proven then we would call it a fact.

people who don not believe in God, have the obligation
to elaborate and explain matters about the creation,
the universe, so on...

in fact they make attempts regarding that.
but as i posted earlier, i find the ape-human evolution
relationship "theory" rather amusing.

that's where the leap of faith towards a scientific belief (don't know
why but, simultaneously a disbelief to a creator) comes on.

in that sense, atheism is a self-made religion.

 

A fact is a little more than what 'wiki' would want you to 'believe'.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fact

"fact (fkt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact."

So, as you can see above, the belief that a person holds as true, is in FACT a 'fact' Jack.

 

no; that's your own reality, not a fact.
thus, it might as well be your dillusion.

gravity is a fact.
evolution is a theory.

is jack your mentor?

 

Seemingly the delusion is vested in you not accepting standard dictionary definitions.

As for 'Jack'... "Jack" is part of a colloquial sarcasm which actually reads "That's a fact, Jack."

 

wow, i really need to explain things around here.

my question was a sarcastic reply to a sarcastic comment.
pointing out the unnecessary sarcasm.
yet...?

"fact (fkt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences:
an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed:
Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person
is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with
mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory
before the fact.
4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined
by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact."​

obviously we look at the same thing and see different things.
that's normal, otherwise there wouldn't be a discussion.

do you see this the other way around?
if so, we'd better stop this subject and start
a new discussion on "reality vs illusion".

 

When realities collide. Your comment "Thats your reality" was nothing more than an invitation for cynicism as well as more sarcasm. Your remark was introduced at the point where I provided INFORMATION regarding the definition of "fact". The sarcasm contained in that information post I made was more in the sense of 'humor'.

"Noun 1. sarcasm - witty language used to convey insults or scorn sarcasm - witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own"--Jonathan Swift
caustic remark, irony, satire
humor, wit, witticism, wittiness, humour - a message whose ingenuity or verbal skill or incongruity has the power to evoke laughter"

Unfortunately, many on this forum are predisposed to interpreting written or spoken comments based upon their common usage of terms and not taking into consideration of the full impact and meaning of those terms that they are exposed to. Without clarification being offered along side the chosen words, misinterpretations are often the result.

As to the subject of the term "fact". The term is clearly defined in standard dictionaries (one set of definitions was supplied). Within that set of definitions is the allowance for the belief of a person to also be considered as a 'fact'. Until such time as the belief is proven to be containing "mistaken facts", the belief remains a 'fact'. Therefore, the person claiming that the belief is containing mistaken facts has the burden of proof to prove that the belief is containing mistaken facts. Short of that PROOF OF CLAIM, the belief remains a 'fact'.

 

sure, no problem.
i agree with the last paragraph.

sarcasm: the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled
people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and
intrusively invaded.

~dostoevsky​

and also...

no; that's your own reality, not a fact.
thus, it might as well be your dillusion​

i don't know what a "dillusion" is.
i probably merged 'disillusion' and 'delusion' and
made up a new word...

here is the nuance:
a personal belief is a fact for that person.
ok. nothing problematic here.

you might live in a jungle and think that
the earth is flat. but this is not "the" reality.

"unless proven otherwise" does not make the
personal fact a fact.
in other words; a mistaken fact is not a fact.
it's just a mistaken fact.

(jack would be appropriate here.)

you might live in a society and still be isolated as
someone living in a jungle. what your parents and
society thought you, founded your prejudices and beliefs.
that's normal. unless you keep internet and tv as your
main feed of knowledge; you will have a hard time to
see things objectively. it's not impossible, it's just hard.

what if all that you have been thought is a 'dillusion'?

that's one of the reasons why in the east,
the american society is called "people who are living
in a jar made of thick glass".

making things your facts,
and never bother to question.

on the other hand;
a general belief sometimes is not the "the fact".
(refer to worldly accepted earth is flat theory
before the discovery)

again the artificial zone of ignorance for masses could
be the major actor and block the truth.

the change comes only with knowledge.
for that you need someone who brings it from the source.

revelation -> prophets.
discovery -> inventors.

today, it is easier to accept things as your facts.
there is literally a bombardment of information all around us.

which one is fabricated?
which one is factual?

 

In summation: The one that is 'real' is the one that is 'realized' by the one perceiving the subject matter. (Now pay particular attention to the nuances involved in the word 'realize')

The one that is 'fabricated' is the one that passes the stage of perceiving and becomes manifest. Now chew on that one for a few minutes.

The reality is the remaining aspects of the perception after evaluation and the 'truth' has been apprehended.

 

It doesn't matter, unless you try to convince someone that you are right and they are wrong.

personally, I have a live and let live attitude in general (religion is a personal matter) until someone tries to force it on me. that can include proselytising, and using religious arguments to justify actions that affect others, but also, using religious belief to argue against scientifically proven facts.

 

nice definitions, carefully picked words.
thank you for all of that.

but in my opinion,
copy-pasting definitions is not the essence of a discussion.

anyhow... lastly; a personal fact ---> not a fact.

it can only be if it has the concordance with the truth.

 

So you must be enduring a touch of masochism. You speak negatively of someone 'forcing' religion on you, yet you are in this religion forum voluntarily. So it would appear that you are forcing 'religion' upon your own being. Interesting.

 

i understand but science and religion are not separate to me.
the source is the same.

i am not denying the big bang and relativity.
i am not embracing either.
they are in fact referred in the qur'an. (interpretations of course)

but they are theories to mankind, not known facts.
yet to be proved. just like evolution.

(refer tothe prev. example of: "earth is flat" --well not really,
sorry for the hundreds years of ignorance...)

how much do we know really?
we all witnessed the experiment at the cern recently.
what all of this should tell us?

we are learning.
there is no point of presenting theories as facts.
they may be your personal facts...
but that's about it.

one more thing:
there is no compulsion in religion.

 

As I said before.... when realities collide.

 

There is no evidence of a god. None whatsoever!

 

This is genius! It's about as good, if not better than "atheism is a religion, because you believe there's no god, therefore you have belief".

Just how is atheism too complex for mortals to understand? And please, do not confuse atheism with natural selection - they two are very different things.

Also, while we're here, can you please explain how an omnipotent, invisible god, who can listen to 7Bn thoughts and reply to all simultaneously and can create the universe in 6 days, is in fact understandable by mortals?

 

These are two completely different things.

Atheism is the non-belief in a god.

Big bang theory is a branch of science associated with the creation of our known universe.

Two different things.

 

No not really. Look at another example. Do you believe that electrons quarks or even black holes are real, and why ?

Rev A

 

WHich has nothing to do with atheism. I'm not a scientist and have no real interest in reading up on science. I just don't believe in god.

Two separate things.

The thing is that you believe that a person either believes in god, or beleives in all the work done by scientists. Like there's two options here. Well, there are other options, one of which is simply not believing in god.

 

WHich has nothing to do with atheism. I'm not a scientist and have no real interest in reading up on science. I just don't believe in god.

Two separate things.

The thing is that you believe that a person either believes in god, or beleives in all the work done by scientists. Like there's two options here. Well, there are other options, one of which is simply not believing in god.

 

true.

and whats more ... there are quite a lot of scientists who do believe in God, so its really quite silly, or ignorant to suggest that athiests believe iin science as opposed to believing in God.

in fact, this scenario just illustrates what the problem with some of these religious posters is.

if you don't believe in god you have to believe in "something".

which just isn't the way things are.

 

there is not a direct link but there is an indirect link.
how does an atheist explains the creation/cosmos etc?
through scientific theories and facts.

am i wrong?

we can't say believing in the evolution theory is prerequisite for atheism.
but the majority of the atheist do believe in the evolution.

because there isn't any other way -invented by science- to explain
how humanoids got here. i am not counting alien seed planting...

 

I'm affraid you are. I simply do not find the need to explain it. Sure science is interesting, the theories are fascinating, but you cannot link atheistm and science. You are looking at correlation, not causation.

Correlation - most atheists take a scientific view.

Causation - atheists don't believe in god, because there is no evidence.

Which does not mean that you can link them, see above.

All I know, is that there is no evidence to prove any theistic standpoint. Nothing at all. I don't need Hawkins and his magic wheelchair to explain the universe, in order to explain this to me. There is simply no evidence of god.

 

Well, for purposes of a debae forum, that requires you to explain why.

If all you are saying is, "I don't believe in God," its kinda self evident. No is trying to take that away from you, but, in terms of God, the debate is about whether that is actually a good opinion to hold.

Again, for teh atheist who just doesn't see God, no worries. Unfortunately, several of your peers like to run around calling all other faith choices the result of delusion and worse. Whereas atheism may not be a faulty choice, the belief that atheism is superior personal, well, the lack of tolerance and down right derision to other faith choices is in no way justifiable.

"If you choose to ignore logic and knowledge in order to believe in an invisible magic man in the sky, or Santa Claus for that matter, you've made a ridiculous decision and we're not going to pretend it's "just another way of looking at things."

http://www.atheists.org/religion

So when atheists speak and, as we see, often publish accounts of our faith that are downright malicious and accusatory, one should not expect to simply be given a free pass when saying, "I just don't believe in God."

At best, this indicates that atheists don't understand what their faith is currently preaching, at worst, its a kind of intellectual gainsay about changing a goal post rather than supporting a position.

Again, no issues with atheism. The nihilistic tendancies that have captured the main stream of atheism? Nothing but issues with that.

 

And you would simply be wrong.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009/05/scientifically-documented-miracles.html

There is pplenty of evidence for God. The problem is that it is not conclusively and testably able to be definitively pinned on God. Miracles MIGHT POSSIBLY have some other source, but the idea that doubt is based on some other possibility, however flimsy or untestable, is not exactly a clear indication of no evidence.

Indeed, USING SCIENCE, the requirement is that someone claiming there is no evidence not simply claim there is no evidence. There MUST BE something presented that claims we have looked in X and Y where we would expect to find evidence, and we have found none.

That is not what you are doing. You are simply declaring something and asking everyone to take, apparently just on your faith, that what you say is the truth. That is not how science works. It isn't even how religion works, which looks at the evidence trail and then, with a preponderance and probability, makes the final leap of faith.

Atheism does not of that. In sharp contrast to the criticism atheists hand out about dogmatic, unthinking theists, we see that stark, dogmatic claim that there is no evidence all the time from atheists. Its simply, and easily proven, wrong.

God claims miracles, and there are indeed miracles.

That evidence is not conclusive, but is is strongly suggestive. And it is certainly not, not there at all.

Atheists claiming there is no evidence for God are simply, and utterly wrong.

 

And finally a reminder to atheists about their burden of proof.

The only way an atheist can arrive at the conclusion that no evidence is required for their position is by completely ignoring the rules of logic and context.

We often take the atheists claim of rationality for granted, incorrectly, and assume that atheists are familiar enough with logic that their statements will not be deliberately illogical. Yet the constant demand for proof, coupled with the failure to lay out any of their own – despite the ‘logic’ of their claim is a continuous demonstration of the opposite of the supposed claim to rationality.

Here is why.

First, there is knowing what a logical argument is:

"One must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false)."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

For more, see:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...hew/logic.html

The specific of the burden of proof lies in a portion of what is often highlighted by atheists but, equally often, completely ignored.

As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

Yes, it is indeed true that this statement is a fallacy.

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

It is why most logical Christians could more accurately be quoted as saying:

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He MIGHT."

It is also why we list things like miracles, answered prayers, calling, and strong, patterns in the universe that indicate purpose rather than accident, and other circumstantial evidence to back up the claim as required by the burden of proof. We also acknowledge that the belief in God is not totally logical, that is requires faith - an exception required by the dictates of logic.

We are also aware of something called the middle ground fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...le-ground.html

It is listed on the same source, and applies directly to the 'in most cases' so often ignored by atheists who offer the burden of proof exemption to their claim.

It is best explained here:

"For example, in the philosophical debate between Theism and Atheism (to some, Strong atheism), theism posits that the nonexistence of God has not been demonstrated and therefore God must exist. This is a burden of proof fallacy. Atheism in turn points out this fallacy and claims that its position is therefore stronger. This is a fallacious defense. In actuality, both positions have a burden of proof, since the Law of the excluded middle does not apply in this scenario."

http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/...l_fallacy).htm

Even honest atheists acknowledge this burden of proof.

"The first thing to keep in mind is that the phrase “burden of proof” is a bit more extreme than what is often needed in reality. Using that phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case. A more accurate label would be a “burden of support” — the key is that a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof."

http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgode...denofproof.htm

For an even more thorough explanation:

The Ad Ignorantiam Fallacy (Burden of Proof Fallacy)

This fallacy can take two forms:
Form A: Proposition P has not been proven to be true, therefore P is false
Form B: Proposition P has not been proven to be false, therefore P is true
Context and subject matter make all the difference.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-con...of-Atheism.pdf

"All other factors being equal, reasonable expectations can determine when an absence of apparent evidence constitutes a proposition as false. Here we ask how much evidence should we expect in relation to what we have. For example, if someone claims there is a gorilla in the room - the fact that we cannot see the gorilla, hear the gorilla, etc., is an absence of evidence that disproves this proposition. However, if someone says there is a mosquito in the room, then an absence of evidence (not seeing or hearing it) does not disprove the proposition because our reasonable expectations of evidence have changed. In more borderline cases, we should avoid dogmatic conclusions on both sides, for example:

“No one has ever proved that Bigfoot exists, so it must not exist.”
“No one has ever proved that the Bigfoot does not exist, so it must exist.”

Both sides here commit the fallacy of appealing to ignorance in that they derive unwarranted certitude when a more reserved stance seems called for. The certitude on both sides is unwarranted for there seems to be no clear way of establishing how much evidence to expect relative to what we have, nor can this determination even be made until all of the appropriate areas where such evidence would be found have been adequately surveyed. A lesser degree of certitude, or even agnosticism, is warranted here."

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-con...of-Atheism.pdf

Funny that I have long stated that conclusion regarding logic and the debate over God.

And as you can clearly see, based upon the full application of the rules of logic, rather then partical and deliberately non-contextual application thereof, the burden of proof is still a requirement for those claiming that God does not exist.

I hope that explanation is detailed enough to finally bury that pernicious atheist claim.