Latest post of the previous page:
If he existed, I'm sure he could prove it. Nuff said?standfast wrote:But can it be proved that God does exist?
Latest post of the previous page:
If he existed, I'm sure he could prove it. Nuff said?standfast wrote:But can it be proved that God does exist?
Unless, of course, the deists are right . . .thundril wrote:If he existed, I'm sure he could prove it. Nuff said?standfast wrote:But can it be proved that God does exist?
if God is a deist-type one then maybe he just forgot about us - sadDave B wrote:Unless, of course, the deists are right . . .thundril wrote:If he existed, I'm sure he could prove it. Nuff said?standfast wrote:But can it be proved that God does exist?
But that opens another can of spaghetti! If he forgot us then how could we (as in humanity) know of him? Unless, of course, he told the ancients, "Right, that's me finished here, I'm going to piss off and do something elsewhere. I won't bother coming back so if you want to build a mythic story round me I don't give a damn, you're on your own from now on."if God is a deist then maybe he just forgot about us - sad
I think you are going to have to be more specific as to what "belief" is there, Cam! Do I have a belief in the sense of the use of that word as attached to religion? No, I don't think that I do.Cam wrote:I think that belief is not a choice but something that we are compelled to do, [...]
A belief balanced by what appears to be reality is the rational course I think. That does seem to exclude religion if what I understand "reality" to mean if correct!Cam wrote:The probabilistic way of looking at it is, for me, is the right approach. If you cannot prove or disprove with certainty, then surely you have to use probabilities weighted by as much actual evidence as possible.
Absolutely. I don't have beliefs in the same sense of the use of that word as attached to religion, but I have beliefs nonetheless which I am compelled into. I cannot arbitrarily choose what to genuinely believe. For example I believe that there is probably life elsewhere in the universe. I can't prove or disprove it, but I believe it is probably true. I guess the difference is that I don't have 'blind faith' that it is true and I am quite willing to modify by beliefs based on new evidence. But that is the core of what I'm getting at. If I am faced with compelling evidence, then my beliefs will automatically alter in the same way that they did when I started questioning my religious beliefs many years ago. Anyone who says that their beliefs are not altered in the face of compelling evidence (which they believe of course) is being totally dishonest and is setting up an internal conflict.Dave B wrote:I think you are going to have to be more specific as to what "belief" is there, Cam! Do I have a belief in the sense of the use of that word as attached to religion? No, I don't think that I do.
Yes, I'd agree there.A belief balanced by what appears to be reality is the rational course I think. That does seem to exclude religion if what I understand "reality" to mean if correct!
With you there, Cam!I guess the difference is that I don't have 'blind faith' that it is true and I am quite willing to modify by beliefs based on new evidence.
implied by what? And many negatives can be proved - it is universal negatives which are tricky. Even when the Iraq Survey Team had disproved - by most standards - Tony Blair's claim that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had WMD, TB (a disease) just said something to the effect that the weapons had not been found and might never be found, implying that they were indeed there but difficult to find; for all I know, he still thinks that there were WMDCam wrote: Incidentally, going back to the original title of this thread, what about: A negative can't be proved.
Surely the need not to try to do so is implied.
And I still think he is a total wanker.animist wrote:implied by what? And many negatives can be proved - it is universal negatives which are tricky. Even when the Iraq Survey Team had disproved - by most standards - Tony Blair's claim that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had WMD, TB (a disease) just said something to the effect that the weapons had not been found and might never be found, implying that they were indeed there but difficult to find; for all I know, he still thinks that there were WMDCam wrote: Incidentally, going back to the original title of this thread, what about: A negative can't be proved.
Surely the need not to try to do so is implied.
God told him that there were weapons of mass destruction.Dave B wrote:And I still think he is a total wanker.animist wrote:implied by what? And many negatives can be proved - it is universal negatives which are tricky. Even when the Iraq Survey Team had disproved - by most standards - Tony Blair's claim that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had WMD, TB (a disease) just said something to the effect that the weapons had not been found and might never be found, implying that they were indeed there but difficult to find; for all I know, he still thinks that there were WMDCam wrote: Incidentally, going back to the original title of this thread, what about: A negative can't be proved.
Surely the need not to try to do so is implied.
My point is made . . .Dave B wrote:God told him that there were weapons of mass destruction.animist wrote:And I still think he is a total wanker.Cam wrote: for all I know, he still thinks that there were WMD
Cam wrote: Incidentally, going back to the original title of this thread, what about: A negative can't be proved.
Surely the need not to try to do so is implied.
Sorry Animist, I should have been clearer there. I was just thinking that if the first part of the statement is true "you can't prove a negative" then you don't need the second part "and you don't need to do so" as you can't possibly do so as the first part says you can't, so I thought the need not to do so (or try) is implied by the statement "you CAN'T prove a negative". Well, I tried to be clearer but not sure I have succeeded!animist wrote:implied by what? And many negatives can be proved - it is universal negatives which are tricky. Even when the Iraq Survey Team had disproved - by most standards - Tony Blair's claim that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had WMD, TB (a disease) just said something to the effect that the weapons had not been found and might never be found, implying that they were indeed there but difficult to find; for all I know, he still thinks that there were WMD
Very very well put!Dave B wrote:And I still think he is a total wanker.