Question of the Day: Can you prove or disprove the existence of God?
No, but I don't have to
One of the fundamental laws of physics is the law of conservation of mass and energy. If the universe initially came from a singularity, what created the matter at the singularity? Must have been a higher power of some kind.
Nothing created that mass and energy as it always existed in some form or another.
But that goes against the laws of physics. It has to have been created by something at some point. Simply saying "it has always existed, nothing created it" is scientifically impossible, and goes directly against one of the most fundamental laws of our universe.
My argument is that this matter must have been created by something. To say that the laws of physics for some reason do not apply to this matter while it does to everything else in our universe today implies a supernatural force had a hand in the creation of our universe.
No it doesn't go against any of the laws of nature and you haven't proven so so far.
Yes, but I'm not telling...
Yes - she spoke to me.
You can't prove or disprove existence of fairy dust.
I've yet to meet someone who can prove either.
Yes you die
You can't prove or disprove the concept of God. You can disprove a specific God. For example, you can disprove Zeus because there's nothing on top of My. Olympus. You can disprove the Christian God because of much of the science and history has been disproven (that is if you believe in a literal bible and that it was written by the fault-less God). Remember however that the burden of proof is on those who believe, not disbelieve.
The burden of proof lies on the one who is disproving
ITT: Zero evidence either way
There's your answer
In my heart, that's were it's important.
This is not me attempting an argument, I am purely just curious. How do atheists explain the fact that we have multiple senses? Wouldn't it make much more sense to have one extremely enhanced sense? Like daredevil ears, or a super nose, or just eyes?
Atheists let the people who study that kind of stuff make up an explanation, evolutionary biologists.
If by "makeup" you mean examine the scientific evidence and form scientific theories, then yes. Evolution is proven and observable.
Yeah that's what I meant
To answer the original question, there are multiple senses because it makes evolutionary sense. Having only one strong sense would mean death to the species as it won't survive a conflict that requires the other senses. To sum it up, the answer is survival.
You can definitely prove God exists
1) An ancient book says so.
2) You can't prove God DOESN'T exist.
3) We don't have scientific explanations for everything yet.
Pick your favorite.
How else can you explain the creation of us and the universe?
Without using a god
Burden of proof is on the believer.
It's on the one making the claim.
Claiming god doesn't exist is unnecessary unless someone claims it does. The burden of proof is on the believer.
A counter example would be, in getting to know someone, the question is asked about whether they think there is a god. They then make the claim there is no God. Burden of proof is on non believer.
Nope. The question is only asked because of people claiming god exists. Do you require people to disprove the existence of leprechauns?
Not anymore. Since there is consistent proof they don't exist. However, what proof would you point to for there to not be a God?
Please present your proof that leprechauns don't exists.
Not very familiar with leprechaun lore. One off the top of my head is there is no end of a rainbow for there to be gold at.
See how you just asked for proof there are no leprechauns because of my claim? Same for god. What's your proof?
I only asked for proof because you said you had it. You don't. Burden of proof is on believers even if they refuse to admit it.
So you have no proof. Got it.
Your stupidity is hurting the country. Please stop it.
So no proof and ad hominem. Anything else you want to try and contribute? Sorry you can't handle a difference of opinion and have a rationale debate.
It's not a matter of opinion. By your "logic" literally anything is possible. I might be god. No one has disproved it.
All I said was burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You claim you're god. Burden of proof is on you. If you claim there is no god then burden of proof is on you. That's how it works.
Still wrong but obviously you can't understand this. Oh well.
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.
Cargile, James (January 1997). "On the Burden of Proof". Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. 72 (279): 59–83.
And as I've already said, the discussion always begins with the unproven claim/premise that god exists.
And I gave you a logical example where it doesn't.
You didn't but I'm not surprised you don't understand that.
Ok, personally do you believe there is a god?
Nope. There's no evidence to support its existence, and the burden of proof isn't on me.
So if I asked you why you don't believe in a god you would say?
Exactly what I just said.
You would claim there is not, and because you claimed it you offered proof. That there is no evidence to support a god.
This was fun.
I fee like you don't know what "proof" means.
In a debate over the philosophical existence of a god, or lack there of, is there ever any quantifiable proof? Now if you are looking for proof on scientific or mathematical concepts there has to be quantifiable proof. So what kind of proof are you wanting? To this point there is no scientific evidence to prove or disprove a god.
This was fun.
If i was to say that Japan doesn't actually exist, would or be on you to prove that it does? If you want to make an insane claim, you better be able to back it up
Which God are you trying to prove or disprove?
I'm not. I was just trying to educate on where the burden of proof sits.
No one can.
The Earth isn't 4,000 years old...
Or was it 6,000? Either way it's ridiculous.
They believe it is 10,000 at most.
However, there are Old and Young Earth Creationists.
You're arguing creationism.
The poll was about God.
It's just something to know, not all Christians think the earth is that young.