i agree that when this is used to prove the existence of some thing it is wrong

but it is a valid argument to say i believe

you prove me wrong

this happens all the time in science it only becomes an issue when people use different standards when talking about religious beliefs

 

Cheers pal, you said what i wanted to say

As for alien life. The earth is roughly 4.5 Billion years old, it would of spent most of the first billion years too hot to support any kind of life. We have found evidence of life from around 3.5 billion years ago. That suggests it is very easy for life to form, if the circumstances are correct ( if it were not easy for life to form, we would expect life to have begun many millions if not billions of years later than it did). Given the number of stars in our galaxy, and the number of galaxies. There will be many billions of places where the conditions are sustainable for life throughout the universe. Given that we know, from our own planet that is is easy for life to form, and the number of places life would be able begin and evolve. It is a pretty safe bet that there is life out there.

We now also know that life thrives in some of the harshest environments, such as in the ocean, where there are underwater volcanos. The water is boiling, highly acidic, the pressure of the water is immense, yet life is abundent in these place. This suggests that life could even exist elsewhere in our solar system, at least on a microscale such as on various moons of Jupiter or Saturn.

 

again i say that the argument you cant prove a negative is used by people who cannot prove that some one else's theory is wrong to justify their argument that the theory is wrong

i find a lot of religious beliefs to be ridiculous

but a fact can be proven

the existence of god is not a fact

nor is the non existence

and we still cant prove that life exists els ware and untill we can its a theory like gods existance

 

The difference is, when scientists are proving something is false or that it doesn't exist, they do so by testing the evidence for a hypothesis or for a "thing" to see if it is correct. In the case of God, there is no evidence for god, so there is no evidence to test and prove or disprove the existance of god. It is up to the theists first to demonstrate god is true using evidence, only then can science prove or disprove god, or does science even need presume one exists.

 

and that is the loop of the non believer

in a scientific disagreement both sides go out to look for evidence that their theory is right and the others is wrong but when it comes to religion every one stands there and says i am right you prove me wrong

every thing has its equal and opposite some say and both sides use the same arguments from different ends

and both sides preach at each other that they are right

until you can absolutely prove your argument the other party is entitled to there beliefs

 

Nothing can be absolutly proved, nor does it need to be. For instance the GPS satellites which you use for Sat Nav, would simply not work if it were not for the mathmatics of relativity. Time is not a constant, the gravitational pull of the earth has an effect on time, therefor time on a satellite runs at a different rate relavent to the surface of the earth, if we didnt compensate for that, GPS would be out by as much as 7 miles per day. However this theory depends on the existance of a space-time fabric, which so far we cannot detect,

Does that mean this theory is not valid, and we must replace it with supernatural beliefs instead.

We don't absolutly need to prove relativity in every sense of the meaning of absolute to know that it works, and is a good theory.

likewise we dont need absolute proof of no god, to know he doesnt exist. Anyway, we don't even say god does not exist, we just say because there is no evidence for a deity, we do not support the idea that there is one.

 

your right you don't need absolute proof that god dose not exist to reasonably believe as you do

but until you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that he dose not as long as they don not try to force their beliefs on you you should respect the right of others to believe in god

to many atheists are just as bigoted and intolerant in their beliefs as the religious extremists

 

Proving a deity does not exist is impossible. Proving that the god of the bible based on his actions does not exist is pretty easy. If stories from such religion can be proven not to be true, it can be proven that the god how he is descibed in such books is untrue and that the only possibilities are ether A. their description of god and what he can do is wrong, and should be adjusted to fit within science. or B. there is simply no such thing as a deity

 

That's why religious groups have their own interpretations of the bible. Job stopped the sun so he could carry on his battle before it got dark and his mum called him in for tea? Jonah was swallowed by a whale and then came out at some later point? God made the Universe in 6 days and then he was knackered so he had a rest?

Each Christian religion interprets these according to how they want cos they know people would find the literal meaning absolutely ridiculous. E.g I had the Jehova Witnesses round the other day saying that God didnt create it all in 6 days. Each 'day' means an unspecified period of time. So there ya go. You can shift the goal posts as much as you like when you are trying to avoid the scrutiny of scientific method

 

No, he created it in six days and on the seventh, he was arrested.

 

Wearing sandals after 7pm in a fashionable area? :excited:

Either way you can't prove or disprove the existence of a God. I'm an agnostic, but generally I believe it is possible that there was a creator, a prime mover. But I don't believe that there is a benevolent or malevolent God 'looking down on us'. That's just ridiculous.

 

Serious religious scholars learned centuries ago that they were going to have to find some flexibility in the holy books, some way of interpreting the words that allows them to work their way around scientific advancement and avoid out-and-out contradiction. Sometimes that involves some amazing contortions.

Fundamentalists, however, don't seem concerned about such niceties. If science contradicts the bible, science is wrong. This makes them look like idiots. They don't seem to care.

 

thats what happens to non union labour bet he was an illegal immigrant too

 

Atheists need to think a little. If religious/government's say "Look your an Atheist" then should Atheists not band together and say "OK, lets have our own Atheist house(church) of meeting"? That would then come with all the rights other religions have, right?

BRB....

 

Atheists need to think a little. If religious/government's say "Look your an Atheist" then should Atheists not band together and say "OK, lets have our own Atheist house(church) of meeting"? That would then come with all the rights other religions have, right?

BRB...

Something is wrong with my posting? Its all white....????

 

I'm not asking for all the answers - far from it - I'm usually asking, as I am here, what is the nature of the universe, as far as you perceive it? What do you believe about this existence we're in? Why do you believe what you believe - what is the basis for the idea that you "know" anything at all?

Living here in Northern California, I've been lucky enough to be exposed to people with a myriad of beliefs - most of whom are none too shy about expressing them. I'm afraid my experience with most self-proclaimed atheists doesn't match what you are describing. In fact, I'd say most of them are at least as ill-informed about the basis for their worldview as the believers are about theirs. Certainly the majority of them seem quite put out that such as thing as religion even exists in this day and age - "How could these idiots go on believing their fairy tales?!??" :lol:

All that being said, I am a staunch atheist myself - I just don't believe there is need to belittle those who choose to hold to beliefs that are, in essence, benign. Seems to consistently stem from a lack of confidence in one's own system of belief - and it's always easier to bash the other's guys crap than take a good, deep look at your own.

 

The main flaw with having a "creator" is who created the creator.

 

I just thank God that I am an atheist

 

Ask Hawking, he has all the answers.

 

Well..it all depends on which theory you go with..The big bang, The steady state model, creation in seven days..what was the question again?