Muslims, really?

[Falka]

No, it makes perfect sense. You can't know something, that you don't have valid proof of, you can only assume and believe.

Sure, we can not prove the non existence of anything, but keeping this in mind statemant that sth doesn't exist should be read as "it's very improbable that sth exists though I can not know for certain (because non existence of anything can not be proved so in theory everything can exist)" - in short: it doesn't exist - not as "I believe it doesn't exist".

[[ptx]]

No, sorry, that is not how it works. That's just you trying to re-define your personal beliefs. I'm sure many religious people use the exact same words to justify their beliefs.

Since Xant likes to use ill-fitting comparisons (Gandalf, anyone?), let me use one as well:

We have, afaik, no proof whatsoever of extra-terrestrial life. Does this mean that there is no life outside of on Earth in the entire Universe? Or is it correct to realize, that we simply do not know and saying it exists or not depends on our personal beliefs?

[Falka]

We have, afaik, no proof whatsoever of extra-terrestrial life. Does this mean that there is no life outside of on Earth in the entire Universe? Or is it correct to realize, that we simply do not know and saying it exists or not depends on our personal beliefs?

lol 

There is nothing wrong with being agnostic in cases where we
lack evidence one way or the other. It is the reasonable position.
Carl Sagan was proud to be agnostic when asked whether there was
life elsewhere in the universe. When he refused to commit himself,
his interlocutor pressed him for a 'gut feeling' and he immortally
replied: 'But I try not to think with my gut. Really, it's okay to
reserve judgment until the evidence is in.'28 The question of extraterrestrial
life is open. Good arguments can be mounted both ways,
and we lack the evidence to do more than shade the probabilities
one way or the other.

(click to show/hide)

Agnosticism, of a kind, is an appropriate
stance on many scientific questions, such as what caused the end-
Permian extinction, the greatest mass extinction in fossil history. It
could have been a meteorite strike like the one that, with greater
likelihood on present evidence, caused the later extinction of the
dinosaurs. But it could have been any of various other possible
causes, or a combination. Agnosticism about the causes of both
these mass extinctions is reasonable. How about the question of
God? Should we be agnostic about him too? Many have said
definitely yes, often with an air of conviction that verges on protesting
too much. Are they right?

I'll begin by distinguishing two kinds of agnosticism. TAP, or
Temporary Agnosticism in Practice, is the legitimate fence-sitting
where there really is a definite answer, one way or the other, but we
so far lack the evidence to reach it (or don't understand the
evidence, or haven't time to read the evidence, etc.). TAP would be
a reasonable stance towards the Permian extinction. There is a
truth out there and one day we hope to know it, though for the
moment we don't.

But there is also a deeply inescapable kind of fence-sitting, which
I shall call PAP (Permanent Agnosticism in Principle). The fact that
the acronym spells a word used by that old school preacher is
(almost) accidental. The PAP style of agnosticism is appropriate for
questions that can never be answered, no matter how much
evidence we gather, because the very idea of evidence is not applicable.
The question exists on a different plane, or in a different
dimension, beyond the zones where evidence can reach. An
example might be that philosophical chestnut, the question whether
you see red as I do. Maybe your red is my green, or something
completely different from any colour that I can imagine.
Philosophers cite this question as one that can never be answered,
no matter what new evidence might one day become available. And
some scientists and other intellectuals are convinced - too eagerly
in my view - that the question of God's existence belongs in the
forever inaccessible PAP category. From this, as we shall see, they
often make the illogical deduction that the hypothesis of God's
existence, and the hypothesis of his non-existence, have exactly
equal probability of being right. The view that I shall defend is very
different: agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in
the temporary or TAP category. Either he exists or he doesn't. It is
a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile
we can say something pretty strong about the probability.

(click to show/hide)

I shall suggest that the existence of God is
a scientific hypothesis like any other. Even if hard to test in practice,
it belongs in the same TAP or temporary agnosticism box as the
controversies over the Permian and Cretaceous extinctions. God's
existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable
in principle if not in practice. If he existed and chose to
reveal it, God himself could clinch the argument, noisily and
unequivocally, in his favour. And even if God's existence is never
proved or disproved with certainty one way or the other, available
evidence and reasoning may yield an estimate of probability far
from 50 per cent.

Let us, then, take the idea of a spectrum of probabilities
seriously, and place human judgements about the existence of God
along it, between two extremes of opposite certainty. The spectrum
is continuous, but it can be represented by the following seven
milestones along the way.

1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of
C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto
theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe
in God and live my life on the assumption that he is
there.'
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic
but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am
inclined to believe in God.'
4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's
existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic
but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists
but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I
cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable,
and I live my life on the assumption that he is not
there.'
7 Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same
conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

In my book when I say god doesn't exist I'm 6.

[HarunYahya]

Denying existance of God blindlessly, without any proof is same as claiming god's existance blindlessly without any proof.

[Thryn]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Christo]

Denying existance of God blindlessly, without any proof is same as claiming god's existance blindlessly without any proof.

Wrong.

[Xant]

Since Xant likes to use ill-fitting comparisons (Gandalf, anyone?), let me use one as well:

And it is ill-fitting how? Both God and Gandalf are literary figures.

Denying existance of God blindlessly, without any proof is same as claiming god's existance blindlessly without any proof.

Denying existence of the flying spaghetti monster is the same as claiming the flying spaghetti monster exists.

[HarunYahya]

Denying existence of the flying spaghetti monster is the same as claiming the flying spaghetti monster exists.

Nope, I've got proof of Flying spagetthi monster is a made-up religion to show people how blattently stupid religion is. You have none to prove that there is no concept such as god.

[Umbra]

But the burden of proof is on those who claim there is a God. I simply do not believe in God without proof.

[Kafein]

Nope, I've got proof of Flying spagetthi monster is a made-up religion to show people how blattently stupid religion is.

You do realize that all myths are made up right ?


And yes, absolute certainty is absurd. However, just because something is not certain doesn't mean you can't live assuming it is certain.

[Christo]

Just because it's become popular and cool to call them fairy tales and myths does not make it right.

Doesn't make it any less wrong either

[Xant]

You do realize that all myths are made up right ?


And yes, absolute certainty is absurd. However, just because something is not certain doesn't mean you can't live assuming it is certain.

Heskey doesn't understand Bayesian thinking.

[[ptx]]

lol 

In my book when I say god doesn't exist I'm 6.

Nope, that's a 7. If you were a 6, you'd say you assume/believe he doesn't exist. Will you finally get it?

[Leshma]

HESKEYtrollingbigTIME

Science don't have ALL the answers. It is growing knowledge which can be changed/adjusted if you find a better answer to any of the questions science already resolved.

Religion has different approach. They know EVERYTHING. So yeah, Xant is religious.

[Falka]

Religion has different approach. They know EVERYTHING. So yeah, Xant is religious.