I wonder, Crux, per your status as the most reasonable believer on these forums: Do you understand the principle behind the inability to provide evidence for a negative?

And, if so, would you mind terribly explaining the concept to 1oldminer?



Though, if not, no worries.

See, he's proven to be ever so resistant to the idea that our inability to prove the deity-negative is not a failure, but rather the only possible outcome.

As in, it's impossible to prove a negative.

When we say a negative, we mean, in non technical terms, any statement with "not" in it. Or "no."

"There are no unicorns"
"There is no teapot in orbit around the earth"

Aaaand

"There is no god"

Do you understand why it's impossible to prove any of these?

I ask because I was wondering, if, again, I'm not being too forward, if you could explain the concept to 1oldminer.

I think he might accept it more if it comes from you.

In the interests of honest debate, I beg of you!

Wow! The most reasonable believer on SP?

OK, I'll give you question some thought and come back to you. It may take a few days though.

Actually, in science, theories can be entirely true, such as the theory of gravity or, and some here will hate me saying this, the theory of evolution. On the other hand, theories can be entirely false, such as the creationist thoery.



Good comment. Actually, I find it amusing that many clergymen can get stumped by children.




Certainly my main problem with Judaeo-Christianity.

If god was defined as that more often, then people would be worshiping something with more evidence. Much like sun-worship (the sun can be seen).

One of the reason that I enjoy reading, and writing studies on Hindu writings, despite certain problems, is that they often defined the true essence of god as non-personal and just pretty much the universe; this is an improvement on the god of the Bible...despite being older, in many cases. Not only that, but a few of the ''conservative'' (or ''astika'') Hindu schools of philosophy were atheistic ( nirisvaravada) and very rational. The claim that Judaism or Christianity was a religion advancement is quite absurd, to say the least. Judaeo-Christian monotheism didn't mean superior or more rational, as many Christians would suggest.

The view that god is mainly or exlusively just the fabric of the universe (e.g particles etc) seems quite acceptable. A small amount of modern ''Christians'' viewed ''god'' in this way, including Tillich, who stated:

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

A mind that excludes atheist cannot be said to be open either.




Christians often do, ironically.

And that is precisely why I'm an agnostic.

I just want to clarify that the "an atheist doesn't have an open mind..." is the quote to which I was responding. It looks here like it was my quote. No harm done, just for the record

Just a posting error on my part!

Perhaps the reason why I am as reasonable as I am is where I live - Western Sydney - perhaps one of the most ethnically mixed place on Earth.

Within the space of less than half an hours drive I can drive past mosques, sikh temples, buddhist temples, and all sorts of Christian churches.

Also one thing that defines Australians is egalitarianism. Equality should be defended despite what others believe. One Australian has said "I know what you are saying is wrong but I defend your right to be wrong".

Soemthing Iv'e never done in m entire life, odviously :grinn: