Proving a negative

[downbeatplumb]

Thousands of years of human civilization, and still there is no proof of god's existence.

Then how do you account for morality?

---

joke

---

[genkaus]

Wow you really don't get it do you. Practicality matters in the real world. Every second there's someone out there claiming something. They are the ones who have to convince people that what they're claiming is worth anyone's time. No one is obligated to go check out their claims. God is not worth my time, because its chance of existing is so very very slim. For all intents and purposes it might as well not exist.

Who's abandoning intellect here? This is absurd. If i were to devote my time to go search for this god i'm abandoning tons of things that i'm doing right now. Why should god be more important? when there's no proof at all that this thing is more than a human imagination?

In fact I don't even know why people bother to call themselves agnostic. I don't even know why dawkins came up with a 7 point scale. These things are not worth the time. Well at least no one has convinced me that it's worth the time to consider god exists.

And by the way, that is how research works in this world. Not every project gets funded, because there's limited resources. You have to write a proposal and convince people to spend money on your project. So now i guess all those who wants us to take god seriously must convince us that it's not a waste of time.

If you go around saying that you are not obligated to check out any claim without proof, then you are abandoning intellect for a hasty generalization. While "claimant brings the proof" is a useful thumb-rule, it is not the mantra to live by. Often, it is in your interest and worth your time to check out a claim even if you have been given no evidence for it.

As it happens, it would seem that god is worth your time, since you seem to have considered the probability of his existence. You seem to have done it without asking anyone for research money and determined that there is no reason to consider it anything more than a figment of imagination. So, it'd seem, your words and your deeds don't match up.

---

I would admit that I cannot prove that there is no god.

You can't prove that there are no invisible pink unicorns drinking margaritas at a Tiajuana Bar on Mardi Gras, either. What do you suppose the probabilities are, though?

Why not? I can call the bartender to ask if something invisible is drinking margaritas.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Often, it is in your interest and worth your time to check out a claim even if you have been given no evidence for it.

Yea? Some examples, please? If you read closely, I didn't say claimant brings the proof, I said you have to convince people that it's worth it to check it out. How you do this is up to your creativity. The hypothesis is not even needed to explain anything, so why investigate it? I am not obligated to check out claims
(i did not say without proof, don't put words in my mouth, if there's proof i wouldn't need to check it out, would i?), it's ridiculous to suggest that anyone is. Did you check out all the claims of seeing Elvis after his death? Did you check out all the ufo sightings, bigfoot, and yetis? Why or why not and how did it negatively or positively affect your life?

As it happens, it would seem that god is worth your time, since you seem to have considered the probability of his existence.

He wasn't, but i was unfortunate enough to have been a christian. And i have reasoned out that christian god doesn't exist. For the possibility of a god is a different topic and one i have not devoted much time to, nor do i care to in the future.

[genkaus]

Just to expand on my earlier comment-- sometimes questions like that in the OP are best answered in as short and direct a manner as possible. It's not as if we haven't been challenged to "prove god does not exist" many times on forums like this. And the simple fact is that we can't prove it. But I think that theists sometimes presume that my inability to disprove god is somehow my problem. And it isn't.

The problem here for me is that the refusal to take up the challenge shows a degree of intellectual callousness. No one here says that you have to prove that god doesn't exist, but it is an interesting challenge. Bearing the burden of proof may not be your responsibility, but that shouldn't stop you from trying it out - at the very least, you'll get a good workout. Instead of people rising to the challenge, we have answers like "not my problem" or "can't be done". The attitude does seem to be defeatist.

If he really does exist, god is free to reveal himself to me in a direct and unambiguous manner any time it pleases him. And if it doesn't please him, I can no longer be bothered to give a shit. If he isn't interested in proving that he exists, I'm too busy browsing the comment section on Youtube to help him with that.

He isn't the problem, it's his fanclub.

[Minimalist]

Why not? I can call the bartender to ask if something invisible is drinking margaritas.

And if he says 'yes' you can assume he is as crazy as the average jesus freak.

[genkaus]

Even in court, one does not attempt to prove that someone is innocent so much as one attempts to prove that one is guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty, after all.

The same logic works for god. He does not exist until he can be proven to exist. Thousands of years of human civilization, and still there is no proof of god's existence.

Bad example. No defense lawyer worth his salt would pass up an opportunity to prove his client's innocence. While he doesn't have to, in a typical case, the defendant doesn't simply poke holes in the prosecution's theory and evidence, he presents witnesses and evidence of his own to show why his client is innocent.

The same logic applies to god as well. Just because one doesn't have to is no reason why one shouldn't try to.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Why not? I can call the bartender to ask if something invisible is drinking margaritas.

And if he says 'yes' you can assume he is as crazy as the average jesus freak.

Or maybe that just makes you really drunk...

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Ok genkaus, I see your point, but I don't agree with it, here's why.

If you reacted the same way to claims of unicorns and pots of gold at the end of rainbows and the chuppacabra, ufos, bigfoot, yeti, (insert other mythical creatures i can't come up with right this second), then you'd be consistent. You'd also be extremely busy. If you do not react the same way then perhaps you want to ask yourself why does god, having the same amount of evidence as ll the creatures listed so far, warrants your attention more than these creatures?

Meanwhile, there are important things to learn like economics, science, politics, history, music. Not to mention people to hang out with, places to go, food to experience, things to invent, art to do.

Your time is limited. What do you want to spend it on?

[Silver]

The same logic applies to god as well. Just because one doesn't have to is no reason why one shouldn't try to.

Blah, blah, blah, here you go:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-19744.html

[genkaus]

Yea? Some examples, please? If you read closely, I didn't say claimant brings the proof, I said you have to convince people that it's worth it to check it out. How you do this is up to your creativity. The hypothesis is not even needed to explain anything, so why investigate it? I am not obligated to check out claims (i did not say without proof, don't put words in my mouth, if there's proof i wouldn't need to check it out, would i?), it's ridiculous to suggest that anyone is. Did you check out all the claims of seeing Elvis after his death? Did you check out all the ufo sightings, bigfoot, and yetis? Why or why not and how did it negatively or positively affect your life?

Actually, he doesn't even have to convince you that its worth checking out. For example, if someone close to you has cancer and a distant acquaintance tells you, "you know, I heard from a friend of a friend that there is this company in New-York that has a new anti-cancer drug out" - you will check out the claim even if he hasn't given you any proof of its truth or even tried to convince you that it is worth checking out. The same goes for if he gives you a stock tip for a company you are heavily invested in.

But if you dogmatically keep repeating "but I'm not obligated to check out the claim" - you'll be the one who ends up losing.

And as for putting words in your mouth, I'd ask you not to try the same. I never said that you are, in any way, obligated to check anything out. I'm just saying that if you stubbornly refuse to consider any claim that you are not obligated to check out, then you are abandoning your intellect in favor of hasty generalizations.

He wasn't, but i was unfortunate enough to have been a christian. And i have reasoned out that christian god doesn't exist.

So you have proven a negative - even though you weren't "obligated" to?

For the possibility of a god is a different topic and one i have not devoted much time to, nor do i care to in the future.

And yet you seem to have determined that it is slim.

---

Why not? I can call the bartender to ask if something invisible is drinking margaritas.

And if he says 'yes' you can assume he is as crazy as the average jesus freak.

Why would I assume anything?

The point is, while I didn't have to take up the challenge to disprove the unicorns in the bar, having done so means that now it is up to me how far I take it to find the the disproof. All that means is that I do not accept your off-hand conclusion that "it can't be done".