Scientific Proof Of God

[JimC]

We just completely obliterate you.

So, this is the core of your fascist belief system. Those who don't share it are to be obliterated...

Have a chat to some normal, mainstream religious people sometime, Denis. I rather think they would tell you that sentiment ain't very christian...

[NineBerry]

[Cunt]

Do you have any stronger arguments to "prove" atheism?

I haven't read much of the thread, but seeing you write this shows me you don't understand "prove", atheism or probably arguments.

All that aside though, do you want to go for a run?

[superuniverse]

Your swan arguments only indicate your utter impotence. Who are "you" to say there is no God?

[JimC]

Who are you to say there is one?

[Cunt]

Your swan arguments only indicate your utter impotence.

Moving on...

Want to go run? I'm healed up and ready Sunday.

[superuniverse]

In case you don't know what you are talking about..

https://capital.com/the-black-swan-theory-definition

[NineBerry]

What about Noah's Arch. Where there black swans on the Arch?

[Brian Peacock]

...

Blind little men walking in circles. You are nothing.

Don't be ableist. We say 'severely visually impaired' these days.

[NineBerry]

Also, we don't say "men", but "emotionally challenged persons"

[Seabass]

"Severely visually impaired, vertically deficient, emotionally challenged persons"

[Hermit]

I've consistently said that the absence of evidence supporting a claim justifies the conclusion that the claim is false, until or unless evidence is forthcoming. At the same time I've been very clear that 'proof' which justifies this conclusion is the absence of evidence for the claim itself.

Didn't we deal with all that in 2009?

No.

Ok. The absence of material evidence in support of claims for supernatural entities justifiably supports the conclusion that supernatural entities do not exist.

Indeed, a justifiable conclusion about a claim.

What was I even thinking? Was I even thinking?

[Cunt]

In case you don't know what you are talking about..

https://capital.com/the-black-swan-theory-definition

I might not know what I'm talking about.

But you asked a question about atheism that indicated that you didn't know what you were talking about.

I'm not going to have a conflict with you though, since you don't seem to understand. I'll just re-invite you to come run.

[superuniverse]

To clarify since you are clueless...


"In this case, the observation of a single black swan would be the undoing of the logic of any system of thought, as well as any reasoning that followed from that underlying logic."

You are finished whether you are aware of it or not...

[Hermit]

Your swan arguments only indicate your utter impotence. Who are "you" to say there is no God?

You don't understand the Black Swan Fallacy. It is here used to defeat the argument that lack of evidence does not logically lead to proof of non-existence. In other words, never having seen a black swan is not proof that black swans do not exist. This applies no matter what you replace 'black swan' with. For this reason I will not say "there is no God", and the vast majority of atheists will not say so either. What I (and they) will say is that in the absence of convincing evidence of a supernatural creator we have no reason to believe there is one.The evidence needs to be falsifiable and reproducible. As an example I have proposed an experiment which - depending on its result - would make me believe in a God.