-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If you personally were given conclusive proof that God doesn't exist . . .
- Thread starter Eliot Wild
- Start date
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
But might just give her a heart attack
Doubtful. Proof is easily dismissed by those that truly believe.
Just look at all the people who don't "believe" in evolution despite the mountains of conclusive proof.
Proof is never a danger to faith.
Well, then it wasn't proof, was it? It proved nothing to them.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
I have noo argument with the theory of evolution. But I'm interested in what constitutes the conclusive proof?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Right, it wasn't proof to them. Doesn't negate it as proof objectively.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
Yes.
What would conclusive 'proof' that a deity does not exist even look like? I am fairly certain this is an impossible concept. Nothing could disprove the existence of gods, or invisible pink unicorns for that matter. How do you prove a universal negative?
There is a monolithic difference between 'prove god exists' and 'prove god doesn't exist' in the scope of being logically possible.
What would conclusive 'proof' that a deity does not exist even look like? I am fairly certain this is an impossible concept. Nothing could disprove the existence of gods, or invisible pink unicorns for that matter. How do you prove a universal negative?
There is a monolithic difference between 'prove god exists' and 'prove god doesn't exist' in the scope of being logically possible.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Perhaps because there's no conclusive proof to be offered?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Meh, conclusive enough for many things. Point is, it doesn't matter how convincing your proof or evidence is - generally, if someone has a strong identification with belief in something, they'll dismiss any proof or evidence which counters it.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
"Conclusive enough" is a good deal more subjective than "conclusive."
I think you do the religious a disservice. Sure there are those who will stick their fingers in their ears and shout "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU," but it's been my experience that such folk are a tiny minority.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Guess we've had different experiences. Also, my comments are hardly limited to the religious.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Fair enough.
Well, it doesn't negate it, as there is no such "proof objectively" beast. Proof is in the pudding.
"The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Prove it.
To whom?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
To me.
No can do. It wouldn't be proof, would it? Not even "proof to you."
No pudding, no proof.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
So you have no proof of this assertion.
Just pudding.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Prove it.
To whom?