Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Speaks Out Against Indiana's 'Religious Freedom' Law
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, there certainly isn't a God who gives a ****. There's proof enough of that.
The poster asked for proof. You mention proof but gave no links. Please edit your post to bolster your argument.
Thx #
If I was god I wouldn't give a **** either.
----------
Yeah I've heard that too. Although I can prove to you that I'm not Barack Obama, or is that impossible?
I'll play Devil's advocate: That would depend on the the purpose of The Earth Simulator which could be the school of hard knocks for some of us.
I don’t know who you are or what you look like, you could be lying about who you are not or use any number of trickery to convince me of you not being Obama - he has a ton of resources after all.
ETA: Of course I could always say that you are not making a negative assertion, but rather an assertive one. You can make a ton of provable assertions about yourself, but you cannot do the same of something else.
It is possible to prove a negative. For instance, you can prove the existence of something else that contradicts with the negative assertion, or you can show that the negative assertion is true by proving that rejecting it will result in an illogical outcome.
If so, I rest my case.I'll play Devil's advocate: That would depend on the the purpose of The Earth Simulator which could be the school of hard knocks for some of us.
No different to it being impossible to empirically disprove the existence of the tooth fairy or magical unicorns. But the absence of this proof does not mean there is any proof of the existence of those creatures. For these kind of claims, extraordinary evidence must be presented by the believer.
And if the believer thinks they don't have to prove anything, then this implies they don't care what other people think of their beliefs, and therefore they would have no reason or justification for imposing this belief on a homosexual customer by refusing to serve him or her.
Of course, if extraordinary evidence can be presented by the believer, then I might be more inclined to allow them to refuse to serve certain classes of people. But until that time comes, those religious beliefs are no different to non-religious beliefs and as such they should suck it up and serve everybody equally.
Interesting..... You approach it as a negative..... Interesting.
You do know there are things in nature that cannot be proven but accepted, right?
I don't think anything in nature that can't be explained is ever accepted. Naturalists and scientists will work to the end of time to understand everything about the universe - that's what they do. To just shrug and say"I dunno." Is a little bit rubbish.
----------
Especially if that deity, after Act 1 decided to go from being very vocal and destructive to being non-interventionary in Act 2. Apparently he's going to make quite a big entrance in the finale of Act 3.
Well I dont know is perfectly valid, but most scientists tend to follow that up with but I want to find out or something similar. Scientists love to find things that escape their current knowledge because it gives them an opportunity to expand their knowledge. They dont stop and say I dont know. If they have evidence of something, they have a reason to accept it and work to find what it is (via the scientific method).
I should be clear, you cannot disprove a negative so long as the situation is falsifiable. If something is non-falsifiable, it can not only not be proven, it cannot be unproven either.
I should be clear, you cannot disprove a negative so long as the situation is falsifiable. If something is non-falsifiable, it can not only not be proven, it cannot be unproven either.
Dark matter is accepted by all scientists even though it cannot be observed. We extrapolate, based solely on what we observed of the universe that this is so. And remember that this is only based on the fraction of the universe that we can observe.
Also accepted based on the part of the universe that we can observe is that Nature is uniformed across time and space. Since we cannot observe all of the universe. Nor can we observe things from the Big Bang up to now, we really cannot know this. But we extrapolate based on what we know.
The universe is vast and our knowledge of it is limited.
The dark matter theory is based on observations of effects that it may have on visible matter and radiation.
There are no observations or theories that can be inferred for a "god", which is to be expected given that non-existent things generally don't leave evidence to be found to start with.
http://www.history.com/topics/9-11-attacks/videos/911-timeline
http://godisimaginary.com
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/stephen-ha...ence-god-by-offering-scientific-proof-1467528
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005143
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/showing-god-does-not-exis_b_3757729.html?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/missour...destroyed-again-by-possible-lightning-strike/
http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/sci_tec...ll-religious-books-are-man-made-nonsense.html
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ptmNd9fp_5Q
http://video.foxnews.com/v/40305839...ideo-isis-burns-hostage-alive/?#sp=show-clips
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/13/pope-crimes-humanity-victims-abuse
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Bush_announces_Operation_Iraqi_Freedom_2003.jpg
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-oak-lawn-crash-20141007-story.html
http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/3044365-the-god-delusion
http://nypost.com/2015/02/12/mom-pleads-guilty-to-killing-6-newborn-babies/
Last edited:
What scientific evidence is there to learn in that video??? Seriously, please explain.
Here's my guess:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a deity who is, in either absolute or relative terms, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (see theism).[1][2] An argument from evil attempts to show that the co-existence of evil and such a deity is unlikely or impossible if placed in absolute terms. ...
In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a deity who is, in either absolute or relative terms, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (see theism).[1][2] An argument from evil attempts to show that the co-existence of evil and such a deity is unlikely or impossible if placed in absolute terms. ...
Oye Vey!
Because people do evil things that is proof an all knowing being of some kind does not exist?!?
Really?!???
Thousands of kind, loving and generous acts happen everyday. Should that then be proof an all knowing deity does exist?
If your answer is no, because that is not proof. Then the first argument is also nullified.
Can't have it both ways.
If something is all powerful and all knowing and supposedly good, then there is no reason that horrible things would or could happen. in other words, people praise the lord because little Johnny survived 9 11. So did God hate the other 3000 people?
Regardless, isn't it childish to debate whether an adult version of Santa exists? The proof that God doesn't exist is common sense. Just like I don't need proof that hobbits don't exist, I don't need scientific proof that Thor or Odin or abrahamic gods don't exist. They are all fictional stories made up by men.
Why don't we argue about hobbits-- cause that would be absurd right? We all know Tolkien made that up. So because we weren't around 2000 years ago we have to assume myths told then were true? Does the word "religion" placed in front of stories make them non fiction all the sudden? Why would any sane person take as true stories told by mostly illiterate people to entertain and because they lacked an understanding of basic science. The fact that anyone today would "buy" God or religion is laughable, if not just sad. I suppose 2000 years from now Martin Luther king or ghandi will be "gods" too. Common sense. I hear thunder, don't know why. Ahh, I'll use the word God to explain. That's how the whole God thing started. Okay, we are beyond that now (or should be).
The real question would be if an all knowing, all seeing, all loving entity adheres to the same standards of morality that we do.
I think the Problem of Evil argument is flawed because it forces a human perspective onto something that isn't human.