Not really, HordeLorde. Like I said, extraordinary claims and all that. You don't have to prove that a thing does not exist, because if you did, where does it end? Do I have to prove unicorns don't exist? Or manticores? Or basilisks? Or fraggles? What about whatzits? And flobknockers? And flimspiddlers?
You see the problem. The list of things that do not exist is endless. If you had to prove that things do not exist, your task would never end.
Anyway, I'm not really interested in having another debate on religion. I was more curious about who would want to definitively know the answer yes or no, if it were possible (which of course it is not).
Yes. To assume anything, that something does or does not exist, without evidence, is a logical fallacy. There is no evidence on either side. Even evidence is only so compelling, as evidence has turned out wrong or incorrect before in the past. Many things that were previously scientifically accepted as if the norm has been challenged and changed, many things we thought we "knew" were proven false.
To make an assumption without evidence, of any kind, is illogical, and even some evidence goes so far. You don't need to, and can't ever truly confirm anything 100%. This may be a dream. We may be a computer simulation. This may be an illusion. A virtual reality world etc.
To assume it's not just because you want to have something to believe in is just bias. It's no more logical to assume that the world we live in is a concrete one than it is an illusion. You may have your own default in your mind of what you believe, but there is no such default written in to the code of the universe. It doesn't matter if it seems silly, weird or unlikely to you; what is, is, regardless of who knows it.
Assuming god doesn't exist, is still an assertion. It's not the default. Assuming nothing, that you know nothing, that you don't know if God exists or not, is not the same as assuming one doesn't exist. "I don't know" is inherently different from a declarative yes or no. In quantum mechanics, the question of the unknown is, is the cat dead or alive, such as with Schrodinger's cat? The proper answer is, "I have no idea". Trying to make assumptions without evidence, whether you believe it is or is not dead, is just as dumb no matter which choice you pick. In your mind, dead may be the default you choose, but in reality there is no default. It's just another assumption.
"But disproving God exists would be hard!"- does not exempt you from logic or facts. Without proof, you cannot claim you are right, and are using logic any more than anyone else. By the same token, providing God does exist is hard. So, are both sides right, then? The reality is, we simply can't know. You can prove a negative, by focusing on exclusionary properties. Something cannot be both red and green at the same time, by the token that the wavelength and frequency of light is a very specific amount that can only be one thing at a time. So, with that in mind, if you scientifically determine the color of something, that proves that it can't be something else; claims that it is green are disproven if you can prove it is red. Similarly you could prove that, said Chupacabra is actually a mangey dog, thus meaning it's not a Chupacabra. Now, some may claim there's another Chupacabra, but you only have to disprove God once. Blam, it's done. If you can't do it, then you aren't right.
Edited by Manoka, 27 January 2016 - 06:09 PM.