how do you disprove god? |
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Author | |||
omer
Starter. Male Joined: 07 December 2014 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
good response chris,
I agree with your swan example, and relent that the dawn aspect is a prediction, not an explanation. That would be more of a why does the tide come in and go out...well it's because of allah. That's easily disprovable, because we can test for it ,and observe and see that's not the case. In fact there's an explanation that doesn't require allah, and it's a lot more simple, then a magic being that's infinite, and no one can see or test for. But nonetheless, I will maintain, that there is a way to prove it. There is a method. Therein is what I'm pointing out. That there is no method of proving allah exists. In that, Allah, is no different from a pink unicorn. As far as humanity is concerned, there is only one method we have come up with, that has a high degree of success, in finding the truth. That is.....the scientific method. There is nothing that has created as much knowledge of what the truth is, other then that. If you say Islam, or christianity, or hinduism is the truth...that's BS. And i'm gonna call every muslim on this board out on that. What does islam have to say about gravity?, or sonic booms? or the speed of light? absolutely nothing. Islam is worthless as a path to truth. Because it has never explained anything. It makes up stuff, and provides no proof for it. As for evolution, its actually really easy to disprove. You just need to find a new specie, that has no genetic commonality with anything in existence. That would show that evolution is false, and that complex organisms can just come into existence without pre-existing species. Unfortunately....that not the reality. Every thing has a gentic commonalities with everything else. Omer |
|||
Emettman
Senior Member Male Joined: 02 December 2014 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 144 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Yes, the "I have no need of that hypothesis" line. But that's no disproof of a deity, only the disproof of a *necessity* of a deity. Occam's razor is a thing of likelihoods, not certainties.
I agree with that, but it's difficult if not impossible to bring that to anyone who already include divine revelation within their epistemology. That the uncertainty lies in that the *human* assessment of a particular message as divine (and hence inerrant, unquestionable) seems often to be skipped over somehow.
Even if that truth is partial or approximate, to a good degree we know *how* partial and approximate. And it keeps getting tested and refined, something just not present in most faith systems. This, I hold against them. |
|||
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |