1) You can't prove a negative. It is impossible. There is no way to prove you can't do something, no way to prove you don't know something, no way to prove something isn't real. --> First, think about that. Is it not true? You can't prove a negative. If you 'can' it's only through proving positive. For instance, in order to prove I'm not a fish, I may prove I AM human. By proving I AM something, we can assume I'm not two things in one and therefore rule out (thus 'proving') I'm not a fish, right? Can you think of a way to prove I'm not a fish without proving I AM something? Also, in order to do this I have to have a fish to show what a fish is, for all you know my definition of fish could be the same as your definition of human! 2) In trying to prove God doesn't exist, they have to prove a negative. How can you do it? Well, in order to know God didn't exist they'd have to know everything, right? Which in turn makes them God (since a definition of God is all-knowing), therefore disproving their original argument. 3) You can prove everything on earth exists. You can give us science, and prove it exists. You CANNOT however prove God doesn't. So what you proved everything on earth exists? How does that prove God doesn't? 4) EVEN IF you dissproved the Bible (which is not going to happen but even if it did), EVEN IF you proved evolution (again impossible but even if it was,), that does not prove God doesn't exist. All that would prove is the Bible was wrong and Evolution existed. For all you knew at that point, God was out there and he never did write the Bible and he caused evolution (again this is not going to happen but even if it did.). FINAL THOUGHTS: EVEN IF Athesists PROVED ALL their evidence was TRUE, and ALL their arguments were VALID, how does that prove God doesn't exist?

[b]actresscp wrote:[/b] [quote]1) You can't prove a negative. It is impossible. There is no way to prove you can't do something, no way to prove you don't know something, no way to prove something isn't real. --> First, think about that. Is it not true? You can't prove a negative. If you 'can' it's only through proving positive. For instance, in order to prove I'm not a fish, I may prove I AM human. By proving I AM something, we can assume I'm not two things in one and therefore rule out (thus 'proving') I'm not a fish, right? Can you think of a way to prove I'm not a fish without proving I AM something? Also, in order to do this I have to have a fish to show what a fish is, for all you know my definition of fish could be the same as your definition of human! 2) In trying to prove God doesn't exist, they have to prove a negative. How can you do it? Well, in order to know God didn't exist they'd have to know everything, right? Which in turn makes them God (since a definition of God is all-knowing), therefore disproving their original argument. 3) You can prove everything on earth exists. You can give us science, and prove it exists. You CANNOT however prove God doesn't. So what you proved everything on earth exists? How does that prove God doesn't? 4) EVEN IF you dissproved the Bible (which is not going to happen but even if it did), EVEN IF you proved evolution (again impossible but even if it was,), that does not prove God doesn't exist. All that would prove is the Bible was wrong and Evolution existed. For all you knew at that point, God was out there and he never did write the Bible and he caused evolution (again this is not going to happen but even if it did.). FINAL THOUGHTS: EVEN IF Athesists PROVED ALL their evidence was TRUE, and ALL their arguments were VALID, how does that prove God doesn't exist?[/quote] I like that. Good Job.B)

You can't prove god exists either, so to me as an agnostic people that believe god exists and those that believe god does not exist are both thinking the same way.

Prophecies prove both that He exist, and that He wrote the Bible. Have any statistician work up the odds of an exiled people maintaining a national identity, not to mention a language, for even ONE thousand years, let alone almost two.. It's never happened before, and it never will again. Exiled people eventually (usually within just a few generations) just get absorbed into their host cultures. But HaShem chose the Jews as the keepers of the Word, and they couldn't do that if they went to Russia and became simply Russians, went to England and simply became English, etc.. So for two thousand years, the Jews maintained a sense of nationality aside from their host countries, and continued teaching their children the language of Tanakh. Without this, Israel could not have been regathered.

[b]SmilinBob wrote:[/b] [quote]You can't prove god exists either, so to me as an agnostic people that believe god exists and those that believe god does not exist are both thinking the same way.[/quote] You can't PROVE He exists per say considering the only way to prove it would be to show Him and touch Him, however you [i]can[/i] provide overwhelming evidence that leads you the conclusion that He MUST be real. AS in those statistics and prophecies. And through logic. "Can we prove creation [i](which in turn would prove God existed)[/i]? No. Can we prove evolution [i](which wouldn't do anything considering it would not mean God didn't exist)[i]? No. We can WEIGH THE EVIDENCE. And there is OVERWHELMING evidence for the fact that God exists and creation did indeed happen. Not to mention miracles that I witness every day that could only be by the hand of God....

Post edited by: actresscp, at: 2007/01/07 12:21

You're on the right track there

No one has shown me evidence that god exists, or that miracles are the work of god. "Have any statistician work up the odds of an exiled people maintaining a national identity" I am sure there have been lots of statistical studies to back this up. (Sarcasm)

Here is the thing. You can't disprove something that has not had evidence offered. Thats what the word means. The prefix 'dis' means to remove. So to disprove something means to remove or refute proof (in this case evidence). Trouble is claims for God keep getting refuted. But the theists don't play fair and keep insisting that there is a God even if they can't show any evidence that stands up for it. You cannot disprove what has not been proven. Because there is no significant evidence for God it is an unsupported claim. There is no need to disprove it because it has not been succesfully proven. This is why the flow of burden of proof is laid out the way it is. The positive claimant has to provide evidence supporting their case. If it is sufficient then it is accepted as likely true. But if the evidence or claims are effectively refuted then the claim has failed and it is not accepted as true.