Things You Can't Prove, But Believe

[SilverBullets000]

That Majora was the Zelda equivialant of a devil. Don't know if any has brought that up yet since things have pretty much degenerated into one of those threads.
Not saying that it can't be one of those threads, just that I don't like those threads. Was rather hoping that this would be a thread about weird things in videogames that lacked explanation and cool ways to explain them to be honest.

 

[Abedeus]

I respected your belief, but now you have proven that you don't deserve my respect, now good fucking day sir. And take your blind discrimination against religious people with you.

I'll sooner die than have any respect or tolerance against intolerant religions. As long as people abuse them for their own needs, you won't see me saying "Oh, yeah, I can understand your beliefs". Trminas.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

I believe in luck.


I know that everything happens through a chain of events, but a lot of things to seem to end up in my favour more often than not, while others seem to never get their own way.

I'm lucky

Well lucky you. <<please imagine this being said in a slightly negative tone.


Personally, I have a very strange luck about me.

 

[Monkey_Warfare]

That no two people see the same thing when they see blue. How do I know that what my perception of blue is matches yours?

 

[Ignatz_Zwakh]

That trolls ate my family while we were vacationing in Norway. I thought with the release of "The Troll Hunter", that people would finally believe me. I mean, it is a goddamn documentary after all..but not. Still they doubt!

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Then why are you trying to disprove something you admit you cant.

The burden of proof to prove a negative is impossible, you cannot ask in an arguement someone to put forward evidence that something doesnt exist. But obviously opinions can still be held using an absence of evidence. I very much doubt you have any belief khaine is real. But youve drawn this conclusion not from evidence he DOESNT exist but from the fact no evidence is there to his existance.

I am not trying to disprove god, more that i am trying to say there is no reason to believe in him more than khaine. And at least khaines straight forward in his demands. No wishy washy hate this or that but love it. Blood and souls. Fairly direct.

A baby doesn't not believe in God. It has no opinion on the matter because it does not know as it has no knowledge of the subject. It does not believe that God exists, and does not believe that there is no God. Because the default is absence of knowledge, and absence of believe in either a negative or positive value.

Alright? Im not sure where you are going with it, i agree with it though.

I don't back up claims of metaphysics ever, because I realize it's not a provable prospect.

Then why did you say the burden of proof was on someones shoulders when you agree its on no ones shoulders except those making a claim that will directly affect my lifestyle. Many want me to DO something with it. And if it isnt a provable prospect why waste time coming up with a billion billion theories about it when all are as likely to be incorrect as any other.

Hitler doesn't exist isn't a claim then. Cool.

And interestingly enough you will have exactly as much of a chance to prove he exists as you do that God exists, that Europe exists, that your own hands typing away on your keyboard exist.

Hitler doesnt exist isnt a claim. If used in response to "Hitler does exist" its a statement of the null hypothesis in the experiment on his existance. The denial of a theory isnt a "claim" in itself. Is it a claim when EVERY SECOND you think "someone isnt stealing my car" and thus you have to go outside and back up this claim to yourself? No. Its the denial of the claim "Someone IS stealing my car" because you have no evidence to suggest someone is.

Also if youre going to descend into existential nihilism in an arguement then youre wasting everyones time. There is a truth. People usually resort to this in the face of just trying to trip everyone else up for the sake of it. I personally dont use the definition of "existance" that the previous poster did, dont act as if i do.

But we already used Occam's Razor to disprove science. Duh doy.

Who is WE? You and some guy with a faulty idea of how occums razor worked? Alright? Not to me you havnt. Since as far as im concerned that definition was rubbish.

Not to mention if youre going to pull the whole "Life is the matrix of the mind" stuff we can just start talking about all this in the context of the rules invented by your mind to govern this invented universe. You can go levels and levels deeper and i can follow you, the arguement is pointless and infinite. SO lets just discuss real laws and real truths on the basis that they do exist, even IN the context of an invented mind universe.

 

[Nazulu]

That you can judge the quality of music, movie, games, etc. Even compare against any other type in a logical way and be spot on accurate. How about that for controversial 'ey?

Absolutely sick of people screaming out that all art is subjective like it's fact they can prove, when it's just they have a subjective opinion and they haven't even bothered researching/studying, trying to figure out what makes quality entertainment.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Shifting the burden of proof.
You cannot prove a negative, as such, the one positing the positive has the burned of proof.
For example, you cannot prove that something that does not exist does not exist.
Therefore the one claiming that it does exist has the burden of proof.

And absence of evidence is absolutely evidence of absence.
There's absolutely no evidence that invisible unicorns exist, which is evidence enough to draw the conclusion that they do not exist.
But maybe they're just really good at hiding.
Being invisible and all.

How is it my responsibility to prove that there is no proof. That's retarded. If someone wants to say God definitely exists, it's theirs to prove. If someone wants to say God definitely does not exist, it's theirs to prove. Why is it my task to sit down and prove(which I already did if you actually bothered to read my posts) that something is unknowable.

If he wants to make grand claims about things, then it's his responsibility to prove them, not mine.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

The burden of proof to prove a negative is impossible, you cannot ask in an arguement someone to put forward evidence that something doesnt exist. But obviously opinions can still be held using an absence of evidence.

So don't sit around and say you 100% know that God in a biblical form, does not exist? And don't go around shitting on peoples beliefs because you think your way of life is better.

I very much doubt you have any belief khaine is real.

I dunno, he seems pretty real to me.

But youve drawn this conclusion not from evidence he DOESNT exist but from the fact no evidence is there to his existance.

I don't acknowledge that anything exists beyond the mind. Solipsism is the only provable truth. I operate in life based on the premise that things that are tangible exist at least to the degree that they have an effect on my mind. If I can see something, smell it, hear it then I will treat it as something real. But if I can't, I don't automatically jump to the conclusions that it does not exist, I simply have no opinion on its existence.

I am not trying to disprove god, more that i am trying to say there is no reason to believe in him more than khaine. And at least khaines straight forward in his demands. No wishy washy hate this or that but love it. Blood and souls. Fairly direct.

Fully agree on point one, there is no reason to believe in God, over Khaine, or over Leprichauns or Unicorns or Kristen Stewart having an ability to act. The second point though I have to say God(at least the Christian one) is pretty direct too with his whole believe in Jesus and I, or I will torture you for all eternity deal. Which is the main reason why, even if Christianity was provable, I still wouldn't follow it. I have a rule that deities get held to the exact same moral standards I hold people to. And if a king demanded that I worship him, under threat of torture, I would judge him to be a very evil person.

A baby doesn't not believe in God. It has no opinion on the matter because it does not know as it has no knowledge of the subject. It does not believe that God exists, and does not believe that there is no God. Because the default is absence of knowledge, and absence of believe in either a negative or positive value.

Alright? Im not sure where you are going with it, i agree with it though.

Because in my opinion it means that if one wants to say that God does not exist, then they are shirking the default value of we don't know. So they have as much of a burden of proof if they want to say that, as a religious person does if they want to say the opposite. If you want to shrug and yeah, yeah that's not very likely and then walk away then you have to prove nothing. But if you say NOPE GOD DOES NOT EXIST YOUR RELIGION IS FALSE, then it's your job to prove that. And its a pretty unprovable premise when the other sides deity is omnipotent and can do absolutely anything up to and including magically falsifying evidence and or deleting parts of peoples brains.

And yes, if you're an atheist then you're saying there is no God, that's what atheism is, that's what the root words break into. If you are anywhere in between then you're an agnostic, you can be a strongly leaning in one direction agnostic, but you're still an agnostic. Frankly I find myself sitting about dead center, the Deists can be quite convincing from the: 'holy shit why is there even anything, why is there existence instead of nothing?' side of the argument.

Then why did you say the burden of proof was on someones shoulders when you agree its on no ones shoulders except those making a claim that will directly affect my lifestyle. Many want me to DO something with it.

It's on the shoulders of anyone who wants to make a definite statement about the subject. Which is not the same as being on no ones shoulders. And hindering lifestyles is a government issue or a moral issue not a metaphysical one. There have been plenty of cultures who mistreated large segments of the population with no God behind them. The Russian poor needed no God to destroy the lives of the Kulaks. And though many homophobes may hide behind gospel, if deprived of that crutch, they would simply find another to hide behind.

And you can't attack an entire group of people based on the actions of a few of their members.

And if it isnt a provable prospect why waste time coming up with a billion billion theories about it when all are as likely to be incorrect as any other.

I don't know. I certainly only dwell on it because I like arguing with people. I find it a useful mental exercise. I personally find meaning in other things, like helping people and trying to make the world a better place before I leave it. And if there is a God or some such force, I hope s/he/it judges me kindly for my actions. If s/he/it does not, then I would rather suffer his torments than be on his side.

As for other people, they struggle to find meaning. They like to believe they are a bigger part of something. Some use it as a shield to defend their wicked actions, and must convince themselves of the truth. The reasons people come up with the theories are as numerous as the theories themselves. Perhaps moreso.

Also if youre going to descend into existential nihilism in an arguement then youre wasting everyones time. There is a truth. People usually resort to this in the face of just trying to trip everyone else up for the sake of it.

Nothing I have said is nihilism. Nihilism is the belief in nothing. There is a definite truth that exists in this universe. But neither you, nor I nor anyone on this Earth will ever know of it. At least not in this life.

I do enjoy tripping people up, but my argument is more live with whatever you believe to be true and don't shit on whatever other people believe. Terminate421 came into a thread called Things you can't prove, but believe. He didn't come in and say, 'fuck you all God exists you heathens you must convert now' all he said, was that he believed in God. He freely admitted there was no proof of it. And someone immediately started shitting on his beliefs for no reasons. So he tried responding nicely to the guy. And the guy decided to be an even bigger dick, to someone who did absolutely nothing wrong.

That is why I am in here in this thread.

I personally dont use the definition of "existance" that the previous poster did, dont act as if i do.

Who is WE? You and some guy with a faulty idea of how occums razor worked? Alright? Not to me you havnt. Since as far as im concerned that definition was rubbish.

It was a hilariously bad definition, but I like to turn peoples logic back on them. Frankly I didn't even realize you were a different person. I just saw someone quoted me and replied.

Not to mention if youre going to pull the whole "Life is the matrix of the mind" stuff we can just start talking about all this in the context of the rules invented by your mind to govern this invented universe. You can go levels and levels deeper and i can follow you, the arguement is pointless and infinite. SO lets just discuss real laws and real truths on the basis that they do exist, even IN the context of an invented mind universe.

Sure but you've basically just conceded if you admit that the whole everything is of the mind argument is true. If you want to discuss our shared perception of reality though there's still no proving it. God can make people with the wrong number of ribs, and then magically append the number later, because hes magic and his ways are mysterious and unknowable. He can declare Pi to be 3, and then later make it a never ending search for more digits. He can make the bible true and then with a flick of his wrist magically make it false, and then go hide dinosaur bones, invent the Devil who he has total power over, and then claim he can't stop the Devil but is still omnipotent. It doesn't matter, because omnipotence is a trump card that you can't beat.

You can say: "not very likely." But you can't say nor prove it untrue.


Edit: my original captcha thing was an empty white box from somethingorothermedia. Claiming it was a puzzle I had to solve... but there was nothing there. Not sure if it had an error... or if the escapist is finding creative ways to insult my arguments...

 

[Nikolaz72]

Not a big conspiracy theorist myself, but I do think that the moon may have a greater effect on people's behavior than we realize. We are made of mostly water after all.

Dafuq? Is this some sort of tidal logic?
I know you can't prove it, but please explain at least a basis for such a thought...

I believe there is no separate part of me such as a 'soul'. I can't prove it doesn't exist, but then again, I see no reason to believe something with such a complete lack of proof.

There is no logic. The moons gravitational pull affects water, it isn't some water type magic stone (as you full well know).

By that logic everything that has mass effects people's behavior.

Explains why there are so many jokes about your mother.

*rimshot*

*Coughs while putting on his tophat and monocle*

-Science stuff... I believe in science stuff. Although I cant explain it. I didnt post on this thread for the sole purpose of making a fat joke-

 

[krazykidd]

I believe it's possible to have little glimpses into the future and to see into the past . We just don't know how yet . If time is linear there no reason we shouldn't be able to .Don't ask me why i believe that though.

 

[Captain Pirate]

The thing is, now you've just moved the question of origins. We came from a creator, who very deliberately created us, but what created it? If that creator was not made deliberately, then it would have to be randomly, and thus, an extremely awesome thing was created by accident. If that creator was made deliberately by another creator, you have to have an infinite conga-line of Gods.

Well I guess you would.
I certainly can't think of any other possibility.

 

[Flames66]

I believe that the governments of the world are conspiring to trap everyone in an invisible prison. I have no proof, but here is some stuff that implies it:

@ Gradual reduction in Human rights
@ Rapid increase in surveillance
--@ Cameras (despite them not reducing crime rates)
--@ Internet monitoring
--@ Phone tapping
--@ Total information systems in development
--@ Gradual move away from cash so all transactions can be tracked
@ Culture of fear
@ Nothing to hide, Nothing to fear approach to law enforcement
-- @ Increasing powers of law enforcement to search without cause
@ Demonising anything that is not "normal behavior"

 

[Ordinaryundone]

I believe that, one day, there will be a time when someone can say "I believe in (insert diety)" on the internet without a horde on angry atheists waiting in the wings to pounce. Seriously, you guys have gotten into a 3 page arguement over 2 sentences. Calm down. The entire point of the thread was "stuff you believe in but cannot prove". The burden of proof lies with no one, because no one is claiming it.

But the part that makes me angry? That you are doing it because he specified the Judeo-Christian God. If he had said Poseidon or Odin or Tzenntentch or whatever you would have had no issue. This isn't "logic", guys, its straight up discrimination bordering on a personal attack. Keep that stuff on /r atheism.

OT: Ghosts, reincarnation, meta-humans, aliens, and that fighting game tiers dont exist.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

I believe that, one day, there will be a time when someone can say "I believe in (insert diety)" on the internet without a horde on angry atheists waiting in the wings to pounce. Seriously, you guys have gotten into a 3 page arguement over 2 sentences. Calm down. The entire point of the thread was "stuff you believe in but cannot prove". The burden of proof lies with no one, because no one is claiming it.

But the part that makes me angry? That you are doing it because he specified the Judeo-Christian God. If he had said Poseidon or Odin or Tzenntentch or whatever you would have had no issue. This isn't "logic", guys, its straight up discrimination bordering on a personal attack. Keep that stuff on /r atheism.

OT: Ghosts, reincarnation, meta-humans, aliens, and that fighting game tiers dont exist.

I immediately want to argue about the existance of fighting game tiers, Atierists are always attacking our beliefs ;_;, but OT, I believe in a thing called love and Science. Generally, it is plenty provable, except for Gravity. My friends, we do NOT understand gravity, it doesn't make any sense.

Also

Because in my opinion it means that if one wants to say that God does not exist, then they are shirking the default value of we don't know. So they have as much of a burden of proof if they want to say that, as a religious person does if they want to say the opposite. If you want to shrug and yeah, yeah that's not very likely and then walk away then you have to prove nothing. But if you say NOPE GOD DOES NOT EXIST YOUR RELIGION IS FALSE, then it's your job to prove that. And its a pretty unprovable premise when the other sides deity is omnipotent and can do absolutely anything up to and including magically falsifying evidence and or deleting parts of peoples brains.

And yes, if you're an atheist then you're saying there is no God, that's what atheism is, that's what the root words break into. If you are anywhere in between then you're an agnostic, you can be a strongly leaning in one direction agnostic, but you're still an agnostic. Frankly I find myself sitting about dead center, the Deists can be quite convincing from the: 'holy shit why is there even anything, why is there existence instead of nothing?' side of the argument.

You are my hero, Mr Holmes, that was awesome.

 

[Vern5]

I believe that most intangible beings like ghosts and spirits and God are as real as people believe them to be. Its sort of like that theory that God survives on prayers but applied to all things that cannot be normally seen or felt.

Silly, I know, but it runs with my belief of "Truth/Beauty is all in the eye of the beholder"

That reminds me of how the orks in Warhammer 40k just cobble together bits of metal and string and make guns and effective armor. It works because they believe it works.

In the name of the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH, the warboss and the holy dakka, amirite?

That would explain why I have such an abnormal respect for Orks and how they function.

"Red onez go Fasta!"

 

[Denamic]

Shifting the burden of proof.
You cannot prove a negative, as such, the one positing the positive has the burned of proof.
For example, you cannot prove that something that does not exist does not exist.
Therefore the one claiming that it does exist has the burden of proof.

And absence of evidence is absolutely evidence of absence.
There's absolutely no evidence that invisible unicorns exist, which is evidence enough to draw the conclusion that they do not exist.
But maybe they're just really good at hiding.
Being invisible and all.

How is it my responsibility to prove that there is no proof. That's retarded. If someone wants to say God definitely exists, it's theirs to prove. If someone wants to say God definitely does not exist, it's theirs to prove. Why is it my task to sit down and prove(which I already did if you actually bothered to read my posts) that something is unknowable.

If he wants to make grand claims about things, then it's his responsibility to prove them, not mine.

It is ALWAYS the one claiming the positive that has the burden of proof.
If he wants to say god does not exist, that's his prerogative.
If you wish to combat that claim, YOU have the burden of proof.
Since neither of you have any evidence to support your claims, his position 'win' by default.
As such, you're better off just not engaging this claim at all, since you cannot possibly win.
Of course, you could dodge and spin the argument, but that would only make you dishonest and obnoxious.

 

[Renegade-pizza]

By that logic everything that has mass effects people's behavior.

Oh my god! This explains so much!

OT: No, not really. I believe in things that can be proven, directly or indirectly. That which cannot be proven should not be accepted or rejected as truth. Blind faith is the root of ignorance and stupidity.

If I may, I am a man of science, but still a Christian. I am also a sceptic. My faith allows me to believe in the possibilities and utter epicness that is the universe.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Shifting the burden of proof.
You cannot prove a negative, as such, the one positing the positive has the burned of proof.
For example, you cannot prove that something that does not exist does not exist.
Therefore the one claiming that it does exist has the burden of proof.

And absence of evidence is absolutely evidence of absence.
There's absolutely no evidence that invisible unicorns exist, which is evidence enough to draw the conclusion that they do not exist.
But maybe they're just really good at hiding.
Being invisible and all.

How is it my responsibility to prove that there is no proof. That's retarded. If someone wants to say God definitely exists, it's theirs to prove. If someone wants to say God definitely does not exist, it's theirs to prove. Why is it my task to sit down and prove(which I already did if you actually bothered to read my posts) that something is unknowable.

If he wants to make grand claims about things, then it's his responsibility to prove them, not mine.

It is ALWAYS the one claiming the positive that has the burden of proof.
If he wants to say god does not exist, that's his prerogative.
If you wish to combat that claim, YOU have the burden of proof.
Since neither of you have any evidence to support your claims, his position 'win' by default.
As such, you're better off just not engaging this claim at all, since you cannot possibly win.
Of course, you could dodge and spin the argument, but that would only make you dishonest and obnoxious.

That sounds like a weasel answer. "I'm right because you have to prove it to ME". Starting from the null hypothesis (scientifically) of 'there is no evidence either way' would mean both need to prove their case.

If I said "The Earth is not 50,000 years old" you would need to provide evidence that it was, unequivocal evidence that I can't handwave away with 'God did it' or 'no frame of reference', and if your evidence isn't sufficient I'm right by default. This is EXACTLY the problem we have with creationists arguing against scientists and it's why we should start from null and chalk up pros and cons. You'll probably still wind up with the truth, but just saying "You can't prove a negative, ergo it's correct" is going to lead to such bullshit 'proofs' its unreal.

 

[Denamic]

That sounds like a weasel answer. "I'm right because you have to prove it to ME".

'Weasel answer', you say.
Then immediately start putting words into my mouth, followed by a ridiculous strawman.
It's also clear you do not even understand what I was talking about in the first place.
Well done.

I'm not even going to bother with you.