Things You Can't Prove, But Believe

[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.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

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.

You will find i havnt done that in this thread. I was slightly freaked out by the idea that religious people say 100% god DOES exist. Its this i challenged. The inability to doubt. Rather than shitting on someones beliefs. Dont confuse me and the other dude.

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 simply equate "no opinion on its existance" with "live like it doesnt exist" which for me is pretty much thinking it doesnt exist. We have similar criteria.

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.

We also hold the exact same opinion on "if religion was proved true". Interesting. And impressive.

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.

I do not KNOW god does not exist. However this falls under the definition of negative atheism so i usually stick to that. I live like a god doesnt exist. I might as well label myself an atheist. I rarely wonder if god exists in a more serious tone than i do unicorns because its bias toward a theory over another. I dont KNOW they are false. But i live as if they are. Thus i find atheism defines my lifestyle well. Negative atheism that is. To you i am an agnostic though. Im fine with that. I think what i think no matter what label is used.

And to be honest the "but what made everything" arguement is the weakest deist arguement of all. Simply because it is a question they themselves cannot answer. "What made god?". If a question is posed that neither idiology answers well then it isnt evidence one way or the other is it. Youre a smart guy. I didnt imagine this one would sway you. The paradox of creation makes as little sense with a giant flying omnipotent dude as it does with the infinite roiling energy of the pre big bang universe. Its a neutral point.

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.

Totally agree. Well said. Concede this point to you.

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.

It just seems dabbling in the metaphysical gets you as close to truth as smashing your face into a lake gets you to know the atomic structure of a specific water molecule in that lake. I wouldnt look for truth in an area so murky and devoid of empiricle evidence/reasoning. Youre good at arguing, youve done this exact discussion before havnt you? I also find it rather fun to do. But i find the metaphysical so dull. Magic is boring and lifeless because its so simple and lawless. It conforms to nothing and as such is basically undefinable, as such it can hardly even be said to exist as a concept. A concept of "everything can happent o anything for anything by anything" is meaningless. A real world is so much more tangable and interesting to me.

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.

We can both agree that guy was WAY out of line. I found the fanatisism scary but i dont jugde for your beliefs. Not seriously anyway. Part of me will be confused, as if someone said they thought unicorns were real, but it also rarely effects me. Ill only become angry when it does.

Then again those who freely admit logic and reason dictate and markably assist in the living of every day life and then decide that the BIGGEST questions and most important questions are decided by something else entirely utterly bemuse me. Logic works so well everywhere all the time? Why do we have reason to believe it fails so utterly here where it apparently matters most?

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.

Fair enough, it was pretty poor.

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.

This is where the correct occums razor is properly applied. We could agree we lived in a reality where all laws are subject to the whim of a bored god who created/breaks them just to confuse us and agree that all evidence to anything is worthless since it was likely made as a trap to torment our thirst for knowlegde further.

However for a universe actually worth discussing we may as well discuss it as we percieve it together. We should cut to the chase and agree that our modells of the universe work and have been proved to work, we should ignore the "why" and focus on the "how".

Which is exactly what i do say. Very very very very unlikely is what i usually call it. You cannot ever be sure of a negative. But its foolish to lend every positive serious credence because of it. Thats why i see negative atheism/agnositism as the most logical viewpoints. I can completely see where they come from and how they address the issue in terms of logic.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

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.

Yes, obviously, I disagree so I must not understand.

You're saying that in the instance of God does/does not exist, the does not exist side wins by default due to lack of evidence on both sides.
I disagree, believing neither side wins and you should weigh up the likelihood of each without the evidence. If neither side has evidence to prove themselves correct, claiming one is correct because of this seems fallacious.

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.

So I'm not putting words in your mouth, you said that the side saying there is no god doesn't need to prove anything. I disagree, and with my (admittedly absurd) example I tried to prove that claiming the negative version of an event does not by default mean you don't need to prove anything, which again you imply saying

It is ALWAYS the one claiming the positive that has the burden of proof.

So yeah. Have fun not bothering with me, it'll make you more right o.o-b

 

[Twyce]

-The Law of Attraction, or at least most of the idea (yeah, the stuff they blab about from The Secret)

-Ghosts/Aliens

-That when we die, our energy doesn't just disappear, that it's recreated as something/someone else. Basically reincarnation in a sense.

 

[GamerAddict7796]

I believe in the soul.

It's got some things backing it up - such as a body weighing 12lbs less after death.
But also, if you see a corpse, well... it's not really human. It's just a thing.

 

[samaugsch]

I believe in God. *awaits the incoming flame war*

 

[spartan231490]

Everything we believe is unprovable because nothing can be proven beyond solipsism. We can only go with what works for us, for our experience with the universe. And then yell at anyone who disagrees with our perception of how things work, and act like they are Hitler.

I don't think JFK was shot by a lone gunman. I've fired a bolt action rifle, they don't fire that accurately that quickly.

Simo Hayha begs to differ :crosses arms: uts on sunglasses:

Also, evolution proved there was no Adam and Eve and entire Genesis story is invalid

Uh, no it doesn't. Welcome to metaphysics 101, you can't prove or disprove God. God would easily be capable of creating Adam and Eve just as the story says, and creating evolution at the same time. It's a matter of when the system originated, and Gods ability to fabricate anything including evidence. Poor logic skills are not an argument for God's nonexistence.

I don't care what simo hayha thinks, honestly, I've fired a bolt action rifle. Granted, it's not impossible, but it's so improbable that I just cannot believe it. Further, bullets don't pause in midair, or turn for that matter.

And THANK YOU. God, finally someone else has realized this. Every time I bring this up in a debate, people are like "no, that's crap cuz i say it is" and it makes me die inside.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

-Time travel doesn?t and never will exist, because neither the past nor the future necessarily exists since the past has been and gone, while the future hasn?t even happened yet. If someone had travelled back in time to kill Hitler or something, we?d know about it, but no sign of anything like that.

The thing is, that depends on how time exists, it could either be a linear series of events, in which case the future hasn't happened yet, while the past ceases to exist but did exist. Or it could be Dr Who Wibbly Wobbly Timy Wimy which is to say(I wont get into the Future Doctor problem here) all time exists at the same time, (such as how people can call other people in the past/future, and the Tardis travels THROUGH time as opposed to turning it back or forward)

If someone were to go back and kill Hitler before WW2, we wouldn't know about it, because time would have to reshuffle and history would be changed, thus WW2 wouldn't have happened. I mean for all we know Hitler did win the war, but someone went back and changed events causing the Allies to win instead.

True. I guess it all depends on your perception of time. I?m not sure if I even believe that strongly in that theory myself.

 

[Mozza444]

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.

I find the concept of a soul somewhat interesting.
I am not religious nor believe in any sort of ghost or spirits.

However one thing that intrigues me it that if it we possible to be cloned, for an exact replica to be made of a person so that they both act in the exact same way. They still have a separate conscious. Not just one driving both bodies. Which somewhat inclines me to believe in the presence of a soul.
Similar to