WILL SCIENCE DISPROVE GOD? [Spirituality & Religion]

@DecafD Logically, unless they're being hypocritical and imposing double standards, those who argue that we must accept their god exists unless we can prove it doesn't must accept everything they cannot prove the non-existence of also exists.

@Sharon but that in itself is a double standard. You cannot accept my God bc I refuse to provide you burden of proof, yet I cannot accept the Spaghetti Monster bc the burden of proof has not be fulfilled for this assertion either. Neither would be accepted.

@DecafD
Precisely Sharon’s point... and neither should be accepted

@DecafD May I suggest you look up Russell's Teapot. It might assist you in understanding the point @Sharon is making.

@DecafD Exactly, we're applying the same standard to both claims. Some others however (one in particular) claim that the burden of proof falls on Atheists to prove the christian god doesn't live, but on those who believe in other gods to prove theirs do. That's the double standard I was referring to.

@newjaninev2 @Sharon
The burden of proof is on the skeptics who keep claiming that Yahweh doesn't live and have yet to show that He doesn't live.

@GodSpeed63 Nope, other way around, little man. Please go forth and get educated.

@GodSpeed63 So, unless you're a complete hypocrite, applying double standards, the same burden of proof is on the skeptics who keep claiming that The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't live and have yet to show that It doesn't live.

@Bushranger @Sharon
Nope, other way around, Bushranger, little man. Get saved.

@GodSpeed63 So you can't prove The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't live. Just as I thought.

@GodSpeed63 The day you can show that you have some understanding of logic and science, is the day when I will start to take you seriously.

@newjaninev2 should is obligatory. I don’t have to and neither does she. We are allowed to have our own beliefs.

@Sharon I understand that. So if one cannot prove or disprove either side, then what’s the point of even asking for a burden of proof vs letting people be and understanding that not everyone is going to share the same beliefs?

@Bushranger I understand it. Because it applies to both sides, then what’s the point of asking for burden of proof at all? It’s a stalemate in my mind.

@DecafD Because it doesn't apply to both sides. If you understood it, you wouldn't make that mistake.

@GodSpeed63 ok then you are a skeptic of the fsm. Provide proof of it's non-existence.

@MasterLee Don't you know it doesn't work that way? GodSpeed63 is all about special pleading, he's convinced that he's right and no other options exist, and everyone else has to provide proof. Gotta love his BS.

@Bushranger yes but we try to coax him to be logical

@MasterLee Que theme song, roll the credits, another episode of Mission Impossible is starting, lol.

@DecafD Simply to highlight the hypocrisy of those christians (e.g. @GodSpeed63) who claim the burden of proof falls on the Atheists to prove the christian god doesn't exists yet on members of other religions to prove their gods do.

@Sharon I understand, however I haven’t done that to anyone on here. It’s 100% been applied to me and me only. If people don’t want to believe in anything, then I respect that. That’s their choice.

@Bushranger Russell could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong. I don’t expect you to believe me either...bc we’re again all allowed to believe what we want to believe. I was merely answering a SW question with MY answer. There was no disclosure that everyone must believe in what I say and take this as fact. That’s your choice...it’s up to you what you want to believe in. I haven’t been rude in asking any atheists here to prove God doesn’t exist. If I did, then I could understand why I’d be deserving of all this. I’m not trying to convert anyone.

@DecafD You seriously don't think Russell believed in the teapot, do you?

@Bushranger that’s not my point. Whether he believed it or not he didn’t expect anyone else to. Just like I’m not expecting you to. Again- I’m allowed to believe in whatever I want to believe. It’s not anyone’s job to convince me otherwise. I’m not here to prove anything or convince you to convert. I don’t know how many times I’ve said this already. I don’t understand what the point of all this is now.

@DecafD I'll agree, you have every right to believe whatever you like, just as I have the right to not believe. However, my point is that Russell did not believe that a teapot was orbiting in space, but used it to explain the whole burden of proof thing, which you seem to not understand. It's not your beliefs or faith that I'm responding to, it's your apparent inability to grasp the concept of burden of proof and Russell's explanation of it.