Atheists: Does the fact that you can't disprove god make it logical to believe in one?

Question

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo

Now I KNOW you're going to say "the burden of proof is on the theists". But watch this video first. You can watch the whole thing it's quite interesting, but I want you to skip to 4:07. If you can't bother to do that, I will quote him.

"...that is what's so important about the scientific method. We set out to disprove our theories. And it's when we can't disprove that we say, this must be getting at something really true about our reality."

...so doesn't that mean by logical extension mean the fact that you can't disprove god means god could be something that's fundamental to our reality?

Answer 1

Well, no. You are simply being dumb.



The fact that atheists can't disprove god (even though it is not possible to disprove, that doesn't mean the thing doesn't exist), AND that theists can't PROVE him, makes it logical that we neither believe nor disbelieve him. Saying it's logical to believe something because it can't be disproven is over the top.

Answer 2

Which one? And can the fact you can't disprove fire-breathing dragons make it logical to believe in them? Sorry, I'm not going to watch your video, even if I could hear it, because I imagine it's more of the same old same old about Pascal's Wager that we've all see a tedious number of times before.

.

Of course, because it does. The burden of proof is always on the one making the positive assertion. If I assert there are alien space bases on Pluto, the burden of proof rests on me, doesn't it? How do you imagine that will change by watching a video? Only by convoluted logic, and I don't need to watch a video for that, we see plenty of it here every day.

.

And that's part of the problem, right there. "God exists" is not a theory, it's an assertion, and an unsupported one. "gods don't exist" isn't a theory either, it's just the negative version of the positive assertion, and since it's impossible to disprove a negative, such a statement could never be a theory, so anything said about theories doesn't apply to it.

.

.

Answer 3

That only applies to falsifiable claims - ones that we would expect to be able to disprove, had the claim been false.



In many cases "God" has been disproved, but theists will change the definition, ad hoc, to save it from the disproof. And theists also refuse to bring forth any test that they concede would disprove their god. Prayer has been shown not to work, but that didn't convince anyone, so what would you consider a disproof?



I am still not sure the idea of a being that exists outside of time and space is coherent to begin with, so I do not grant that God is even possible. At least some hypothetical entities, such as unicorns, are at least compatible with the laws of physics.

Answer 4

Nope, just like the fact we can't disprove that in some other galaxy unicorns exists doesn't make it logical to believe that they do.

Answer 5

Of course not. A fundamental tenet of ANY scientific hypotheses is that it BE testable and BE falsifiable. If you present something which is untestable, science cannot and will not waste any time trying to disprove it. "Some magical entity which does not interact with our reality in any way created the universe, violating all laws of physical reality in the process" is a completely unfalsifiable concept.



Oh, and by the way, the burden of proof is on ANYONE who makes a positive claim. It's not something we use just to pick on theists. Anyone who makes a claim is required to prove it or at least provide testable evidence that can be evaluated. If any atheist suggests "there is no God" you have every right to demand evidence of that. That is completely different from saying "I do not believe that your claim of God is true"

Answer 6

Did you hear what he said? "We set out to disprove our THEORIES". A theory is a PROVEN hypothesis, proven based on evidence. So it's one thing not being able to disprove solid theories with solid foundations, and another to assume anything can be true so long as we can't disprove them. Let's take the "black swan" example he mentioned earlier. So the hypothesis that all swans was white turned out to be wrong. Turns out there are also black swans. Does that mean there could be other swans we haven't discovered? Sure. But does that ALSO mean that there are, somewhere in the world, rainbow colored talking swans? No, of course not.

Answer 7

Atheists: Does the fact that you can't disprove god make it logical to believe in one?



- I can't dis-prove invisible pink unicorns tap dancing in my living room, But I am not going to believe in them.



Now I KNOW you're going to say "the burden of proof is on the theists".



- No, your question was to ignorant to even get that far.



by logical extension



- That is not logical.

Answer 8

Theories are generally backed up by evidence, data and facts.

What you have is an unsupported hypothesis that super beings exist, and there's tons of facts that make it seem unlikely. Not quite the same thing.



Edit: thanks for not requiring us to view the video; if I go on youtube there's a few hundred suggestions on my page that would catch my interest and I'd be up all freakin night.

Answer 9

I can easily disprove your God. Just tell me what you think it does and I can easily demonstrate that it doesn't do those things and therefore doesn't exist.



The only thing we can't disprove is that there are no gods of any kind, as the claim they exist is too vague.

Answer 10

Your logic is flawed. You are taking the stance which every theist can take. A Hindu can say that you can not disprove gods therefore it is logical to believe in his gods, and so on with various theists. We may not be able to disprove a god of deists, but we can disprove god(s) of those religions, like the Abrahamic god. There is no reason for us to believe in one when we have never met one in reality.

Answer 11

"Does the fact that you can't disprove god make it logical to believe in one?" No. I also can't disprove the existence of leprechauns, so I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here.

Answer 12

Why the silly false claim?



The first person to produce a single tiny little piece of verifiable evidence for any god will become world famous and mega rich! So if your claim is not entirely false - - - - - come on! Of course you cannot!!!!!!!



Academia states that in the absence of any sort of evidence of the existence of something it must be deemed not to exist until verifiable evidence is found - thus god is held not to exist pending some sort of verifiable evidence.



The bible is what is called "Faction” A fictional story set in a factual time and place. Thus the time, place and real historical characters are all correct but the fictional characters and stories are not!



There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!



There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!



He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?



Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!



Pilate is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!



At best he was an amalgam of those others but almost certainly never existed!



Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead?



Christianity is an invention of the Italians and that is why it came from the Holy ROMAN Catholic church!



Please realize that those claims for the Old historians are worthless since they were not even born until long after everyone in the stories would have been so long dead!



Josephus AD 37 – AD 100

Tacitus AD 56 – AD 120

Suetonius - 69 – 130 AD

Pliny the Younger, 61 AD – 112 AD

Justin Martyr (Saint Justin) AD103–165 AD

Lucian - AD 120 -180 AD but he was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it.

Pamphilius AD 240-309 AD

Eusebius AD 263 – 339 AD

Photius AD 877 – 886 AD



Thallus - But there are no actual record of him except a fragment of writing which mentions the sack of Troy [109 BC] Showing that he was clearly not alive in biblical times.



Some even try to use Seneca. 4 BCE – 65 CE but as a Stoic Philosopher he opposed religion yet made not a single mention of a Jesus or Christianity!



Even funnier is trying to claim Celsus AD ? – 177 AD Who said that Jesus was a Jew who’se mother was a poor Jewish girl whose husband, who was a carpenter, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to an illegitimate child named Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return presented himself as a god.

Answer 13

I'm afraid I don't see any link between the video and the existance of God. Nor can I see how the idea of trying to identify a rule by suggesting numbers that you think don't follow it has anything to do with "proving" the existence or non-existance of God. I understand the point made and the examples given but, again, it can't be applied to God.



If you take the example of the swans (in the video the belief that all swans are white). Imagine that, instead, one group of people believed that swans existed whilst exeryone else did not. Never seeing a swan, regardless of how hard people looked could never have proved that there were no swans. But the onus of proof was logically on the people who believed in swans: show everyone a swan and you have proved their existance. Before that, there would be NOTHING that the "non-believers" could have done to "proove" their beliefs.



It just isn't logical or practical to believe literally everything that anyone might suggest without some evidence for it. You could apply your argument just as well to Father Christmas, The Tooth Fairy, The Yeti, Bigfoot, vampires, werewolves, ghosts, dragons, ghouls, alien abductions, miricles, etc. etc. No obe has ever disproved any of them.

Answer 14

You are right. I hereby renounce atheism and accept the one true lord back into my heart. All hail Cthulhu, The Great Old One, Lord of Dread and Dispair!

Answer 15

No.



Seriously.



Your logic would apply to the Easter Bunny as well.

Answer 16

Yes the same way I believe there are pixies in my garden but I can't see or hear or touch them and they are not detectable in any way. DO YOU BELIEVE in the pixies in your garden?

Answer 17

This question is getting pretty old... The answer is NO nonononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononononoxInfinity!