Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: "Atheism is inconsistent with science, says Dartmouth physicist Marcelo Gleiser " [View all]DetlefK
(16,479 posts)7. That's the difference between faith and knowledge.
One says "it exists until proven otherwise", the other says "it doesn't exist until proven otherwise".
As there are infinitely many things that could possibly exist, it makes more sense to go with "it doesn't exist until proven otherwise", because otherwise we would have to accept for fact the existence of infinitely many things that COULD possibly exist.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
57 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"Atheism is inconsistent with science, says Dartmouth physicist Marcelo Gleiser " [View all]
edhopper
Jul 2019
OP
"Shouldn't we ask whether God's existence is provable/disprovable at all?"
Act_of_Reparation
Jul 2019
#6
So, your argument is "I can't prove god exists because I don't know what god is"?
Act_of_Reparation
Jul 2019
#13
I could substitute "vampires" for "god" and using the same argument...
Act_of_Reparation
Jul 2019
#21
Yes. Even the 1) Bible god hisself says we could and should look for proofs
Bretton Garcia
Jul 2019
#40
How convenient. A one-time answer in the form of a human before the first camera was invented.
AtheistCrusader
Jul 2019
#33
Substitute purple people eater for god and the circular logic works the same
Major Nikon
Jul 2019
#42