{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/14/2015 3:55:05 PM
1
You are 100% incorrect. If I were to say there is a tiger in your living room, you would be able to quickly prove or disprove that immediately. If I were to say there was a specific microorganism in your living room, you would not be able to empirically say it wasn't there just because you were unable to detect it.
There are plenty of scientific theories throughout history that were later disproved. They could not be disproved at the time though because the lack of proof was not proof that it didn't exist.
English
-
Last time i checked there was 0 proof of a god. Burden of proof lies on the person claiming the fact.
-
Ues, there is the theory that you cannot prove a negative is true. I'm not arguing one side or the other. I'm just stating that if you say there's never proof of non-existence they you also have to agree that there isn't proof of existence either. Yes, Christians can say god exists, and do not have scientific proof of that. But Atheists also say god does not exist, but do not feel the same responsibility or burden of proof that they project onto the believers.
-
Yes true but the LOGICAL conclusion is there is NO god then
-
Yes, you would say the logical theory from a scientific viewpoint is correct. If they aren't trying to convince others of the fact of existance than I have no issue with things like faith and belief. Same as I have no issues with atheists or agnostics that say they don't believe in god or if there is one their indifferent about it, but don't think they should try to proactively "prove" religious people are fools for their beliefs IF that person isn't trying to push it on them.
