whitewolfdemon99
VoijaRisa
whitewolfdemon99
I do believe in god until someone proves he does not exist.
In which case, for the sake of logical consistency, you must also believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Russel's Teapot, the Greek Gods, Michael Jackson's ghost, etc....
In other words, you can't prove a negative.
No I believe in god not a freaking flying spaghetti monster(that sounds famaliar for some reson). Now if someone provides solid evidence that god does not exist i will believe them if someone proves that a flying spaghetti monster exist with solid evidence(not pictures, maybe like a billion clear pictures and many people sighting it(by many I mean over one million people)I might believe, but I don't that will happen).So you don't have to be a p***k about my beliefs I didn't get mad at you about you believes now did I.
the FSM is a parody of christian creationist apologetics. Basically it takes the defensive arguement concerning god and creationism and contends that the FSM did everything and then explains that he did left all the evidence for evolution just to mess with our heads. Ironically it is a more thought out arguement then creationism as it at least explains why there is so much contradictory evidence (because FSM likes to mess with our heads about it)
Your skepticism is odd, given that god is just as unlikely as FSM yet you believe in god, who has as little actual evidence. You also should realize that if you claim god exist, you need to back up the claim.
Finally a little something to disprove god.
By asserting that god exist is the default state of your beleif (you say this by refusing the burden of proof, should you so refuse it), it then becomes a matter of disproving what isn't real(proving a negative). Since that in regards to god is impossible, statistical plausibility is about all we can do. Basically at the start, thanks to your refusal to accept the burden of proof, there is a .infinite01% chance of something being statistically probable. This is to allow the possibility of it existing, and can be applied to everything you wish to use this formula for. Any evidence for it existing then raises that probability. God, by the very definition in which your using, as something beyond human observation or evidence, can have no evidence for him existence, so we are left where we started, with a .infinite01% chance of existence. Same goes for FSM, the teapot and any other thing you'd like to throw this way.
So there is a 99.infinite9% chance god doesn't exist without evidence (as any evidence would add to the % chance of existing). Not proof in itself he doesn't exist, as there is still that slim chance of the other possibility....except .infinite9% or .9 repeating actually equals one
See here for proof
Thus we come to the conclusion that by ignoring the burden of proof, you have set up god to be proven to not have any chance of existing.
Works well with everything, as only the things we know exist have evidence to look towards to validate their existence.
do keep in mind the above is more farce then anything else.
mrgreen
