Does the Haiti earthquake prove that there is no god?

[DuncanONeil]

Such events do not disprove God!

This was the title of a program on BBC 2 today.

An age old discussion is of course that if God (Gods,Goddess) is all powerful and loving, why does he allow such things to happen?

Several in the program talked about these things being a test for your faith, or a way to improve your character because you need important choices in your life. (Apperently this would apply to survivors, whether to help each other or fight over food.)

Some said life was a gift however long or short, and we should be happy for what we get.

So, does things like the earhquake prove that there is no God and if not, why are these things allowed to happen?

Are the Gods (if they exist) really interested in us on a personal basis?

[Ozme52]

Such events do not disprove God!

That's it? A pronouncement? No explanation or proof offered? Not even a discourse of how you came to your opinion? In otherwords...

I should just "believe" you?

[Thorne]

That's it? A pronouncement? No explanation or proof offered? Not even a discourse of how you came to your opinion? In otherwords...

I should just "believe" you?

This is the fundamentalist tactic:
"I say it, therefore it's so."
"You can't show us a crocoduck, therefore evilution is wrong."
"I can't understand how the universe could have developed from nothing, therefore God did it."

They don't need evidence, they don't need explanations, simply pronouncements from on high.

[DuncanONeil]

This is the fundamentalist tactic:
"I say it, therefore it's so."
"You can't show us a crocoduck, therefore evilution is wrong."
"I can't understand how the universe could have developed from nothing, therefore God did it."

They don't need evidence, they don't need explanations, simply pronouncements from on high.

As stated;

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozme52 View Post
That's it? A pronouncement? No explanation or proof offered? Not even a discourse of how you came to your opinion? In otherwords...

I should just "believe" you?

Only if you want! All I said was God has not been disproven.

I did not advocate for the other side either!

[DuncanONeil]

That's it? A pronouncement? No explanation or proof offered? Not even a discourse of how you came to your opinion? In otherwords...

I should just "believe" you?

Only if you want! All I said was God has not been disproven.

[leo9]

All I said was God has not been disproven.

Nor has the Flying Spaghetti Monster. My gods have been around a lot longer, so I could "logically" argue that the burden of proof is on newer religions.

Religions doctrines are by their nature incapable of disproof, since any contrary evidence can be handwaved (either the Devil did it, or God did it to test our faith). Absence of disproof is not proof, as Russell's Teapot famously shows.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

[DuncanONeil]

Nor is absence of proof, disproof!
Don't get me started on "contrary evidence can be handwaved". Been doing some recent reading on religion that engages ( nevermind).

Nor has the Flying Spaghetti Monster. My gods have been around a lot longer, so I could "logically" argue that the burden of proof is on newer religions.

Religions doctrines are by their nature incapable of disproof, since any contrary evidence can be handwaved (either the Devil did it, or God did it to test our faith). Absence of disproof is not proof, as Russell's Teapot famously shows.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

[Thorne]

Nor is absence of proof, disproof!
Don't get me started on "contrary evidence can be handwaved". Been doing some recent reading on religion that engages ( nevermind).

No, don't pull back. Your opinions are just as welcome here as anyone else's. I, for one, would like to hear what you have to say. While I can't say I always agree with your conclusions, your research of facts is generally first-rate.

And you are right in your assertion that absence of proof in not disproof. I think we can all agree on that.

But I think we can also agree that after 10,000 years of trying to prove that 2+2=5, the lack of such proof is a pretty definitive assertion that the assumption is most probably wrong.

[DuncanONeil]

No, don't pull back. Your opinions are just as welcome here as anyone else's. I, for one, would like to hear what you have to say. While I can't say I always agree with your conclusions, your research of facts is generally first-rate.

And you are right in your assertion that absence of proof in not disproof. I think we can all agree on that.

But I think we can also agree that after 10,000 years of trying to prove that 2+2=5, the lack of such proof is a pretty definitive assertion that the assumption is most probably wrong.

But 2+2=10