Does the Haiti earthquake prove that there is no god?

[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

[Thorne]

But 2+2=10

Only if you were clumsy with that chainsaw.