WHY ATHEISTS CAN ONLY DISPROVE NOT PROVE!

[Unitb166er Profile]

In this world of great progress and increased knowledge the Atheist has emerged as the threshold guardian of our times.The accuser of all other forms of reality conceptualization and belief.They decry belief as the hallmark of ignorance and faith as proof of inferiority.

Given that Atheism is critical of theistic belief,those that subscribe to theistic views should critically analyze the atheistic view of the unlimited universe.

The banner of Atheism is that all processes and interactions can be understood and even replicated if they acquired enough knowledge and understanding of the universe and its processes.There is one problem with this thinking.

Critical views alone cannot create.

I would like to forward this point by bringing to the discussion Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.



It is not strictly science, but rather a very interesting set of mathematical theorems about logic and the philosophy that is definitely relevant to science as a whole. Proven in 1931 by Kurt Gödel, these theories say that with any given set of logical rules, except for the most simple, there will always be statements that are undecidable, meaning that they cannot be proven or disproven due to the inevitable self-referential nature of any logical systems that is even remotely complicated. This is thought to indicate that there is no grand mathematical system capable of proving or disproving all statements. An undecidable statement can be thought of as a mathematical form of a statement like “I always lie.” Because the statement makes reference to the language being used to describe it, it cannot be known whether the statement is true or not. However, an undecidable statement does not need to be explicitly self-referential to be undecidable. The main conclusion of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems is that all logical systems will have statements that cannot be proven or disproven; therefore, all logical systems must be “incomplete.”

The philosophical implications of these theorems are widespread. The set suggests that in physics, a “theory of everything” may be impossible, as no set of rules can explain every possible event or outcome. It also indicates that logically, “proof” is a weaker concept than “true”; such a concept is unsettling for scientists because it means there will always be things that, despite being true, cannot be proven to be true. Since this set of theorems also applies to computers, it also means that our own minds are incomplete and that there are some ideas we can never know, including whether our own minds are consistent (i.e. our reasoning contains no incorrect contradictions). This is because the second of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems states that no consistent system can prove its own consistency, meaning that no sane mind can prove its own sanity. Also, since that same law states that any system able to prove its consistency to itself must be inconsistent, any mind that believes it can prove its own sanity is, therefore, insane.

What i would suggest is a inclusive approach to understanding reality,Atheism as a process of truth revelation(by finding error) and Theistic views for revealing the meaning of that revealed truth for humans.Neither view should be discarded,neither view should discard the other.As both views provide the holistic understanding for progress for humanity.

But in the end,what do you think?

[Will69ease Profile]

What are the atheist suppose to prove exactly? For that matter, why anyone feels the need to
prove one's own faith is ultimately self defeating. Faith, or lack of it, is a personal thing...and should be.
Religion has proven to me to be a bloody fraud. Pun intended.

[Lowsix Profile]

Atheists are the only group on the planet who insist
they are qualified to analyze and deem lacking,
someone else's 'subjective' experiences.

[Haljalikeakik Profile]

atheists have nothing to prove.
they dont believe in a magic sky wizard.

"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false.[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof."

[Flecktarn Profile]

prove any religion ,,,,,,you cant ,,all religions are taken as blind faith ,,,so heres a challenge prove there is a god ,,to make it easy any one of the top 5 will do

[Lowsix Profile]

With nothing to prove...
why are they so loud?

I would think NOTHING would imply..no thing...
no...thing to refute..
no...thing to bitch about..

however..thats not how it works.

They are busy attempting to disqualify that self referential closed loop
of another humans SUBJECTIVE experience.

You dont get to decide the veracity of subjectivism.

And for the record, that logical fallacy is not the correct one to apply here.
Its never proposed that their inability to disprove god Proves god.
It simply references their inability to prove their own assertions.

simple as....

[Spock Profile]

Atheists are the only group on the planet who insist
they are qualified to analyze and deem lacking,
someone else's 'subjective' experiences.

Exactly.
- Science is the constant struggle to understand the mind of God.
- Atheism is the constant struggle to laugh at every theory and thesis.


[youtube]JWXJUNkkKj0&playnext=1&list=PL67EDA4A3C013F8A1&index=43[/youtube]

[Mediasorcerer Profile]

the gross error here,is the presumption that one needs religion to believe in god,[arrogance]
religion is not needed to have and believe in the divine essence,or whatever one wishes to call it,
unfortunately,religion has proclaimed itself the middle man ,between human and creator,and with any middle man,there are bound to be errors in the translation,
hence why im telling you,if you really want to get the closeness you crave with our essence and its source,get the middle man out the way,and go str8 to the source,
actually,dont,its too much hard work for you.to much deprogramming,you will melt down,
it requires an act of faith to remove the clutter and confusion caused by the intermediaries of religions,
faith most dont have.
the faith that god will steer you clear of all the confusion created by the false dogmas.and set u on the path to home.

[Flecktarn Profile]

prove it
more thing in this life to worry about than religion ,,,
i can prove it anyway ,,,me and god,jesus and allah and budda and the virgin mary (yea right) are all drinking absenth at my place now ,,,,,,
prove there not

[Pindz Profile Website]

the gross error here,is the presumption that one needs religion to believe in god,[arrogance]
religion is not needed to have and believe in the divine essence,or whatever one wishes to call it,

wow finally somebody NORMAL , thanks god. ........ get a life religioxtremists