Defined as an intelligence or conscious or force or energy or however the hell smug people who say "I dont believe in a white man in a beard in the sky" define their god. Something like that could theoretically exist without being measurable or testable with any current technology we have or will have any time soon. I don't at all believe that it does.
Thiest- One who believes in God.
Athiest- One who does not believe in God. I actually prefer 'one who knows there is no God'.
Theology- The study of the nature of God and religious truth (it's hard to even write).
Atheological- Well, you get the point.
In what universe does the impossible have even a small chance to exist?
Atheism is a statement about belief.
Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge.
They are related to each in much the same way as knowledge and belief are but knowledge is not belief, nor is vice versa.
This is another version of disproving a positive, not proving a negative.
You're simply mixing belief and knowledge.
You're mistaking the action or location of an object for the proof of the existence of the object, and they're not the same thing.
Volcanoes exist, lucky charms exist - they just don't exist in your hotel room or kitchen presently, they nevertheless exist.
Forget all your arguments about volcanoes spewing in hotel rooms or kitchens - just try something simple like proving the non-existence of something.
Simply try to describe the process for proving that talking, blue diamonds do not exist. - without saying there's no evidence of them.
Ivory Soap Non-Theist here. (Yes, I find it hilarious so I'm taking on the label) I've been reading more about this 'not being able to prove a negative' thing - more specifically the link that you posted here. I'm baffled. If you can find the time, I would like to hear your opinion on the following:
Mr. Hales stated: For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false.
I can think of at least 3 different examples of how a proposition can both be true and not true at the same time. All of them are primarily based on perception - which is a major facet of obtaining scientific data.
1) Taiwan I'd say 'enough said' but by stating the proposition: Taiwan is a member of the Peoples' Republic of China (PRC). This is both true and false depending on different individual's perspective.
2) Objects at rest. (Newton's first law) The cup on my desk is at rest; however, it is also in motion because the earth is in motion. [I'll expound on this but only if you're interested.]
3) In responding to the proposition 2+2=4, I would hope a reasonable response would be: From what observable data do the numbers 2 and 2 come; and for what is the number 4 being used? This proposition/equation/tool-of-math is far too over-generalized to be of any use (much like the word God) without exposing the source of measurement and its application. Did some observer originally measure 2.0000000001 and another 2.0000000002, determine the units are used only in feet, then round off? The answer 4 is true. The rounding is accurate if we're moving the aforementioned cup 2 ft then another 2 ft guranteeing a 4 ft result. But if the rounded 2's are used in a complex project to account for a 4 ft shift if we're sending the cup 20 light years away, that would be a different perspective where the 4.0000000003 ft would be important.
Most importantly, (if I'm so far off the mark that you simply don't have the time to even begin educating me on the errors of my way) I must know: What on earth do you have against Ivory Soap? I've used the products for years and they're awesome!
Thanks in advance.