16 3

What do you think?

There are 2 categories of evidence:
That which proves some thing,
& That which proves no thing! ?

atheist 8 May 18

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


I have trouble with the 'prove' part, but yeah.


Evidence is not proof but it can point the way to proving or disproving something. For example the big bang theory has enough evidence to show that it's valid. But some reject that evidence (notably fundamental christians) and embrace creationism, without any evidence whatsoever!


Evidence is evidence. It can be irrefutably aproved and validated, or completely rejected. At times the benefit of the doubt may come into place.


If it proves no thing is it still evidence? Isn't the qualification for something being evidence that it proves something? Even if there, 'isn't enough of it', it is still an indicator.

Ah, I think after reading that several times I finally understood. Thank you for taking the time to explain. Yes a lack of something could indeed be a type of evidence e.g. a lack of bullets embedded in a surface said to be shot at. Cool.


Those categories are rather meaningless unless you first establish a standard of proof.

@atheist Then it is a good statement. That which cannot be proven scientifically must be taken with a certain element of faith regardless of the evidence presented.


Sounds clear and concise.


How can evidence prove nothing? If there is evidence, even if it's only circumstantial, it at least leads one to some sort of conclusion.

It doesn't say nothing, it says no thing. A play on words.

@nvrnuff What’s the difference?

I think he means that a thing is the hypothesis? So no thing is a failed hypothesis or one that needs tweaking.

@girlwithsmiles Guess I need to learn to read between the lines better. Thanks.


Sometimes it doesn't prove anything until someone else finds other evidence that makes it clearer. Sometimes it seems to support something which ends up being completely false.

MsAl Level 7 May 18, 2018

Additionally it is impossible to disprove pretty much anything. Think of Bertrand Russel's "Celestial Tea Pot" []. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster who's church I belong to and am a proud member.

It is very hard to disprove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist despite it being obvious. "Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?" []

Lols to the spaghetti monster! Do you get to eat him for communion?

Ah, just checked out your website and found the answer is yes. Yummy, that's my kind of church 😉

@atheist actually not because you can never prove that you just didn't find it.

@atheist It is a philosophical truth that they may exist. Clearly the probability that they are true is extremely small. As Dawkins said of the probability of the existence of God, less than the chance that a Boeing Dream-liner 777 would assemble itself out of a pile of junk when a tornado passed over the junk yard.

Perhaps we are living in a "simulation." The probability that we are is far more than any of the others I've mentioned above.


It is really philosophically hard to actually prove anything. My students will often write in their lab reports that the experiment that they did "proved" the hypothesis they were testing. I grade this off because the evidence either supports or questions the hypothesis.

Decartes was apt in "cogito ergo sum" (English: "I think therefore I am" .) This is provable but not much else unfortunately.

@atheist We can't really keep philosophy out of it. We need to keep it in mind because ignoring it means possibly making critical mistakes in our reasoning. It is a driving position n the practice of science. Scientists know that you don't prove anything. You can provide supporting evidence but that is all.

@atheist No actually you are wrong but you apparently don't realize that at all. I think perhaps you don't grasp the line of reasoning.


... and God botherers have trouble with both.


I think that question is the sound of one hand clapping. Something to ponder.


The law of the excluded middle. It's been known about for a long time.

@atheist Google?


I am trying to think. Yes I am thinking. !!

I thought so too while I was thinking !

I was thinkin the same thing ?

Don't know if I can make one, let me think about it ?

Yeah, very deep in thought !


I think the first category is dependent upon time and the second category is timeless.

@atheist Evidence that proves a point depends on memory which is encapsulated thought time. Evidence that does not offer proof to another thought is timeless. Example: “I am what is known now” is a statement of evidence that can only be proven now in the ever changing present moment which remains forever timeless. You can dissect this statement and add analysis and try to make it a thing or bring it into time but that which is no thing remains forever timeless.

@atheist Well said notwithstanding being a double negative.


Science logic.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:84019
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.