How do atheists explain their inconsistency with their threshold of proof for the existence of God, but not the existence of other things like the Oort cloud? Below are some excerpts from Wiki’s article on the subject (emphasis added) to make my point.
The Oort cloud ... is a spherical cloud of predominantly icy planetesimals that is BELIEVED to surround the Sun at a distance up to 50,000 AU, nearly a light-year.
Although NO CONFIRMED DIRECT OBSERVATIONS of the Oort cloud have been made ...
The outer Oort cloud is THOUGHT to contain several trillion individual objects ...
Back to me. The Oort cloud is based on a belief without any direct observations, yet many if not most atheists believe it to exist. Yet if a theist asserts that God exists based on a belief without any direct observations, the question is asked, “Where is your proof?”
Does the inconsistency arise because an Oort cloud does not make an issue out of sin, whereas the God of the Bible does?
(Heb 11:1 Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen. Sort of sounds like what is going on with the Oort cloud.)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud
How do atheists explain their inconsistency with their threshold of proof?
2014-05-04 11:11 am
回答 (20)
2014-05-04 11:12 am
✔ 最佳答案
That's the thing, they don't.
2014-05-04 11:25 am
What has the Oort cloud got to do with atheism? I have yet to see any definition of atheism, in any text book, that says that atheism = a belief in the Oort cloud. I was under the impression that my atheism was based on my seeing no evidence for the existence of a god,
2014-05-04 11:21 am
We simply follow the available evidence. A lot more evidence exists for the existence of the Oort cloud than for the existence of any god you'd care to name. The evidence may be indirect, but in some cases that is all we have and it is surely a lot better than no evidence.
If indirect evidence was worthless, we'd hardly ever be able to convict a single criminal.
If indirect evidence was worthless, we'd hardly ever be able to convict a single criminal.
參考: .
2014-05-04 11:14 am
Science does not require direct observation to develop theories. There are other facts which can be evaluated to develop a theory.
2014-05-04 11:17 am
It is based on knowledge we have of using advanced scanners and satellites and what not. You dont need to see something in order to know its there if you have other form of means in knowing its there. The oort cloud is BELIEVED as in not enough info has been found to THEORIZE that it does exist and MORE info is need to CONFIRM it really is what it is. Can you see air? can you see earths core? if not then why does anyone believe they exist. Its simply put a detectives case, the detective didnt see the crime, they use info they find through other means to hypothesize who the killer is.
2014-05-04 11:16 am
If I had a proof that God doesn't exist,
you would deny it.
So! For logical reasoning, you will never be
able to accept some logical concept.
Yours are faith! Yeah! Your argues are about faith!
So! Your proof are about faith!
Very weak, isn't it?
you would deny it.
So! For logical reasoning, you will never be
able to accept some logical concept.
Yours are faith! Yeah! Your argues are about faith!
So! Your proof are about faith!
Very weak, isn't it?
2014-05-04 11:35 am
We have direct evidence for the Oort Cloud as Voyager One is in it.
However, atheism does not mean "believes in Oort Cloud." It means "doesn't believe in any god including yours." That would be Kali, right?
However, atheism does not mean "believes in Oort Cloud." It means "doesn't believe in any god including yours." That would be Kali, right?
2014-05-04 11:29 am
You're right that it doesn't have direct observational evidence for it's existence so could easily not exist (although it has a lot of indirect evidence), the difference is that the Oort cloud is a legitimate scientific hypothesis, so it comes from established theories about large scale astrophysics (general relativity, solar system formation, etc.) and most importantly, it CAN potentially be disproved by an experiment/observation.
I hope you see the fallacy in comparing the idea of the Oort cloud, which is a good scientific hypothesis that already has indirect evidence, to the idea of a God, which mostly comes from books written and edited by people in the bronze age who thought the Earth was flat.
I hope you see the fallacy in comparing the idea of the Oort cloud, which is a good scientific hypothesis that already has indirect evidence, to the idea of a God, which mostly comes from books written and edited by people in the bronze age who thought the Earth was flat.
2015-03-04 4:48 am
Have you already been to hell? How else would you know about it :)
2014-07-22 3:05 am
they 'do not' have any reasonable or logical proof either of the non exstence of God or of their scientific claims . they just go around judging everybody stating they never judge and christianity is bad because God judges everyone .
2014-05-04 11:38 am
An atheist is merely one who does not accept the existence of any god, mainly due to a complete lack of any supporting evidence. There is no burden of proof from an atheist, that proof (or compelling evidence) is the responsibility of those who make the claim that a god is real. Ball is in your court ....
2014-05-04 11:30 am
There is indirect evidence for the Oort cloud that gives reasons for Astronomers to believe it exists
There is none for God.
There is none for God.
2014-05-04 11:18 am
That is a teribble bible verse. It just screams "IGNORANCE".
2016-01-10 12:23 pm
You entirely miss the point here. Oort clouds, like Dark Enegy and Dark Matter are HYPOTHESES....
Placeholders until evidence of their existence is found. If it turns out that the HYPOTHESIS is incorrect, it is therefore rejected and science moves forward. The Higgs Boson (or Higgs particle) was also a HYPOTHESIS until recently when CERN's LHC confirmed its existence. See how this works?
So creationism, at best, is a hypothesis, because it has NO supporting evidence.
Placeholders until evidence of their existence is found. If it turns out that the HYPOTHESIS is incorrect, it is therefore rejected and science moves forward. The Higgs Boson (or Higgs particle) was also a HYPOTHESIS until recently when CERN's LHC confirmed its existence. See how this works?
So creationism, at best, is a hypothesis, because it has NO supporting evidence.
2015-05-24 8:53 pm
Are you serious? What on earth does believing in god have to do with believing in a Oort cloud....something I have never heard of. An atheist has only one thing to say. I do not believe in god or gods....The End.....Oort clouds can have their own believers......no inconsistency here.....Mo Atheist
2014-07-19 2:50 pm
Although NO CONFIRMED DIRECT OBSERVATIONS of the Oort cloud have been made ...
- The Schumaker/Levi comet/asteroid came from someplace and it was not within this soalr system. Explain THAT.
- The Schumaker/Levi comet/asteroid came from someplace and it was not within this soalr system. Explain THAT.
2014-05-04 10:49 pm
I would love to know the source for the creationist obsession with the Oort Cloud. It doesn't have anything to do with evolution & is simply weird. Did Answers in Genesis tell you this? An old Henry Morris textbook? Those A Beka Book home-schooling atrocities?
2014-05-04 4:36 pm
Among the other answers, probably also because believers can say pretty much anything is proof of a god or gods, such as a storm, or a wave, or a butterfly, or a tree, or love, or intelligence, or reverence. Atheists can't explain everything, but they believe that it shouldn't be explained away by a phantom just because it makes you feel better.
This burden of proof argument is getting old, because it seems to me the people that have blinders on in the debate are mostly strict theists.
This burden of proof argument is getting old, because it seems to me the people that have blinders on in the debate are mostly strict theists.
2014-05-04 11:18 am
They don't. Why should they? Believers don't have proof, but so the atheists have none. The reason is because there is no proof. All people are subjective, that's the problem. That's why atheism is also a religion. For further read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject%E2%80%93object_problem
收錄日期: 2021-04-21 00:03:48
原文連結 [永久失效]:
https://hk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140504031140AAdo6uB