Basically what is more likely?
Everything spontaneously created itself and a cycle of life began.
There is a possibly infinite lineage of 'gods' creating other gods which created us.
Both seem pretty fucking stupid, if I could think up a third option that'd be mine.
The atheist is not saying that everything spontaneously created itself. The atheist is saying there is no evidence that a God created anything. It is up to the God-believer to offer evidence of their assertion. The Atheist does not say what created the universe, for he does not know.
You have offered 2 possible solutions, there could be many other solutions not yet discovered. The atheist simply rejects one solution being offered until it can provide evidence.
It is no different to if I told I believe giant donuts created the universe. You reject this assertion because I cannot offer any evidence for it, likewise we reject the assertion that a God created it.
You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now, your posts are almost as meaningless as this debate now lol... you keep thinking I'm on one side or saying one thing just to argue those stand points some more :/
I refuted you point for point. I invite you to do the same.
The question is and has always been, where is the evidence for your god? Since you posted as you did, it was quite apparent that you were on the side of a god evidenced by first-cause. Fortuitously, I had already answered as to why that wasn't a valid argument, and even better, I elaborated on the point for you.
Fair enough argument - and that is what religion is... a personal belief in something. All I can do is explain why I believe that something is correct and then it is up to you to look at what I present and decide for yourself whether you agree with me.
But that is not how science works. You have too give empirical evidence for your positive assertion in your faith. If the evidence stacks up, then you are right, if it doesn't then you are wrong.
Why? I am not trying to prove that God exists or doesn't exist using scientific facts... that would be pointless. Science is very good at giving facts when you can test something... but as soon as you step outside of testable experiences then science cannot provide any answers.
This is something that a lot of people don't seem to understand (not saying here on these forums and not just refering to atheists but also christians and other religions). Science is about facts and hard quantifiable evidence that can be tested... religion is not about this but rather a personal belief in things that cannot be explained by science.
And Religion keeps shrinking as we gain more and more empirical data and scientific knowledge, until eventually religion will just disappear.
Does religion keep shrinking... this is something that is mentioned but I haven't seen data to support this. Is it a localised shrinking or is it worldwide... how do you correlate religion shrinkage with the increase in facts? I'm not sure it is scientifically possible to draw this correlation correctly.
Why? I am not trying to prove that God exists or doesn't exist using scientific facts... that would be pointless. Science is very good at giving facts when you can test something... but as soon as you step outside of testable experiences then science cannot provide any answers.
Things that don't require evidence, that aren't testable, etc. are not real until they are verified with evidence. We accept this with faries, dragons, elves, witches, goblins, etc. why not god? Nobody has established why god should be set apart from these other things.
Does religion keep shrinking... this is something that is mentioned but I haven't seen data to support this. Is it a localised shrinking or is it worldwide... how do you correlate religion shrinkage with the increase in facts? I'm not sure it is scientifically possible to draw this correlation correctly.
Not to mention, the countries with the best public education (such as in northern europe and parts of asia) are also the ones with the highest number of non-believers.
And you cannot prove that there are not faries. It is impossible to prove a negative in general.
Should we also then have faith in faries? What is unique about this non-evidential entity "god," that commands our illogical respect and faith instead of faries?
I would assume you are an atheist in regard to faries. Why then, are you willing to extend faith to god when it is equally lacking in evidence? What is it about this myth that makes it more valuable than the equally grandios myths of the egyptian pantheon, the greek pantheon, the myriad other works of unverifiable fiction that we enjoy in literature today?
Why can we not simply accept that there is not a plausible reason to view any of these things outside of their literary value?
This is true. But you also can't prove there are no fairies or magic dragons either. We might as well say they don't exist until someone can prove otherwise.
And you cannot prove that there are not faries. It is impossible to prove a negative in general.
Should we also then have faith in faries? What is unique about this non-evidential entity "god," that commands our illogical respect and faith instead of faries?
I would assume you are an atheist in regard to faries. Why then, are you willing to extend faith to god when it is equally lacking in evidence? What is it about this myth that makes it more valuable than the equally grandios myths of the egyptian pantheon, the greek pantheon, the myriad other works of unverifiable fiction that we enjoy in literature today?
Why can we not simply accept that there is not a plausible reason to view any of these things outside of their literary value?
You choose to have faith. I don't have faith in things that are proven, just because they are proven. I don't have faith in our current president. I don't have faith in faries, because I choose not to.
You choose to have faith. I don't have faith in things that are proven, just because they are proven. I don't have faith in our current president. I don't have faith in faries, because I choose not to.
But i'm asking you why you choose to have faith in your god and not in fairies. Coincidentally, you don't need to have faith in the president, because he is evidenced to exist. We can prove he exists. The same thing cannot be said of god or faries. We have no evidence for either of those things. Again, what I want to know is what makes you choose faith in god over faith in faries since they are equally lacking in evidence?
Why? I am not trying to prove that God exists or doesn't exist using scientific facts... that would be pointless. Science is very good at giving facts when you can test something... but as soon as you step outside of testable experiences then science cannot provide any answers.
Things that don't require evidence, that aren't testable, etc. are not real until they are verified with evidence. We accept this with faries, dragons, elves, witches, goblins, etc. why not god? Nobody has established why god should be set apart from these other things.
Does religion keep shrinking... this is something that is mentioned but I haven't seen data to support this. Is it a localised shrinking or is it worldwide... how do you correlate religion shrinkage with the increase in facts? I'm not sure it is scientifically possible to draw this correlation correctly.
Not to mention, the countries with the best public education (such as in northern europe and parts of asia) are also the ones with the highest number of non-believers.
Proleteria, I get the point that you are trying to make... you cannot prove God therefore he is just as fanciful as anything else that can't be proved. If that is your belief then so be it.
There are things that lend support to the existence of a God - there is nothing that lends support to fairies, dragons, elves, goblins etc... is it testable - no... does this mean that it isn't true? In science this is what is called anecdotal evidence... certainly you can't use this evidence to prove something but you can use it to postulate on what might be.
The first bit of evidence only occurs in the US.. not other countries... does this trend continue elsewhere?
The paper you show seems to suggest an increase in the level of religious observance as education increases and it is only when you split it into denominations that it starts to show a negative correlation... So how does that work?
Either way can you be 100% certain that this social trend comes about because people are rejecting religion because of the evidence available, because of changes in the cultural trends, because of the work/social change, because of time constraints? If you go back and read what I said you'll see that I am pointing out that you cannot know or correctly identify the cause... only once something has been finished can you look back and see what occurred.
Anyway it has been fun but I don't have any more time to put into this debate and I feel that we have reached a point where we are all repeating our points with slightly different connotations each time and that is a waste of time.
I have enjoyed this debate and wish you all a very good night.
You choose to have faith. I don't have faith in things that are proven, just because they are proven. I don't have faith in our current president. I don't have faith in faries, because I choose not to.
But i'm asking you why you choose to have faith in your god and not in fairies. Coincidentally, you don't need to have faith in the president, because he is evidenced to exist. We can prove he exists. The same thing cannot be said of god or faries. We have no evidence for either of those things. Again, what I want to know is what makes you choose faith in god over faith in faries since they are equally lacking in evidence?
My question is why do you care? It effects you how? Just like I'm not going to change your mind, you are not going to change mine.
I choose to have faith in God, because I do. If I had a reason to have faith, then it wouldn't be called faith... That's what makes me a believer.
Proleteria, I get the point that you are trying to make... you cannot prove God therefore he is just as fanciful as anything else that can't be proved. If that is your belief then so be it.
If it hasn't sunk in by now, i'll repeat myself again: I don't have any such belief. Not believing in any concept that has no evidence is not a belief. I don't need to have a belief that those things are equally fanciful because they are equally non-evident and fanciful. That's all there is to it. I don't assume anything and a belief is an assumption without evidence.
There are things that lend support to the existence of a God - there is nothing that lends support to fairies, dragons, elves, goblins etc... is it testable - no... does this mean that it isn't true? In science this is what is called anecdotal evidence... certainly you can't use this evidence to prove something but you can use it to postulate on what might be.
If there are things that lend supor to the existence of god, I would like to hear them here. That's exactly what I made this thread for. If you are trying to assert that these things are not testable, not evidential, etc. then I must insist that they of-course do not lend support of any kind to god. That is a non-sense statement and you well know it.
The paper you show seems to suggest an increase in the level of religious observance as education increases and it is only when you split it into denominations that it starts to show a negative correlation... So how does that work?
That really makes no sense. I think you mis-understood something. The whole is the sum of it's parts. If all parts are in decline, the whole cannot be on the incrase.
Either way can you be 100% certain that this social trend comes about because people are rejecting religion because of the evidence available, because of changes in the cultural trends, because of the work/social change, because of time constraints? If you go back and read what I said you'll see that I am pointing out that you cannot know or correctly identify the cause... only once something has been finished can you look back and see what occurred.
No, but we can be certain that more evidence than ever is avalible to explain the universe without accepting the notion of god on faith. We can be certain that people are more educated than they have been. We cannot be certain which of the total amagum of motives is the prime-mover, but these are the stand-out correlations and it is very evident that religion is on decline across the US, EU, and most of Asia.
Anyway it has been fun but I don't have any more time to put into this debate and I feel that we have reached a point where we are all repeating our points with slightly different connotations each time and that is a waste of time.
I'm not sure i've changed connotation, my connotation is very explicit. I'm poiting out the lack of evidence that indicates our lack of reason to exercise what you're continuing to fall back on (faith) for god, and i'm still very curious to know why this god deserves such faith over other things we have no evidence for.
In no way do I feel i've wasted your time or mine. I am confident, as a professor who's been lecturing for over three decades, my words are not wasted and in-fact I enjoy the chance to sharpen my wits in type rather than on the lectern. Do let me know if you have any more questions and thank you for being a good sport and not resorting to ad hominem.
My question is why do you care? It effects you how? Just like I'm not going to change your mind, you are not going to change mine.
Most religions persecute me as an individual for being gay. I'd say that's reason enough to care about understanding why god is more valid than faries (who, as far as I know, haven't got anything bad to say about the gays). This irrational belief directly effects me in a negative way. Even if you are not a part of those religious people who do descriminate against gays, I further have to wonder why be irrational about just this one thing. It's simply curiosity, for me, to wonder why people who act otherwise like entirely rational human beings choose to believe in something with no rational evidence to speak of.
I choose to have faith in God, because I do. If I had a reason to have faith, then it wouldn't be called faith... That's what makes me a believer.
But that doesn't answer why you choose god instead of faries, dragons, unicorns, elves, etc. By your definition it would still be faith, if you believed in those things too. Why god instead of those things?
Most religions persecute me as an individual for being gay. I'd say that's reason enough to care about understanding why god is more valid than faries (who, as far as I know, haven't got anything bad to say about the gays). This irrational belief directly effects me in a negative way. Even if you are not a part of those religious people who do descriminate against gays, I further have to wonder why be irrational about just this one thing. It's simply curiosity, for me, to wonder why people who act otherwise like entirely rational human beings choose to believe in something with no rational evidence to speak of.
It is irrational, I would agree. The bible says not to judge, yet there's is judgement throughout the bibles, and we do it all the time. Christians killing thousands of people during the crusades was irrational. Muslims that think killing people is good, is irrational. ... Humans are irrational even without religion. You don't have to be religious to be racist or persecute gays. I bet you can go to Sweden and still find irrational people, even with a nearly 90% atheist/non-religious population. So to think religion is the source of irrationality/hatred/discrimination/etc. is wrong, because it's human nature. Religions just provide a ground for people to act on their hate (Christians against gays, extreme Muslims against western culture). You can have faith, be spiritual, and believe in God without being part of a religion; but isn't this completely off-topic?
But that doesn't answer why you choose god instead of faries, dragons, unicorns, elves, etc. By your definition it would still be faith, if you believed in those things too. Why god instead of those things?
I don't believe or have faith in faries, dragons, unicorns, elves, etc. because I don't believe any of those made the universe, is all powerful, can do miracles, or sacrificed a son. And lets stop going in circles, don't bother bringing up proof or evidence anymore, because we all know proving/disproving any of this is impossible.
It is irrational, I would agree. The bible says not to judge, yet there's is judgement throughout the bibles, and we do it all the time. Christians killing thousands of people during the crusades was irrational. Muslims that think killing people is good, is irrational. ... Humans are irrational even without religion. You don't have to be religious to be racist or persecute gays. I bet you can go to Sweden and still find irrational people, even with a nearly 90% atheist/non-religious population. So to think religion is the source of irrationality/hatred/discrimination/etc. is wrong, because it's human nature. Religions just provide a ground for people to act on their hate (Christians against gays, extreme Muslims against western culture). You can have faith, be spiritual, and believe in God without being part of a religion; but isn't this completely off-topic?
I agree, there are irrational things that occur outside religion, but I must insist that religion can and does demand irrationality. The degree of irrationality depends on the type of religion, but i'm not taking on a particular group to compare to. I don't think it's entirely genuine to say that, in my case, people are using religion to act on their hatred of gays. They are taught (as I was by my very pious grandparents) from a young age that their religion is the reason that they should despise the gays. I would have to insist that it is not human nature to despise and hate gay people. I've been to a number of places and countries in my day and I can rest assured that it is not a universal human pre-condition.
I'm very much in agreeance that one can be spiritual and introspective without religion or god, but faith isn't required for spirituality (see most buddhist sects who have no ontology at all - or secular meditation practices).
I don't believe or have faith in faries, dragons, unicorns, elves, etc. because I don't believe any of those made the universe, is all powerful, can do miracles, or sacrificed a son. And lets stop going in circles, don't bother bringing up proof or evidence anymore, because we all know proving/disproving any of this is impossible.
But you have no evidence to think that your god exists any more than those faires or unicorns. Therefor it is no more or less likely that fairies and unicorns made the universe, are all-powerful, can perform miracles, or sacrificed offspring.
If this is sounding cyclical its because your logic is circular. (You believe in god... because you believe in god.) I can only doubt that you are being geinune about this.
You are right, proving such a thing with evidence isn't what is happening here. Having said that, i've disproved the validity of the supposition based on the circular logic and non-existent evidence you have presented me. That isn't to say i've disproved the possibility of any god, but i've found that neither you nor I have a single reason to think that there is a god. By extension, we certainly have no reason to assume that he is all-powerful, made the universe, or that he fathered a son on earth.
And lets stop going in circles, don't bother bringing up proof or evidence anymore, because we all know proving/disproving any of this is impossible.
But you have no evidence to think that your god exists any more than those faires or unicorns. Therefor it is no more or less likely that fairies and unicorns made the universe, are all-powerful, can perform miracles, or sacrificed offspring.
Ok... so this is the 4th time I'll say it, hopefully you'll comprehend it this time: I don't need evidence to prove (to myself) there is a God.
All I need is faith, and that's something you obviously will never understand. I can believe in something, simply by choosing to believe in it; so I fail to see how you can "disprove the validity" of my faith. Faith is not something that requires to be proven, or else "faith" would have a different definition.
However, using your logic, because I believe in God, I must therefor believe is unicorns. To me this is a laughable stance; but for some reason you find it logical. Did you know gravity is a theory, it cannot be proven. Science never proves anything, it's made up by theory, and human created "units" of measurement [(E=mc2 was a "proven" theory that just fell apart a couple weeks ago, and just like that, gravity will be "proven" wrong one day with a new theory)]. So therefor, using your logic again, if you believe in gravity (which can't be proven) you have to believe in unicorns?? Of course not, this position is asinine; but it's the position you have taken.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The atheist is not saying that everything spontaneously created itself. The atheist is saying there is no evidence that a God created anything. It is up to the God-believer to offer evidence of their assertion. The Atheist does not say what created the universe, for he does not know.
You have offered 2 possible solutions, there could be many other solutions not yet discovered. The atheist simply rejects one solution being offered until it can provide evidence.
It is no different to if I told I believe giant donuts created the universe. You reject this assertion because I cannot offer any evidence for it, likewise we reject the assertion that a God created it.
I refuted you point for point. I invite you to do the same.
The question is and has always been, where is the evidence for your god? Since you posted as you did, it was quite apparent that you were on the side of a god evidenced by first-cause. Fortuitously, I had already answered as to why that wasn't a valid argument, and even better, I elaborated on the point for you.
Why? I am not trying to prove that God exists or doesn't exist using scientific facts... that would be pointless. Science is very good at giving facts when you can test something... but as soon as you step outside of testable experiences then science cannot provide any answers.
Does religion keep shrinking... this is something that is mentioned but I haven't seen data to support this. Is it a localised shrinking or is it worldwide... how do you correlate religion shrinkage with the increase in facts? I'm not sure it is scientifically possible to draw this correlation correctly.
Things that don't require evidence, that aren't testable, etc. are not real until they are verified with evidence. We accept this with faries, dragons, elves, witches, goblins, etc. why not god? Nobody has established why god should be set apart from these other things.
Trends over the last two decades in religion (US) Notice that "no religion," and "don't know," is all positive while catholic, protestant, and other are all shrinking in almost every state.
And yes, there is a correlation between the education level of societies and their adherence to religion. "Religious attendance declines sharply with education across denominations."
Not to mention, the countries with the best public education (such as in northern europe and parts of asia) are also the ones with the highest number of non-believers.
Believers don't need "proof" they need "faith"
And you cannot prove that there are not faries. It is impossible to prove a negative in general.
Should we also then have faith in faries? What is unique about this non-evidential entity "god," that commands our illogical respect and faith instead of faries?
I would assume you are an atheist in regard to faries. Why then, are you willing to extend faith to god when it is equally lacking in evidence? What is it about this myth that makes it more valuable than the equally grandios myths of the egyptian pantheon, the greek pantheon, the myriad other works of unverifiable fiction that we enjoy in literature today?
Why can we not simply accept that there is not a plausible reason to view any of these things outside of their literary value?
This is true. But you also can't prove there are no fairies or magic dragons either. We might as well say they don't exist until someone can prove otherwise.
Don't need proof.
Guess you missed this!
We don't need proof for faries either.
But i'm asking you why you choose to have faith in your god and not in fairies. Coincidentally, you don't need to have faith in the president, because he is evidenced to exist. We can prove he exists. The same thing cannot be said of god or faries. We have no evidence for either of those things. Again, what I want to know is what makes you choose faith in god over faith in faries since they are equally lacking in evidence?
Proleteria, I get the point that you are trying to make... you cannot prove God therefore he is just as fanciful as anything else that can't be proved. If that is your belief then so be it.
There are things that lend support to the existence of a God - there is nothing that lends support to fairies, dragons, elves, goblins etc... is it testable - no... does this mean that it isn't true? In science this is what is called anecdotal evidence... certainly you can't use this evidence to prove something but you can use it to postulate on what might be.
The first bit of evidence only occurs in the US.. not other countries... does this trend continue elsewhere?
The paper you show seems to suggest an increase in the level of religious observance as education increases and it is only when you split it into denominations that it starts to show a negative correlation... So how does that work?
Either way can you be 100% certain that this social trend comes about because people are rejecting religion because of the evidence available, because of changes in the cultural trends, because of the work/social change, because of time constraints? If you go back and read what I said you'll see that I am pointing out that you cannot know or correctly identify the cause... only once something has been finished can you look back and see what occurred.
Anyway it has been fun but I don't have any more time to put into this debate and I feel that we have reached a point where we are all repeating our points with slightly different connotations each time and that is a waste of time.
I have enjoyed this debate and wish you all a very good night.
My question is why do you care? It effects you how? Just like I'm not going to change your mind, you are not going to change mine.
I choose to have faith in God, because I do. If I had a reason to have faith, then it wouldn't be called faith... That's what makes me a believer.
If it hasn't sunk in by now, i'll repeat myself again: I don't have any such belief. Not believing in any concept that has no evidence is not a belief. I don't need to have a belief that those things are equally fanciful because they are equally non-evident and fanciful. That's all there is to it. I don't assume anything and a belief is an assumption without evidence.
If there are things that lend supor to the existence of god, I would like to hear them here. That's exactly what I made this thread for. If you are trying to assert that these things are not testable, not evidential, etc. then I must insist that they of-course do not lend support of any kind to god. That is a non-sense statement and you well know it.
Over the last several decades, religious practice has been on the decline in a process of secularization.
That really makes no sense. I think you mis-understood something. The whole is the sum of it's parts. If all parts are in decline, the whole cannot be on the incrase.
No, but we can be certain that more evidence than ever is avalible to explain the universe without accepting the notion of god on faith. We can be certain that people are more educated than they have been. We cannot be certain which of the total amagum of motives is the prime-mover, but these are the stand-out correlations and it is very evident that religion is on decline across the US, EU, and most of Asia.
I'm not sure i've changed connotation, my connotation is very explicit. I'm poiting out the lack of evidence that indicates our lack of reason to exercise what you're continuing to fall back on (faith) for god, and i'm still very curious to know why this god deserves such faith over other things we have no evidence for.
In no way do I feel i've wasted your time or mine. I am confident, as a professor who's been lecturing for over three decades, my words are not wasted and in-fact I enjoy the chance to sharpen my wits in type rather than on the lectern. Do let me know if you have any more questions and thank you for being a good sport and not resorting to ad hominem.
Indeed, I thank you for contributing.
Most religions persecute me as an individual for being gay. I'd say that's reason enough to care about understanding why god is more valid than faries (who, as far as I know, haven't got anything bad to say about the gays). This irrational belief directly effects me in a negative way. Even if you are not a part of those religious people who do descriminate against gays, I further have to wonder why be irrational about just this one thing. It's simply curiosity, for me, to wonder why people who act otherwise like entirely rational human beings choose to believe in something with no rational evidence to speak of.
But that doesn't answer why you choose god instead of faries, dragons, unicorns, elves, etc. By your definition it would still be faith, if you believed in those things too. Why god instead of those things?
for he to-day that sheds his blood with me
shall be my brother..."
Not that i'd be offended if it were moved, but there is no reason to move it.
"General Discussion:
For the general, intelligent discussion of all topics not related to Diablo..."
Just sayin'
It is irrational, I would agree. The bible says not to judge, yet there's is judgement throughout the bibles, and we do it all the time. Christians killing thousands of people during the crusades was irrational. Muslims that think killing people is good, is irrational. ... Humans are irrational even without religion. You don't have to be religious to be racist or persecute gays. I bet you can go to Sweden and still find irrational people, even with a nearly 90% atheist/non-religious population. So to think religion is the source of irrationality/hatred/discrimination/etc. is wrong, because it's human nature. Religions just provide a ground for people to act on their hate (Christians against gays, extreme Muslims against western culture). You can have faith, be spiritual, and believe in God without being part of a religion; but isn't this completely off-topic?
I don't believe or have faith in faries, dragons, unicorns, elves, etc. because I don't believe any of those made the universe, is all powerful, can do miracles, or sacrificed a son. And lets stop going in circles, don't bother bringing up proof or evidence anymore, because we all know proving/disproving any of this is impossible.
I agree, there are irrational things that occur outside religion, but I must insist that religion can and does demand irrationality. The degree of irrationality depends on the type of religion, but i'm not taking on a particular group to compare to. I don't think it's entirely genuine to say that, in my case, people are using religion to act on their hatred of gays. They are taught (as I was by my very pious grandparents) from a young age that their religion is the reason that they should despise the gays. I would have to insist that it is not human nature to despise and hate gay people. I've been to a number of places and countries in my day and I can rest assured that it is not a universal human pre-condition.
I'm very much in agreeance that one can be spiritual and introspective without religion or god, but faith isn't required for spirituality (see most buddhist sects who have no ontology at all - or secular meditation practices).
But you have no evidence to think that your god exists any more than those faires or unicorns. Therefor it is no more or less likely that fairies and unicorns made the universe, are all-powerful, can perform miracles, or sacrificed offspring.
If this is sounding cyclical its because your logic is circular. (You believe in god... because you believe in god.) I can only doubt that you are being geinune about this.
You are right, proving such a thing with evidence isn't what is happening here. Having said that, i've disproved the validity of the supposition based on the circular logic and non-existent evidence you have presented me. That isn't to say i've disproved the possibility of any god, but i've found that neither you nor I have a single reason to think that there is a god. By extension, we certainly have no reason to assume that he is all-powerful, made the universe, or that he fathered a son on earth.
@ thread, good day of debate. See you tomorrow!
Ok... so this is the 4th time I'll say it, hopefully you'll comprehend it this time: I don't need evidence to prove (to myself) there is a God.
All I need is faith, and that's something you obviously will never understand. I can believe in something, simply by choosing to believe in it; so I fail to see how you can "disprove the validity" of my faith. Faith is not something that requires to be proven, or else "faith" would have a different definition.
However, using your logic, because I believe in God, I must therefor believe is unicorns. To me this is a laughable stance; but for some reason you find it logical. Did you know gravity is a theory, it cannot be proven. Science never proves anything, it's made up by theory, and human created "units" of measurement [(E=mc2 was a "proven" theory that just fell apart a couple weeks ago, and just like that, gravity will be "proven" wrong one day with a new theory)]. So therefor, using your logic again, if you believe in gravity (which can't be proven) you have to believe in unicorns?? Of course not, this position is asinine; but it's the position you have taken.