There is no evidence to prove that those insects exist. What you have is called conjecture, a hypothesis even. Neither one is evidence. A stupid question deserves a stupid answer: I think my gay cousin will be shocked to find out that you think he doesn't exist.
hm... it's interesting how you limit the place where fairies could possibly exist... By me they could well be on another planet or even in a parallel universe, or in someones dream or imagination. How can we prove that imagination is less real than our reality? At least placebo effect is a proof that our thoughts have an effect on our physical realm. And how would you differ a realistic dream from reality?
At no point did i claim evidence is proof, At no point did i say i have proof that thousands of species of undiscovered insect exist. All you done was use your utter ignorance and inability to understand what words mean as support for your flawed argument. Evidence is a piece of information that can be used to support an idea or as a reason to come to a conclusion. The idea receives greater support as more and more mutually-supporting evidence is found. Evidence can not prove anything because that isn't what evidence does. Evidence is supportive data. The data that we have regarding the discovery rate of insect species supports the idea that there are thousands more to find.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Next time, I suggest you *READ* my post. EDIT: Y'know what; I'm going to make it easy for you. At no time did I write anything remotely close to "evidence is proof". What I did say was "what you presented was not evidence" despite you calling it so. Provide me with evidence indicating that the previously mentioned insects exist.
and here we are quoting the same thing (in other words) what I have been saying about the existence of God. Soooo, you expect people to listen to you but not expect people to listen to me in this regard? If you fail to broaden your knowledge about certain spiritual things, how is one supposed to go about building up evidence in support when you won't take in the basics of it in the first place? Do you feel the pace of the merry-go-round you are on increasing?
I don't believe in agnosticism. What metrosexuality is for for sexual orientation, agnosticism is for religion. You either are an atheist or you are not.
You said; "There is no evidence to prove that those insects exist". Suggesting that evidence can be considered "proof", Apparently entirely ignorant to the fact that evidence is only supportive data. Evidence can't "prove" anything, it's not in the capacity of evidence to "prove" anything. the fact that we are continually finding new species of insect is evidence that there are species of insect yet discovered. it doesn't "prove" that these undiscovered insects exist, it is "evidence" that they do and it is "evidence" that we will continue finding them. I don't know if English is your second language, So if it is i apologise for my criticisms regarding your being inability to understand it. But if English is your first language, seriously, read a book. Stop relying on your ignorance as a debate tactic.
Ad hominems? What do you have to say about that, Guerilla? There is no proof without evidence. Therefore evidence is directly necessary in proving something, i.e. proof is "a series of mutually-supporting pieces of evidence". You said it yourself. Again, to be brought as evidence, the "evidence" must be fact. Not conjecture.
Truly curious about this one. We seem to differ on so many fundamental levels I am genuinely curious. Totally subjective question, no right or wrong answers.
Evidence can't prove anything, it's not in the capacity of evidence to prove something. Read what i'm saying. Evidence can ONLY be used as supportive data or a reason to come to a conclusion. The more of this supportive data that can found to more it supports the claim and the more compelling it becomes. It never because proof though. it never becomes the ultimate, infallible, 100% all encompassing explanation (except in mathematics where 1+1=2 whatever way you slice it). I will give you an example how why evidence is NOT proof. please read this carefully. A man is on trial for murder. The evidence against him is 1) gunshot residue on his clothes from a gun found at the murder scene 2) foot print from his shoe in the murder victims kitchen 3) CCTV footage of him exiting a bus outside the victims house. 4) Victims watch stopped 10mins after accused was seen exiting a bus. 5) The accused has been having an affair with the victims wife 6) He was overheard talking about killing the victim the previous week 7) The neighbour claims to have seen the accused leaving the victims house shouting "hahaha i killed him" Now, There we have 7 pieces of evidence, Fairly compelling evidence that this man is guilty of the murder. For that to be considered "proof" in a scientific sense there could be no other possible reason for those findings. For those 7 pieces of information to "prove" he committed the crime there could be no other explanation for any of those pieces of evidence. Now look through them and imagine and alternative explanation for them that doesn't involve a murder. It doesn't matter if it is unlikely, It only has to exist as a possibility for that "evidence" to be rendered "not proof". Granted, The chances that he done it are high and i would expect him to be found guilty. But it is still not proof. Is it not a fact that we are continuing to find more and more previously undiscovered insects? And is that "fact" not "evidence" that even more insects exist?
Therefore, going by your reasoning above, you can not prove that God does not exist and I can not prove that God exists, correct? We have evidence on both sides of the fence, or in your speak, as our arguments. But, not enough to prove he exists or not exist. Care to disagree with this logic of yours?
The fact is that we continue to find them. The conjecture is that that means that we will continue to find more. That is not evidence that more exist.
While it is true that "proving" the existence of god using evidence is impossible for both sides, It would be disingenuous that suggest that both sides are equally likely as a result of this. It would be disingenuous that suggest that all evidence is equally credible or equally worthless. all i am saying is that evidence can not be proof. Evidence can differ on how compelling it is, how credible it is or how supportive it is, But still, Doesn't constitute "proof". Of course, we can have logical proof. We can say something is impossible because it's description invalidates it's existence. For example, If i claim to have a wooden square made out of metal that has 13 sides you could prove that this item, as described, Doesn't exist because it's logically impossible for something to exist that has those properties symultaneously. That is logical proof. Evidence though, Can only be supportive data.
Wrong. it is supportive data. The FACT that we have been continuously finding new species is EVIDENCE that more exist. it doesn't mean we will definitely find more, it doesn't mean there are definitely more species to find. It is only evidence that more will be found as it suggests more exist. Put is this way. Do you think it likely that more insects will be found? What is your reason for thinking this? I'm tired of continuously explaining this simple concept to you. just accept that you are wrong and go back to watching cartoons.
stOx, in favor of agnosticism, there is no consensus on what (a) god is. Without agreeing upon a definition for god, things get murkier. I doubt if anyone really believes in the popular concept of a personal god (with a personality & consciousness) up in the sky surrounded by hot chicks having fun zapping people with lightning.
The consensus is generally that god is a supernatural being and the creator of the universe and everything in it. Certain cults may have bolted more bullshit onto this over time, Like identifying people he hates, which parts of children to mutilate and where to keep meat and milk, But generally this is a definition most could agree on.
I put it this way: I'd bet good money on any serious entomologist going in the Amazon and finding new species (it just keeps happening), but I wouldn't bet 5 cents on seeing any manifestation of a god during my lifetime (it never happened). There is no proof for any of both events, but putting them at the same level is just silly.
I don't know what post to add this too, but this seems like a good one, I guess. It is a quick little story called "Was the World Made for Man?" I like it and it is a very quick read (15 pages). Was the World Made for Man? (pdf)
Believing in the existence of a supernatural entity with a personality is indeed as bad as believing in fairies. Agnostics usually have a more far-reaching view of what god could be, some refer to it as a hypothetical faceless force. It's not possible to take sides on something hypothetical.
Unfortunately most people believe in a personal god, with personality and consciousness. Even a white beard.