Worth repeating

[2ndAmendment]

From 03 April 2006 | PatriotPost.US | Patriot No. 06-14

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being... All variety of created objects which represent order and life in the universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, Whom I call the Lord God." —Sir Isaac Newton

"Atheism comes from, literally, the Greek word a-, 'the negative'; and theism, the word theos for 'god' —'negative God' or 'there is no God.' It is affirming the non-existence of God. It affirms a negative. Anyone with an introductory course in philosophy recognizes that it is a logical contradiction. It would be like me saying to you, 'There is no such thing as a white stone with black dots anywhere in all of the galaxies of this universe.' The only way I can affirm that is if I have unlimited knowledge of this universe. So to affirm an absolute negative is self-defeating, because what you are saying is, 'I have infinite knowledge in order to say to you, "There is nobody within finite knowledge".' Atheism, as a system, is self-defeating." —Dr. Ravi Zacharias

 

[supersurfer]

"Atheism comes from, literally, the Greek word a-, 'the negative'; and theism, the word theos for 'god' —'negative God' or 'there is no God.' It is affirming the non-existence of God. It affirms a negative. Anyone with an introductory course in philosophy recognizes that it is a logical contradiction. It would be like me saying to you, 'There is no such thing as a white stone with black dots anywhere in all of the galaxies of this universe.' The only way I can affirm that is if I have unlimited knowledge of this universe. So to affirm an absolute negative is self-defeating, because what you are saying is, 'I have infinite knowledge in order to say to you, "There is nobody within finite knowledge".' Atheism, as a system, is self-defeating." —Dr. Ravi Zacharias

You can apply the above to monotheism. You would need to have unlimited knowledge of the universe in order to say that "There is only one God, and I picked the one, true God."

If we are discussing absolute/universal negatives by your definition above, then you also are not able to state that there are not such things as aliens, bigfoot, Nessie (the Loch Ness Monster), etc.. The list would be endless.

There are two ways to prove the nonexistence of things.
1) That it cannot exist because it leads to contradictions. (For example, a married bachelor or a squared circle.)
2) As Keith Parsons stated, “by carefully looking and seeing.” (This is how we can know that such things as the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, the Abimonable Snowman, etc. do not exist.”)

The main role of logic is to prove universal negatives.

 

[bohman]

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being... All variety of created objects which represent order and life in the universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, Whom I call the Lord God." —Sir Isaac Newton

And again, this leads me to wonder why so few people equate the study of physics, biology, and evolution with the study of God's works. Why not believe that evolution is a method by which God created life as it exists now?

 

[2ndAmendment]

And again, this leads me to wonder why so few people equate the study of physics, biology, and evolution with the study of God's works. Why not believe that evolution is a method by which God created life as it exists now?

Because it is not consistent with the Bible account of creation and takes the miraculous power of God and reduces it to something not miraculous.

 

[Tonio]

Why not believe that evolution is a method by which God created life as it exists now?

That's what I believe. But that belief is not the same as scentific proof. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of any deity or deities. And in my view, that's the way it should be.

Personally, I think it's possible to be a Christian and view the Biblical account of creation as a metaphor instead of a factual historical account. In my view, creationism in any religion is not faith but doctrine, about telling people what to believe, about pushing on them a set of teachings that they're not allowed to question. Too often, we talk about "creationism vs. evolution" as though Darwin and Genesis are the only two options. Other religions have their versions of creation teachings, so why should we treat the Judeo-Christian version as more valid than any other religion's version?

I apologize if this metaphor is too mundane, but I see science as like the engineering and mechanics of an automobile, such as the principles of internal combustion. I see faith as like the actual experience of driving, the "feeling of oneness with the road" to borrow from numerous commercials and Motor Trend columns. What I'm saying is that science and spirituality are both necessary, that they complement one another. One is about the raw mechanics, and the other is about meaning and purpose.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011801432_pf.html

When the Dalai Lama was a child, studying the doctrines of Tibetan Buddhism, his teachers explained that the moon emits its own light. But one day they brought him a telescope. He looked at the moon under magnification and saw that its surface contained shadows. He had made a discovery: The moon's light comes from elsewhere. It must come from the sun. The doctrine was directly at odds with what he could perceive with his own senses and a scientific instrument. What to do? Simple: Change the doctrine.
"I always sided with modern science," he said. "I don't know what is the reaction of some of our older scholars."

His new book, The Universe in a Single Atom, states that the scientific method by itself has never truly explained certain features of human spirituality, such as compassion. He makes a distinction between the core values of a religion, which can't change, and the doctrines that are mutable, like the bit about the moon. But he clearly sees no problem being fully spiritual and fully scientific. He believes in freedom, which includes the freedom to use one's brain.