If You Have No Evidence God doesn’t Exist, Why Don’t You Believe in Him?

This post conglomerates two questions that people asked Elucidations on Atheism: “Why can’t you provide any empirical evidence that God doesn’t exist?  Atheists are always asking believers to prove that God exists, but they never offer any counter-evidence” and “Why don’t you believe in God?”. The themes were similar, so I fused them.

Carl Sagan and Bertrand Russell both told little allegories to explain why you do not need evidence of God’s nonexistence to withhold belief in His existence; the rational way to process claims is to not accept a claim until you have access to sufficient evidence. The alternative is to accept every claim until someone brings evidence to the contrary. That approach would mean you should believe in aliens, psychics, zombies and vampires; after all, what evidence do you have that they don’t exist?

Carl Sagan’s parable is that of an incorporeal dragon. Sagan asks us to imagine a person has just told us there is a dragon in his garage. We immediately ask to see his garage, and he dutifully leads us to the garage and opens the door. Alas, the garage is empty. Indignantly, we point out this obvious fact. But the man tells us we are wrong; the dragon is invisible. So we insist that flour be spread across the floor to track the dragon’s footprints. The man admits this is an excellent idea, but will bear no fruits; the dragon flies all the time. Next we ask for infrared imaging, to see the heat of the flames; the dragon eludes this test with heatless fire. We want to throw paint around so that some of it may hit the dragon making it visible; the dragon eludes this test by being incorporeal.

Ask yourself this: what is the difference between this dragon and a dragon that does not exist? There is no evidence that could disprove this dragon; as we devise a new test, the man invents a way for the dragon to not be susceptible. There is nothing in reality that would be different, whether this dragon existed or not.

This is what God looks like to me. The big four definitions of God are that He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and all-loving. You can find evidence that such a Being does not exist. One of the most pertinent and repeated is that of suffering. People definitely suffer. If God is real and omnipotent we are left with two choices about where that suffering comes from: God did it to us or God watched it and permitted it. In order to account for this, the “all-loving” dimension of God becomes malleable: his benevolence becomes a preference for our freewill so that other people can make us suffer; it becomes the capricious game of a Games Masters who tests us to breaking point. We are told He loves us and never gives us more than we can handle, which outright denies that some people do have more than they can handle, hence suicide. Claims of absolute benevolence and never giving one more than they can handle are patently false: He would rather we were free to suffer than destined to be happy.

Bertrand Russell’s example is a little better known: the teapot between Earth and Mars. It’s too small for our most powerful telescopes to see it, but it is there. There is no evidence to the contrary, and any satellite we send to find it can always be said to have looked in the wrong place. But do you believe it? Of course you don’t. The problem is not evidence that such a teapot is not there, but instead that before you believe something you need a reason to believe it: you need sensible evidence.



Categories: Atheism, Enlightenment Values

Tags: , , , , , , ,

46 replies

  1. I think if I were an astronaut, I would take a tiny teapot aboard the ISS, and sneak it into orbit during a spacewalk. Or perhaps one of the astronauts already did that. You can’t prove they didn’t!

  2. This is illogical, captain.
    If you have no evidence Zeus does not exist, why don’t you believe in him?
    If you have no evidence the easter bunny does not exist, why don’t you believe in it?

  3. “Sensible” evidence. Perfect. From this moment on i will endeavour to always add “sensible” before “evidence.”

  4. King Solomon answered your questions 3000 years ago. Nothing is really new under the sun. All the philosophy and scientific theories have not produced anything new, ever.

    As a Lily Among Thorns – A Story of King Solomon, the Queen of Sheba, and the Goddess of Wisdom by Rudy U Martinka

    Available as an eBook

    Regards

  5. I think the next time some asks what I believe in I’ll say the Space Teapot.

  6. If I can think it, I can believe it is true, that seems to me to be the argument the theist is making

  7. Impeccable logic, but I’ll offer one caveat. Sagan’s dragon and Russell’s teapot are presented as abstract concepts having no explicit or implied relation to reality. They exist only for the sake of logical discourse. Religious people present god as an explanation for the creation of the universe. From a scientific perspective, that equates to a cosmological hypothesis – that is, a proposed theory insufficiently supported by empirical evidence. However, since scientific explanations for the creation of the universe are also hypotheses (albeit better supported), there can be no determinative resolution at this time. Therefore, each hypothesis must be weighed separately on its own merits. Here’s a thought experiment:

    Let’s assume Sagan presented his dragon as the creator of the universe. We ask him to prove it. He says he can’t because he just thought of it. Without any evidence, we can evaluate his hypothesis as highly implausible.

    A Christian says God created the universe. We ask him to prove it. He says it’s written in the Bible. We study the content and history of the Bible and discover it is an arbitrary collection of anecdotal stories passed on from antiquity and codified in the 1st millennium of the Julian calendar. Furthermore, we can safely determine that the stories were either believed at the time of conception or at some point later on. With the Bible as the Christian’s only evidence, we can evaluate his hypothesis as improbable although slightly more possible than Sagan’s dragon.

    An astrophysicist says our universe might have been created when two other parallel universes (i.e. a multiverse) came into contact which triggered the Big Bang. We ask him to prove it. He says he cannot, but states that it is consistent with Quantum theory. We study Quantum mechanics and verify his statement. We can then evaluate his hypothesis as possible, but not any more so than other Quantum hypotheses concerning the Big Bang.

    All this leaves us with is what is plausible, probable, and possible regarding the creation of the universe. We just don’t know for certain. Even Sagan’s dragon – as ridiculous as that notion is – still cannot be completely ruled out.

    • You are absolutely right. But I think that a post about probability, possibility and evidence needs to wait for another day.

      When it comes to Sagan and his dragon-believing conversational partner, I can imagine the dragon-believer saying not only that the dragon is real, but also that the dragon is the sole reason for his belief. We then have to weigh up the probabilities of the man believing the idea (instead of lying), the belief being a delusion, the belief being borne from other supernatural causes, the belief being born out of natural causes, the belief being caused by the actual dragon or another cause I haven’t imagined.

      Blend into this John’s comment (above) about believing in a celestial teapot and I think we have a post about probabilities and possibilities… hmmm…

  8. Reblogged this on Allallt in discussion and commented:
    The questions offered over on Elucidations on Atheism are so interesting that most of my writing now happens over there. I’ll keep blogging here, but if you like what I do and enjoy the conversation (and want to see people doing it better than me) then you should definitely follow Elucidations on Atheism.

  9. This is simple/basic argument.

    Evidence – the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid (Oxford)

    If word “evidence” are describe a above, I believe the there was a lot of evidence of God.

    • Okay, here’s a task list for you:
      1. Define God.
      2. Provide the evidence you think supports your God.
      3. Explain why that evidence sensibly supports the proposition God (as defined by you) exists.
      (4. ADVANCED: explain why natural phenomena aren’t better explanations)

  10. Hemphh..

    1. Define God. I refer to 112;
    God is The One, The Creator, The External, Absolute. He begets not, nor is He begotten. None is like Him.

    2. Evidence.
    a–> If God is two or more, which god is more powerful than other god?. Who got most authority? are they not fighting?, So to define God more than two is ridiculous.
    b–> Based on Thermodynamic Law, thing can not be destroy. So there was 2 explanation of universe that coherence with the Law. 1) Universe itself is Eternal and keep evolve and revolve. 2) Someone have created it and The One who create it is Eternal.
    c–> Principle of God is Unique (None is like Him). If there are thing being called as god, it not god. It just a thing. God’s statue is a rock, Jesus is human, God’s books is a book to be read, etc. (I seem sound like an atheist, but it not)

    3. Sensible Evidence
    –> My self is a designer, a creator of working thing. To assume world is existed by itself is out of my mind. Even though many people do not know me, the building that I design existed. It was a created intelligently, mathematically correct, everything working with the principle and law.
    Even, there are many thing that atheist say the design (universe and world or their life) is wrong, ugly, uncomfortable, etc. If we can understand the universe as whole, if believe The Intelligent Creator are purposely design in such way. As what being mention by Ibn `Ataa’illah in his famous book, Word of Wisdom “Do not be surprised when difficulties happen in this worldly abode. It is only revealing its true character and identity.”

    4. Natural phenomena itself is a part of God’s Law. Example “rain”. Rain itself have their own law, given a certain heat, it will evaporate, became a cloud, transfer to other state, drop as a rain when it heavy. The law is repeated and the law is being preserve intelligently for many century.

    The idea of believing in natural phenomena – example- the rain. how do you know the rain that you see are blessing or disaster? Is it restoring the life or destroying the life. Because in God’s law, everything in this world have connection with each other. Everything that happen today will effect the future. Example – Rain, today the water will evaporate, tomorrow there will be rain. In other religion, people may called it karma… The law never change… (may be you or I myself called it physics, biology, or chemical)

    • I hope this isn’t taken as offensive, and I suspect you thought I’d have a problem with your definition of God from the start, but your definition has no substance to it. In fact, it doesn’t even assume intelligence, which means that nearly everyone’s conception of God fits into the definition, but so may the laws of classical mechanics (as we have no reason to believe they are dependent on time) or and quantum mechanics (for much the same reason). Even the basic principle of cause and effect may be what you have defined there.
      Most of your evidence is rhetoric to show your definition of a God only permits one God. That’s fine, but there may also be none. And if any of the non-intelligent ideas that are consistent with your definition are real then you’ve defined your God out of existence.
      You do move onto a version of the cosmological argument. I know we’ve had this conversation before, so it’s a little annoying to see that you are repeating the idea that either the universe was eternal or it was intelligently created. We’ve discussed, at length, the fact that that is not a complete set of ideas. Non-intelligent causes, like a multiverse model or the instability of “nothing” or retrocausal quantum phenomena, are also options that you are simply refusing to engage with. Anything that is not dependent on time is a likely cause. And there are some things we know exist that are not dependent on time in any intuitive way (as I’ve mentioned at the start of this comment).
      Being unique is not a characteristic of existence; something can be a unique idea and not exist in any fashion other than in the minds of other people, so I don’t know why you talk about uniqueness.
      Your sensible evidence is merely that the universe exists. You have accounted for any characteristics of the universe to be completely compatible with your God, which makes me wonder how you falsify such a claim. What characteristic of the universe convinces you there is a God, and could that characteristic be different?
      Your idea that these things are not best explained by natural phenomena is that if we take any idea back far enough it is always the plan of a God, correct? Well, how do you know that? It does not make sense to me that you claim to know that. For hundreds of years we have been peeling back layer after layer of natural explanation to find more natural explanations.

    • No, it not offensive. It was a discussion; it was common for agreeing with other or disagree with each other. I do notice I do know how to persuasive, but not rhetoric. Evidence: I answering your question directly, unfortunately we just disagree with each other. So I take that as compliment.

      When you telling me that my idea do not have substance. In the first paragraph, I already mention my quotation from Quran 112. That is my reference. So, you don’t have a problem with my definition. It good enough for me….

      If I quoting from my book is wrong, then you also should not quote from others book (atheist or philosophy). If when I quoting from other scholar is wrong, you need to understand that you also can not quote from other scholar. If you say I can not quote from scientific book, you also should not quote from one.

      In any debating or discussion, we should have a common term or rules to follow. Do not say I can not do this and at the same time you can. You have your own style of debating, I also have mine. If you annoy with my approach of debating or persuasive, then learn it to be a better debater.

      Unique is not a characteristic of existence and I know what it mean. I do not know how it look like, feel, smell, etc. I fact, I really do not know how God look like, or any one here have know and I never say that I know how. Another fact, I just have a very little knowledge. My logic is simple, here, anyone have seen God? Did God really need to come to earth to be God? Did God really need to be like Giant and Jack in “jack and the beanstalk”? No, right..

      Newton, a heretic to Christianity once said:
      This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. […] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or “Universal Ruler”. […] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.

      That make Newton as rhetoric too…

      For hundreds of years we have been peeling back layer after layer of natural explanation to find more natural explanations. It was correct, the idea is you should search it for your own benefit. This is never ending works, that why it called enlightenment every time you found something.

      Actually that is your advance question. you mention : natural phenomena is that if we take any idea back far enough it is always the plan of a God, correct?
      If it was plan, I will tell you, I don’t know it because the meaning of “plan” is “future” and it unknown.
      What I know is it was “Law” or “Rules” is being preserve. It have it own characteristic, value, and it change over time, when or mix with other rules. It something like a complex math.

      So, through my logic, I believe I have a strong reason to believe in God.

      #I do not use a philosophy that I don’t understand or others people do not understand. I commonly use a common word and a common principle that available around us to understand thing. To use a big word such “quantum mechanic”, “relative physics”, or “time dependent” is not my style. This is a master and advance elective subject for student of school of physics. Even, I observe many atheist are like to quote the big word, I do not think they do not understand the subject or understand the word deeply. Rubbish in, rubbish out. No hard feeling… Or may be I just don’t understand English correctly :P

      • The problem isn’t using quotes, it’s using quotes that have no weight.

        I can quote scientists who believe that the Universe has always existed. They have & probably still do exist. It’s just that this quotation would only explain that person’s opinion, not the actual evidence, which points away from that opinion.

        When using a quote in scientific terms, the purpose is to demonstrate an idea, not to use it as evidence.

        Anyway, if you don’t understand the science, then firstly how can you say that it’s wrong & secondly how can you say that atheists don’t understand it?

        • Hi Bower,

          You said : “The problem isn’t using quotes, it’s using quotes that have no weight.”

          I believe the post are spoke about God and may be religion as main topic.

          I assuming you are atheist. So, if I don’t use religious quotation. In your view, what type of book that have more “weight” in topic as such “God and religion”?

          Enlighten me…

        • in 2nd paragraph, you said :if you don’t understand the science, then firstly how can you say that it’s wrong.

          I used live and studies with a group of people who sleep and play game all day long and pass with straight As in recognized medical doctor and engineering courses as Harvard and MIT or IIT. Some people call it genius. From there, I can differentiate people who really understand “science” and people who pretend to understand “science”.

          You said: secondly how can you say that atheists don’t understand it?
          You can test it with “Fundamental” or “Basic” of Science. If someone already failed the “Fundamental”, I assume he/she is not qualified to discuss advance topic.

          It was too obvious.

          • A better question would be why you think that the Quran has any relevance to anyone outside of your religion. Like I said, something has weight if it contextualizes the evidence. If you don’t have that, that is not my problem. In the example of the Space Teapot, it contextualizes the problem of an unfalsifiable deity that might as well not exist, because nothing changes whether or not it does.

            As for your 2nd point, perhaps you could clarify with examples.

            • Bower,

              A better question would be why you think that the Quran has any relevance to anyone outside of your religion.

              If you understand the idea of religion and god. Every religion claim they are the truth. Therefore to differentiate between right and wrong are required. A person who claim they were the truth are require to provide a method to understand their claim and definition.

              When a Muslim said “God is One” or “God is Creator” or “God is Eternal or Infinite”. A method to define this idea must be establish from the one who claim it.

              Then other religion a similar claim “God is One and Three” or “God is Eternal and Infinite”. A similar method to define this idea and must be consistent.

              Then someone claim that “God is not exist”. A similar method need to define this idea and must
              ALSO be consistent.

              As Allallt said, every religion claim almost similar idea to each other. Everyone can claim anything, but can they provide the method to support their claim. I believe a method and result must match with each other, therefore it was true.

              Then we need to compare it and analysis based one the method, explanation, hypothesis provided. We choose the best and near to the truth or the truth. The biggest problem with Space Teapot is they are not comparing between 2 or more ideas.

              I have read Russell’s work and I believe Russell are not that stupid to claim such idiotic claim but it was a part of his “philosophy hypothesis”. It more like a sarcastic idea toward another stupid idea.

              In my solution to Space Teapot, it always refer to chapter 109:

              Say, “O disbelievers, [1] I do not worship that which you worship, [2] nor do you worship the One whom I worship. [3] And neither I am going to worship that which you have worshipped, [4] nor will you worship the One whom I worship. [5] For you is your faith, and for me, my faith.” [6]

              Even it spoke about worshiping, Muslim extracted the foundation of the philosophy behind the verse. It can be explain philosophically as “You believe you ever you want to believe, I believe what ever I want to believe.”

              • “If you understand the idea of religion and god. Every religion claim they are the truth.”

                Yes, & following their lead just makes you exactly as correct as they are. So if their approach is wrong, then you are exactly as wrong.

                “Then someone claim that “God is not exist”. A similar method need to define this idea and must
                ALSO be consistent.”

                Nope. Firstly, the lack of good definition for the term is one reason why it is not believed. Secondly, the claims are not equivalent. The invisible teapot, incorporeal dragon, invisible pink unicorn, flying spaghetti monster, & more are a growing list of examples for how we can generate a pretty much limitless list of things that we can CLAIM are real, but the default state should always be skepticism. Why people can’t understand that & insist that their specific superstition is somehow special I don’t know. Also, they don’t have to compare between multiple examples because the point is about falsifiability, not creating specific analogies for every religion or world view in the world.

                “Even it spoke about worshiping, Muslim extracted the foundation of the philosophy behind the verse. It can be explain philosophically as “You believe you ever you want to believe, I believe what ever I want to believe.””

                That’s dandy, but it apparently doesn’t stop us from arguing about it.

                • Bower,

                  You answered : Nope.

                  What make Atheist so special that give them a special treatment. They claim something, but they can not prove it. You provide you own method, it not necessary you using the similar method as theist. Use your own. You claim it, you answered it.

                  Even, in this world, many believe in different god. It can be categories it as few main idea. Demi-god, human-god, stones-god, heavenly god.

                  In Christianity, Jesus are being claim as “demi-god” or “human-god”. Zeus or Egyptian’s pharaoh define himself as god therefore human-god. Stone is stone. This is the method, you define it in categories and explain it why it is wrong.

                  In the end, You like it or not, the only left is heavenly god.

                  “That’s dandy, but it apparently doesn’t stop us from arguing about it.”

                  Then, it also not stopping us to argue about it (Atheism) too.

                  • “What make Atheist so special that give them a special treatment.”

                    Your proposal is not fair. If taken to its logical conclusion, then we should all have to define every individual thing that we do or do not believe in & explain why it is or is not true. Not to mention that most of those definitions are inaccessible, because believers are not clear about what they mean. It would be akin to myself randomly claiming that I have super powers & expecting you to believe me because you can’t tell me what those specific powers are & why I can’t have them. But this is inane. As I already said, the default state is skepticism.

                    “In the end, You like it or not, the only left is heavenly god.”

                    2 can play that game: Like it or not, in the end, there is no God.

                    “Then, it also not stopping us to argue about it (Atheism) too.”

                    Isn’t this an atheist board? Doesn’t that mean that you came here to argue? And that I did not seek you out?

                  • you said: Your proposal is not fair.
                    I just proposed my idea, you don’t agree, then proposed a better method/solution.

                    You said :then we should all have to define every individual thing that we do or do not believe in & explain why it is or is not true.
                    Yes, based on the idea, you need to define every individual thing. In my religion, this idea are common. You claim something, you provide your evidence. For a public like us, we don’t have time to scrutinize everything. Therefore to simplified, it need to be categorized. This idea is common, it just like species’s categorization. we categorized animals into mammals, reptiles, etc.

                    Example: god, goddess or deities. If you not categorized it, how you going to define or explain?
                    When you claim “myself randomly claiming that I have super powers”. I automatically define you as human-god. Therefore you are just human who claim that you are god.

                    ““In the end, You like it or not, the only left is heavenly god.” 2 can play that game: Like it or not, in the end, there is no God. “Then, it also not stopping us to argue about it (Atheism) too.”

                    At least, we have narrow our decision making to 2 opt: “heavenly god” or “no god”.

                    “And that I did not seek you out?”
                    50% of atheist that I meet are annoying and don’t know what they talking about. Even you may not under that group. 2 of 8 of this blog’s author is lunatic.

                    • “I just proposed my idea, you don’t agree, then proposed a better method/solution.”

                      I did. Well, it was less of a proposition & more me telling you how it actually works. It is not the responsibility of the skeptic to help you formulate your hypothesis.

                      “This idea is common, it just like species’s categorization. we categorized animals into mammals, reptiles, etc.”

                      The problem with that analogy is that there is no convenient catch-all definition of “species,” which according to this argument, would imply that species are an unproven assertion. I considered saying this earlier, but I sort of assume that you don’t believe in evolution.

                      “I automatically define you as human-god. Therefore you are just human who claim that you are god.”

                      This would neither make sense nor disprove my assertion. If you are claiming that a “human-god” is something that does not exist, ignoring the fact that it’s unclear what qualifies someone, then this is no different than categorizing gods themselves as “those things that do not exist.”

                      “50% of atheist that I meet are annoying and don’t know what they talking about. Even you may not under that group. 2 of 8 of this blog’s author is lunatic.”

                      Even if true, I don’t know what that has to do with what I was saying, which was that this:

                      “Then, it also not stopping us to argue about it (Atheism) too.”

                      …sort of implies that this wasn’t what you were already doing when I stumbled upon this place.

                    • If you are claiming that a “human-god” is something that does not exist, ignoring the fact that it’s unclear what qualifies someone, then this is no different than categorizing gods themselves as “those things that do not exist.”

                      Ok, fair enough. Let assume, I take that as human-god exist, does he/she have a quality of god? Just take 1 common attribute all religion agree about God – The Most Intelligent. Those he/she fit those criteria?

                      Of course you can claim everything, but you can not define a criteria that making you as “god”? That why, method/criteria and result must be tally with each other.

                      From your answer, I believe you never have a chance to understand Islam’s Allah, Unitarian Christianity’s Father, Hindu’s Brahman.

                      In this idea, you categories it as “those things that do not exist.” and we categories it as “God that can be understand through His attribute only”. So here is the clash. All the argument should start here. This is the fundamental issue.

                      At least, we have narrow another fundamental issue with 2 concept.

                      “Then, it also not stopping us to argue about it (Atheism) too.”
                      “…sort of implies that this wasn’t what you were already doing when I stumbled upon this place.”

                      I doing this on leisure. Just observing and try to understand Atheist. If someone ask me, I answer it as what I know. If something I don’t understand, I questioned it. If something I feel it wrong, I try to explain it.

                      That it. Simple as that.

                    • “Ok, fair enough. Let assume, I take that as human-god exist, does he/she have a quality of god? Just take 1 common attribute all religion agree about God – The Most Intelligent. Those he/she fit those criteria?”

                      Pretty sure that not all religions agree on that. In a religion with many gods, some tend to be smarter than others. In those cases, “god” seems to mean a being with great supernatural powers. This cuts to the heart of the falsifiability complaint; the meaning of “god” seems to shift depending on the context.

                      “Of course you can claim everything, but you can not define a criteria that making you as “god”? That why, method/criteria and result must be tally with each other.”

                      I only hypothetically claimed that I have superpowers. You labeled that as being a god. And if I do in fact have superpowers, & that would make me a god, then I guess that would mean that I’m a god. Hypothetically.

                      “From your answer, I believe you never have a chance to understand Islam’s Allah, Unitarian Christianity’s Father, Hindu’s Brahman.”

                      What?

                      “In this idea, you categories it as “those things that do not exist.” and we categories it as “God that can be understand through His attribute only”. So here is the clash. All the argument should start here. This is the fundamental issue.”

                      I categorize the supernatural as non existent, because as indicated in the main post, something that does not function on the laws of nature essentially does not exist. I don’t know what you’re saying.

          • Let us at least keep the conversation honest; you do not know a med student or a doctor who either sleeps or plays games all day. Even if the ideas are simple to them, the sheer workload means that’s not true.

            Also, I want to rephrase the questions for you. Does the following claim make sense to you: “I don’t understand science but I know it’s wrong”?
            How about: “I don’t understand science, but I know other people are wrong about it”?

            If they do make sense, what method are you using to establish something as “wrong”?

            • Actually, there are a people who have that capabilities. They just attend the lecture and read few book and can explain like a lecturer. It was a rare talent but it exist. During my pre-U, this rare people commonly get highest scholarship such Shell, Intel or local top company and attend top rank university. Half of my batch attend engineering and med school. Of course, the “common” are need to study hard.

              I believe this issue are easy to observe if you attend a good school. You will meet a lot of different people with wide, different thought.

              You said :”I don’t understand science but I know it’s wrong”
              Can 2 person who don’t understand knowledge (science), understand each other? It was obvious can not.

              I rephrase a question for you: I understand science but I know it’s wrong.
              When someone who understand science and know it’s wrong. They will try to explain in simple word and let the audience understand the issue.

              When dealing with this issue, we must look at the method that the proposal proposed or establish. From the same method, the counter-argument are being used. If the result and method and contradicted, therefore it was wrong (either method or result).

              In certain issue, both method and idea are making sense. At that time, we need to agree that both of idea are correct.

            • Allallt,

              “you do not know a med student or a doctor who either sleeps or plays games all day.”

              I re-read the quote, and I realize that in my language, people tend to say “you play all day long” it not necessary you are playing or sleep 24 hours/7 day non-stop.
              (I believe you understand that I am saying someone taking their nap and play games all day long 24hr/7 day non-stop)

              It just mean when the time you are suppose to study, you are still taking time to play or sleep and yet succeed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,045 other followers

%d bloggers like this: