Originally Posted by DarkHorsePyro

Yet the constellations have stayed the exact same for around 3,000 years.

Are the constellations permanent?

Ancient astronomers often spoke of the "fixed stars," which maintained permanent positions in the sky. And, indeed, the stars do seem almost fixed in place; the patterns they form look much the same today as they did when the constellations were first named nearly 3000 years ago. But the stars are all moving relative to the Sun, most with speeds of many kilometers per second. Because they are so very far away, it will take thousands of lifetimes to see significant changes in the star patterns. But, over time, they will change. Because of the motions of the stars within it, for example, the handle of the Big Dipper will, in about 50,000 years, appear significantly more bent than it is today (see figure at left). We will, no doubt, keep the same names for the constellations, even if the stars change their positions. Constellations are, after all, products of human imagination, not nature.

Originally Posted by Veoo

No matter how much science we discover or technology we create, it doesn't actually change anything. The science was happening even if we didn't know how or where, and advances everywhere won't spand past 1-2 billion year which is a blink of an eye in the the infinity that is time. So why do we live on if all to disappear? Why do we care? This question seems to often be shunned as depressing or stupid, but what is your answer?

Originally Posted by Skizzify

This is one of those conversations that really have no answer.
We aren't sure of anything.
The only thing we can do is sit there and wonder, "Does life have a meaning?"
If you're religious, yes we do. But if you're not, what is the answer? There is no definite answer.

Originally Posted by Fear

In the end the only logical response is to be truly agnostic.

Originally Posted by GnilRettemHC

Agnostic isn't logical though.

Basic logic dictates that in the absence of evidence disbelief should be maintained. Implicit in the agnostic's chain of thought is the assertion that God exists.

'There is no proof of God, so there is no God.'
not
'There is no proof of God, so nothing is known or can be known about God'

It's a cute middle ground position (if the middle ground between affirmative and negative is ignorance), but there is absolutely no logic behind it.

Originally Posted by GnilRettemHC

Agnostic isn't logical though.

Basic logic dictates that in the absence of evidence disbelief should be maintained. Implicit in the agnostic's chain of thought is the assertion that God exists.

'There is no proof of God, so there is no God.'
not
'There is no proof of God, so nothing is known or can be known about God'

It's a cute middle ground position (if the middle ground between affirmative and negative is ignorance), but there is absolutely no logic behind it.

Originally Posted by Redundant

There is nothing logical in your statement and your example is anything but logical. If the negative turns out to be incorrect it was incorrect even when you made the statement, with or without evidence. A logical mind would see that and assume a less absolute position or make the choice to use faith instead of logic. I see nothing interesting and productive you can do with the position "There is no god" as opposed to "I have no idea if there is a god".

In the end it is a choice you can make. Either position can barely be used for anything other than to talk about your position and to try and convert others to it, I guess.

It's pretty useless and you would be better off studying Wittgenstein and understanding that the whole discussion is stupid as fuck.

Originally Posted by Gambi321

"There is no proof of god, so there might and might not be a god"
not
"There is no proof of god, so there is no god"

Because your statement made even less sense than the one that you corrected.

Originally Posted by GnilRettemHC

"I have no idea if there is a god" is functionally equivalent to "there is no god", not "it is impossible to know anything about god". You aren't disagreeing with this assessment, you are disagreeing with the strength of conviction. Just because the current evidence shows a negative or positive, doesn't mean the position can't be changed in the future. The position of "there is no god" would change to "there may be a god" if we got some plausible evidence, and if we obtained definitive evidence it would change to "there is a god". This is not a problem with negative being the default position for anything without evidence, it's a problem of conviction. No one is taking an absolute position, but in the absence of evidence negative is appropriate.