Religion turns some people into better people, but mostly not according to my own observations. Most of the trolls and truly horrible people who have spent time here have been deeply religious.
So you are saying that its highly illogical and unbelievable that there is a higher power, Creator of all seen and unseen.
Of course there's a higher power, but you're thinking too small. God's just a sadistic mid-level manager with insufficient oversight who's gotten out of hand. Wars and earthquakes and hurricanes and Down's syndrome and cancer and Alzheimers and MS and Parkinson's and ebola and Tom Cruise and on and on, and he wants you to worship him for this? He's obviously on a power trip. And you pray to this guy? How's that working for you?
There were words and sentences, but you didn't really say anything, and you didn't answer the question. Let's say you're on a committee putting together a list of unevidenced things to consider. What are your criteria?
Let's say you're on a committee putting together a list of unevidenced things to consider. What are your criteria?
Geez, Phat, forget the committee. Let's say it's just you. You're deciding what items to put a list of list of unevidenced things to consider. What are your criteria for inclusion on this list?
You are hopeless. I didn't ask what you'd put on the list. I asked what your criteria would be, since it can't be evidence since you yourself referred to them as unevidenced.
I'm afraid it is about proof. The statement, "I know that God does not exist" carries with it the burden of proof. If I declared, "I know that Santa Claus does not exist", I would then be expected to prove that Santa does not exist ... otherwise I would rightly be viewed as a bs-artist.
There's this thread's title, "I know that God does not exist," and you've added the example, "I know Santa Claus does not exist." Someone might responds, "Oh yeah? Well prove it!"
What happens next is not a proof. Proofs are the realm of the mathematical. Generally when people use words like "know" or "proof" they're not using them in any strict absolutist sense. You hear the word "prove" a lot in casual conversation, and it is very rare that it is used in the sense of establishing truth through evidence or argument. They just mean they've got good reasons or evidence for what they're saying. The word "prove" has no place at all in science. If "truth" is recognized as timeless then science can never prove the truth of anything.
Concerning the word "know", often when people use it they only mean they're cognizant or aware or have information, as in the casual, "I know how to drive." Certainly there are other times when they might use the word in the sense that you're using it, that they have knowledge of a fact or truth, like, "I know Trump won the 2016 election." But you're insisting that every time anyone here uses the word know that they must be using that second definition, and that's simply untrue. And of course there's a spectrum of meaning governed by context.
I made no comment either way, but since you raise the issue, if we were to enumerate the good things that could happen to us versus the bad, which would be the longer list? We can actually do that. In no particular order I've listed the bad things in column 1 and the good things in column 2:
Love Sex Fresh sheets A crackling fire Beautiful view Good accomplishments Music Snuggling Refreshing sleep Sports Dancing Friends Good food Loving pets Smell of fresh cut grass Sunrises and sunsets Peaceful rainfalls Rainbows Humor Comeraderie Good deeds Nostalgia Ocean waves on the shore Night sky Full moon Flowers Children Leaf piles Holidays Parties Smell of freshly baked bread
What do you think? If you think of things to add to the good side just let me know.
Which part of "I know that God does not exist" is about science?
Since science is tentative, any definitive statements about the existence/nonexistence of anything are unscientific.
Really? So science can't prove that Tiger Woods can hit a golf ball further than me?
On something like this science could only express a confidence level. It would likely say that given that both you and Tiger are healthy that our confidence that Tiger Woods would hit a golf ball further than you is very, very high, 99.9% with some more nine's after that, but the confidence level would never reach 100%. But what if the question were, "You and Tiger Woods will hit one golf ball off the men's tee at the first hole at Pebble Beach. Who will hit the ball further?" Everyone would answer Tiger Woods, right? But what if the date were February 24, 2021, the day after Tiger's car accident. The correct answer would be you.
You can refine the question, but the confidence level can still only approach 100%, never reach it.
Science can't prove that water boils at about 100^C under standard pressure at sea level?
No. It can only provide a confidence level, which would be very high.
Science can't prove that DNA produces mutations?
That's an odd way of saying it, but yes, DNA experiences mutations, usually during cell division. A great deal of evidence supports this, but our confidence only approaches and never reaches 100%.
I think you meant to say, "A scientific theory is never about proof."
Again, an odd way of saying it, but better might be to say that nothing in science is about proof.
I can't prove it ... any more than science can prove that the process described by ToE produced the fossil record.
You left the smilie off my quote. I put it back because it indicates irony. Of course you can't prove it.
What you can do is exactly the same as what science does for things it studies. You can supply ever increasing amounts of reliable evidence for your miracles that bolster our confidence that they were real events. You need the evidence in order to differentiate yourself from those who claim to have experienced miracles but are lying or were fooled or misinterpreted events.
So science can't prove that a change in the DNA sequence of an organism results in a mutation?
You're told by multiple people multiple times that science doesn't prove anything, has never in its entire history proved anything, and yet you say this. I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps attempting to discuss things with you isn't really possible and that in reality it truly is the case that you're an idiot, or maybe just that:
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Make quote more complete so that context is clear.
Whether he "needs" it or not, the evidence is there. Whether he sees it or not, the evidence is there.
I dunno about this rabbit trail. Are you extrapolating that Evidence would "exist" even without humans? (Or Monkeys)
Evidence has no special quality regarding existence. It's just matter like all other matter consisting of atoms bound into molecules and gathered into a specific shape, like a fossil. Before some paleontologist digs the fossil out of the ground the fossil still exists, even though it's never been in the presence of humans.
So of course evidence exists without humans. How could it not? More specifically to what ringo was saying, humans can ignore evidence if they so choose, but that doesn't make it disappear.
Based on that logic, we could say "In The Beginning, Evidence."
You could even say, "Everywhere throughout all time, evidence."
I remember one time when you thought it plausible that "In The Beginning, Chemicals."
I assume ringo was referring to the Earth, in which case this is absolutely right. If he was instead referring to the universe then it isn't yet settled science about what was present in the beginning.
You need to find some way to recognize when you're thinking clearly. This is all just common sense. They're not deep philosophical questions like, "Why something instead of nothing?"
™ Version 4.2
(1)