flying spaghetti monster flap in kansas

No offence intended, GDR, but when you look at that statement from a logical point of view, it makes no sense. Logically there can be no evidence of the absence of anything.This morning, a flying saucer did not land in my backyard. I know this, because I was there all morning. But my neighbour, who was out all day, is not so sure. "There's no evidence that supports that a flying saucer did not land in your backyard this morning", he keeps telling me.Otherwise, he's a percfectly normal chap, my neighbour.(To be honest, I just made it up, what he said, for the sake of argument.)Let me make it obvious by replacing 'intelligence' in your original statement with erm... well, with the IPU, why not. As mythical creatures go, the IPU is as good as any.So, we get: "there is no evidence that supports the notion that there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn behind our existence." If it sounds just a tiny bit strange to you, then perhaps you'll understand why I find the original a bit strange too. That's because it's just not logical. That's because you look at it from a designer's point of view. If you were a sloth, you'd think the ground was the sky.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 05-May-2006 07:37 PM

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Hmmm...Let me get back to you on that.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 05-May-2006 08:03 PM

The problem is that, in principle, I can never definitely prove the non-existence of anything. Logic doesn't allow it. On the other hand, again in principle, you might be able to prove the existence of the metaphysical. Science perhaps precludes it, but logic does not. If it exists, logic permits its provability. Then I'd love to hear that reasoning of yours, because then I'd only need to replace the variables in your reasoning with something else, to arrive at the same conclusion about your belief. Silly? How? Could you please explain that?This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 05-May-2006 08:59 PM

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I should have said of course that there can be no evidence that something does not exist. I mistakenly equivocated 'absence' with 'non-existence'.

I take it that by "either conclusion", you mean the conclusions "the metaphysical exists" and "the metaphysical does not exist".Well, if you have no way of scientifically testing the metaphysical, then neither of those conclusions is logical. The only valid logical conclusion would be: "the existence of the metaphysical is uncertain". The pragmatical consequence would be: "there's no reason to assume the existence of the metaphysical".But that's just nitpicking on my part. But I never suggested that. The reasoning was about there being no evidence supporting the notion that there is no intelligence behind our existence. You implied that this warranted the possibility of said intelligence. I merely pointed out that if that's true, then it also warrants the possibility of the IPU. The reasoning for both is equivalent. So, the conclusion must be that if you find the reasoning for the IPU silly, then you must find the same reasoning for intelligence equally silly.This has nothing to do with the understandable urge, after seeing so much complex design in nature, to conclude an intelligent designer. It's all about a logical fallacy.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

The problem is not about proving that there is no milk in my fridge, it is about proving that there exists no milk at all, anywhere.I can vaporize my fridge wholesale and analyse the vapor using gas chromatography. If I find no traces of the atoms that make up milk, then I conclude there was no milk in my fridge. In principle, I can prove it.I cannot logically prove that milk does not exist at all.The impracticability is also a factor: I cannot vaporise the universe. And even if I could, I'd have vaporised the gas chromatography equipment as well. Not to mention myself.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Yes, I do, and yes, there are. And what a happy circumstance it is that these sediments are evidently congealed pasta sauce, and those fossils the former ingredients of a great marinara. If anything, it keeps this thread on topic.Faith, there is as much evidence for what I shall call the Theory of Marinara as there is for the Flood.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Hey, there are fossils of mussels, of clams, of shrimps even, and, wait for it, of tomatoes and basil! OK, there are lots of other fossils too. So it was a very rich marinara. Who cares?But seriously, you are correct in saying the layers are not layers of marinara. We know this because if they were, we would expect certain ... things, that are consistent with the Theory of Marinara. Things like... o, I don't know. I'm no expert, I just eat the stuff, and love it. But you get my drift.If the Flood had happened, we'd expect to find certain things that are consistent with the flood, things like a great jumble of fossils, instead of a neat top to bottom ordering of species. Just, you know, dinosaurs on top of humanoid remains, that sort of thing. And the trouble is: we don't find such evidence. So the Flood is an unlikely scenario. Just as unlikely as the Theory of Marinara. However sumptuous the latter may be.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.