Originally posted by lausey
It is a fictional character, a small fairy that flies around. Maybe use a unicorn as an example instead, or anything fictional that has quite a specific definition (more specific than God).

Oh, the little flying girl? Yes, now I know! I've seen the movie and I loved it!

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Science does not say there's no God. You're throwing out a Strawman.

There is simply no evidence that there is a God. If he exists, he's hiding (unless he sends telepathic messages to individual people somehow and we can't detect it).

Everything is evidence, you just may not feel it applies.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Everything is evidence, you just may not feel it applies.
Kelly

Nothing in religion is scientific evident. You cannot mix religion and science.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Everything is evidence, you just may not feel it applies.
Kelly

It's not scientific evidence - or if you like, it's not evidence that would support a scientific explanation.
It'd be like me saying, 'look, here's a hamburger, therefore the sky is blue.' It's clearly meaningless, from a scientific perspective. I'm going to need something a little bit closer to the sky if I'm to understand why it appears blue.
Of course, I understand the perspective of the religious believer - the beauty and magesty of the universe clearly is a sign (ie. evidence) that god exists. It just doesn't cut it for science.

Originally posted by amannion
It's not scientific evidence - or if you like, it's not evidence that would support a scientific explanation.
It'd be like me saying, 'look, here's a hamburger, therefore the sky is blue.' It's clearly meaningless, from a scientific perspective. I'm going to need something a little bit closer to the sky if I'm to understand why it appears blue.
Of course, ...[text shortened]... clearly is a sign (ie. evidence) that god exists. It just doesn't cut it for science.

If KellyJay sees it as obvious to prove the existance of god by just look at the beauty of the nature, then he must realize that this proof holds for any religion, even for an hindu. Does, by this, KJ prove that the Hindu religion is the True Religion? Is KJ an Hindu himself?

Originally posted by lausey
B. Proving that God doesn't exist will definitely require looking everywhere (the whole universe and possibly infinite multiverses) to confirm that he doesn't exist.

That is only true if God (or Tinkerbell) is so loosely defined as to be virtually meaningless.
Its equivalent to saying:
"B. Proving some unknown undefined object doesn't exist will definitely require looking everywhere (the whole universe and possibly infinite multiverses) to confirm that it doesn't exist."

However, nobody is interested in unknown undefined objects. Most theists have several property that they can specify about God, and that is frequently enough to show either a contradiction between those properties, or a contradiction between one or more of those properties and evidence about reality. Either way, it may constitute proof that such a God doesn't exist.

For example, I can prove that I don't have invisible pink unicorns hiding in my fridge by several methods:
1. If something is invisible, it cannot be pink (internal contradiction).
2. If something is a unicorn, it is bigger than the inside of my fridge. (logical contradiction).
3. My fridge is full of food, there couldn't be anything else in it (contradiction to physical evidence).
Now obviously you can play the old game of "I didn't mean 'pink' I meant something else", but you can go only so far with that game before you admit that what you claimed exists is totally undefined.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is only true if God (or Tinkerbell) is so loosely defined as to be virtually meaningless.
Its equivalent to saying:
"B. Proving some unknown undefined object doesn't exist will definitely require looking everywhere (the whole universe and possibly infinite multiverses) to confirm that it doesn't exist."

However, nobody is interested in unknown u ...[text shortened]... r with that game before you admit that what you claimed exists is totally undefined.

or simply defined poorly in the first place. maybe it isn't pink all the time, only when it goes to feed on rainbows. maybe the chosen few that can see it will perceive it as pink. maybe it is immaterial and simply chooses to live inside that fridge but its immaterial tail constantly sticks out of the door(still invisible though). maybe it doesn't live in the fridge.

it would be similar to some people saying the earth is flat and the sun and the moon is revolving around it. then someone else says, no, that's wrong, the earth is round but still fixed in one place.

the definition of god eludes us. and frankly, why wouldn't it? it is a god, and we use faith to define it. as such, it would be loosely formed, will differ from individual to individual but that is not important.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is only true if God (or Tinkerbell) is so loosely defined as to be virtually meaningless.
Its equivalent to saying:
"B. Proving some unknown undefined object doesn't exist will definitely require looking everywhere (the whole universe and possibly infinite multiverses) to confirm that it doesn't exist."

However, nobody is interested in unknown u ...[text shortened]... r with that game before you admit that what you claimed exists is totally undefined.

Good point, and I hadn't even thought of it that way. You can only define something that has been discovered and analysed. It doesn't work the other way around. That being make up something, provide definitions, then ask the question, "Does this thing which I have just 'defined' exist?"

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
or simply defined poorly in the first place. maybe it isn't pink all the time, only when it goes to feed on rainbows. maybe the chosen few that can see it will perceive it as pink. maybe it is immaterial and simply chooses to live inside that fridge but its immaterial tail constantly sticks out of the door(still invisible though). maybe it doesn't live in t ...[text shortened]... ould be loosely formed, will differ from individual to individual but that is not important.

This is what sceptics have a problem with. The fact of relying on faith to define something. A definition has to be precise to have any weight. To be "loosely formed" and "differ from individual to individual" will mean it isn't really defined.

Originally posted by lausey
This is what sceptics have a problem with. The fact of relying on faith to define something. A definition has to be precise to have any weight. To be "loosely formed" and "differ from individual to individual" will mean it isn't really defined.

Don't forget the contribution of alchemy to science, though. Searching for a chimera, some of those alchemists struck real gold ... By the same token, if the Higgs boson turns out spurious, the hadron collider will nonetheless have occasioned some valuable discoveries -- provided it doesn't keep being sabotaged from the future ...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Don't forget the contribution of alchemy to science, though. Searching for a chimera, some of those alchemists struck real gold ... By the same token, if the Higgs boson turns out spurious, the hadron collider will nonetheless have occasioned some valuable discoveries -- provided it doesn't keep being sabotaged from the future ...

Fair point, but would you say that something that is conjectured is really defined?

It is only after the discoveries you can put a precise definition to it. Up until then, it is just wishy washy ideas.

The Higgs Boson is put in place as an idea because of previous discoveries in quantum theory, a possible missing link. Only when (or if) it gets discovered, it can be precisely defined and established that what they were looking for is correct.

Originally posted by lausey
This is what sceptics have a problem with. The fact of relying on faith to define something. A definition has to be precise to have any weight. To be "loosely formed" and "differ from individual to individual" will mean it isn't really defined.

a but i don't need a properly defined god. a god that loves me and is supposedly benevolent is enough. no need to get into the specifics. when it comes to science i however i get demanding. nobody would want an improperly defined LHC or airplane.

Originally posted by lausey
Fair point, but would you say that something that is conjectured is really defined?

It is only after the discoveries you can put a precise definition to it. Up until then, it is just wishy washy ideas.

The Higgs Boson is put in place as an idea because of previous discoveries in quantum theory, a possible missing link. Only when (or if) it gets discovered, it can be precisely defined and established that what they were looking for is correct.

Agreed. But the wishy-washy ideas stimulate discovery. Things are never as tidy as one would wish.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Agreed. But the wishy-washy ideas stimulate discovery. Things are never as tidy as one would wish.

Sure, but is it science? The scientific method is just a very good way to gather knowledge but it's not the only one.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
a god that loves me and is supposedly benevolent is enough. no need to get into the specifics.

My mother is a god.