1. Standard memberspiritmangr8ness
    Doh!!! Or--Are--I
    Springfield, USA
    Joined
    22 Jun '06
    Moves
    5936
    27 Jul '06 13:46
    What?😠
  2. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    27 Jul '06 14:00
    Originally posted by spiritmangr8ness
    What?😠
    I don't know anyone that would make a claim like that.
  3. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    27 Jul '06 14:06
    Originally posted by Starrman
    I don't know anyone that would make a claim like that.
    Absence of evidence is the only evidence of absence.
  4. The sky
    Joined
    05 Apr '05
    Moves
    10385
    27 Jul '06 14:09
    My evidence says "What?", too.
  5. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    27 Jul '06 14:09
    How about; 'There is absolutly no evidence of the supernatural of any kind, and if the supernatural existed you would expect evidence to abound, thus god is almost certainly a fictional creation of the human mind' ?
  6. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    27 Jul '06 14:131 edit
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Absence of evidence is the only evidence of absence.
    would evidence that something else happend/existed (where the two are mutually exclusive) be evidence of absence. for example, the world works on rules which we can determine which explain how everything works thus leaving no room for god?
  7. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    27 Jul '06 14:17
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    would evidence that something else happend/existed (where the two are mutually exclusive) be evidence of absence. for example, the world works on rules which we can determine which explain how everything works thus leaving no room for god?
    I'd say one cannot prove with certainty the whole system from within it therefore one should search for evidence, not proof.
  8. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    27 Jul '06 14:21
    where in my sentence did I use the word proof?
    And why don't you think you can determine everything about the universe from inside it?
  9. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    27 Jul '06 14:24
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    where in my sentence did I use the word proof?
    And why don't you think you can determine everything about the universe from inside it?
    Simply because one cannot account for ALL particles and ALL relations between them. Therefore, induction is possible but not deduction.

    I thought "leaving no room for God" meant proving he didn't exist... If not, please explain how it isn't.
  10. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    27 Jul '06 14:341 edit
    Originally posted by Palynka
    I thought "leaving no room for God" meant proving he didn't exist... If not, please explain how it isn't.
    If you could explain all phenomena one encounters by applying physics, chemistry and biology and any other physical science being applications of physics, and if you could explain using the 'laws' of physics to explain where everything came to be (by natural causes), then where does that leave god? All phenomena we encounter occur naturally and predictably, and our existence can be explained without a creator then god does not run the universe (does not control or influence it) and god did not create the universe, then what is left? That is what I mean when I say there is no room for god (and is incidentally why evolution is so disliked by religion, It removes god from the day to day running of the world, so if evolution is true, why worship a god that at best simply started the whole thing off then wandered off to have a 13 billion year smoke. there is just no room for god in modern science (the few places where people try to fit god just keep vanishing as we explain them naturally)).
  11. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    27 Jul '06 14:371 edit
    Originally posted by Palynka
    [b]Simply because one cannot account for ALL particles and ALL relations between them. Therefore, induction is possible but not deduction.
    [b]
    not nesercerily agreeing with your conclusion but how would that be different if you were 'outside'the universe? which incidentaly is cotradictory since universe means everything, thus there can be no outside.
  12. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    27 Jul '06 14:46
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    if you could explain all phenomena one encounters by applying physics, chemistry and biology and any other physical science being aplications of physics, and if you could explain using the 'laws' of physics to explain where everything came to be (by natural causes), then where does that leave god? all phenomena we encounter occur naturaly and predictably ...[text shortened]... e (the few places where people try to fit god just keep vaniching as we explain them naturaly)
    I never said otherwise, but you are talking about induction, not deduction.

    All natural sciences are ultimately inductive. Put in a simple way, most of the processes of deduction are during scientific experiments and applied to samples. The need to extrapolate the results to the universe outside the sample is inductive, the assumption that it has worked that way so it will continue to do so. The evidence collected afterwards that things indeed seem to function in a certain way does not constitute proof, only further evidence.

    This is exactly why I think science is needed. Proof is hard to get and usually impossible if the universe (in statistical terms) is large enough. So we need an efficient way to collect evidence and induce useful conclusions about our universe.

    So yes, I think there will always be "room" for God, but the more (absence of) evidence we collect, the smaller the "room" would become. I'm an atheist because I feel that "room" is already small enough.
  13. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    27 Jul '06 14:48
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    not nesercerily agreeing with your conclusion but how would that be different if you were 'outside'the universe? which incidentaly is cotradictory since universe means everything, thus there can be no outside.
    From inside our universe there aren't enough particles to allow accounting for all particles in our universe.
  14. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    27 Jul '06 16:33
    Originally posted by Palynka
    I never said otherwise, but you are talking about induction, not deduction.

    All natural sciences are ultimately inductive. Put in a simple way, most of the processes of deduction are during scientific experiments and applied to samples. The need to extrapolate the results to the universe outside the sample is inductive, the assumption that it has worked t ...[text shortened]... e "room" would become. I'm an atheist because I feel that "room" is already small enough.
    I disagree with that analysis of science but concentrating on the 'room for god' aspect, you don't need to prove there is no god, for every point/particle in the universe. You only need (for the moment) that there is no god controlling the earth and surrounding solar system. Other things like proof that all of our experiences/feelings and thoughts are explained by the physical properties of the brain and that there is no 'soul' or 'spirit' would also remove all point in the belief in god. These should both be possible in the future (both theoretically and practically).
    We have already gone way past the point at which you say, it is beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no supernatural being guiding or influencing events on earth and there is considerable (though not 100% proof positive) that all of our thoughts can be explained solely physically and so whatever gap in physics that people try to fit god into to fit with this leaves god being a fairly pointless and pathetic being.
  15. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    27 Jul '06 16:36
    Originally posted by Palynka
    From inside our universe there aren't enough particles to allow accounting for all particles in our universe.
    However you are still left with the logical fallacy that by definition there can be no outside.
    Incidentally the Auditors from the discworld spring to mind at this point.
Back to Top