Fed up of non believers

[janie48]

I think most scientists would say that there are no limits to what can be discovered. Such is the beauty of Science!

Well perhaps you think science will explain everything eventually, I don't, but that doesn't mean I don't welcome its pursuit of knowledge because I think humans are meant to question, explore and develop, as long as in the process of doing so in great depth, we don't miss the obvious.

[WeX]

They're not the same thing, as the definition shows.

 

 

proof (pruːf Pronunciation for proof )

 

noun

 

• any evidence that establishes or helps to establish the truth, validity, quality, etc, of something.
  

 

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/proof

 

Therefore the word "proof" and the word "evidence" are interchangeable as they are being used to mean the same thing in accordance to the Collins Dictionary definition.

 

Arguing the toss over the definition of a word in direct opposition of the Dictionary, is pretty silly.

Edited February 24, 2014 by WeX

[janie48]

It proves it's there.

Yes but it doesn't show us how it got there.

[milquetoast1]

Can I just say, I think we have lost the spiritual dimension in our society, and are all the poorer for it.

 

How are we all the poorer for it? Can you elaborate?

 

Murder rates are falling, crime is falling, even the divorce rate is falling.

 

Research suggests that we are getting nicer.

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201302/are-we-becoming-nicer

 

In addition most wars seem to have a "spiritual dimension".

 

In my opinion it's an essential part of what makes a human being, human

 

That's just the sort of dehumanising thing people say when they want to create hatred of others, because they don't share the same "spiritual dimension".

[redwhine]

because that is likely to happen?

 

Ask William Tyndale...

 

He was tried on a charge of heresy in 1536 and condemned to be burned to death, despite Thomas Cromwell's intercession on his behalf. Tyndale "was strangled to death while tied at the stake, and then his dead body was burned".[27] (The strangulation was not fully effective and Tyndale partially revived, it was reported that he was aware of being burned but died in a quiet, stoical manner). Reportedly, his final words, spoken "at the stake with a fervent zeal, and a loud voice", were reported as "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale

 

Oh, but you can't, of course.

[WeX]

Yes but it doesn't show us how it got there.

 

You seem to keep changing the question.

 

To answer this question, correct, the existence of the Higgs partial does not show us how to find it, that is true, in the same sense the number 4 does not show us that "2+2=4", but to find "4" we have to find a method. The same is said for the Higgs participial. The researchers needed to create a method to prove its existence, queue the large hadron collider. So we now have the two parts, which means we can reproduce the findings, thus we have irrefutable evidence the Higgs Boson exists. Unlike "God" for which there is no evidence and there is no method to prove its existence, therefore the only scientific conclusion you can make is God does not exist.

[Manlinose]

Ask William Tyndale...

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale

 

Oh, but you can't, of course.

 

no because i live in the 21st century - quite a few things have changed since mr tyndale lived and died

 

---------- Post added 24-02-2014 at 15:50 ----------

 

Unlike "God" for which there is no evidence and there is no method to prove its existence, therefore the only scientific conclusion you can make is God does not exist.

 

i don't disagree with the first part of the statement, and, not having a scientific gene in my body, i won't argue with the second part, but, as a genuine question, is that really how scientific conclusions are drawn? (and i accept you were being colloquial)

 

there is no evidence and no method to prove existence so it does not exist?

 

no acceptance that it may simply be that we haven't yet found a method of proving existence?

 

as an example, presumably the higgs boson has been around for a lot longer than the last couple of years - it is only recently that it has been discovered/proven (or whatever word you want to use)

 

so isn't it correct to say, by extension, that other as yet unproven things may exist, we just haven't yet found a method to prove it?

 

i don't believe in god, have no interest in religion and no understanding of science, so i'm not overly bothered either way - just curious

Edited February 24, 2014 by Manlinose

[dosxuk]

i don't disagree with the first part of the statement, and, not having a scientific gene in my body, i won't argue with the second part, but, as a genuine question, is that really how scientific conclusions are drawn? (and i accept you were being colloquial)

 

there is no evidence and no method to prove existence so it does not exist?

 

no acceptance that it may simply be that we haven't yet found a method of proving existence?

 

as an example, presumably the higgs boson has been around for a lot longer than the last couple of years - it is only recently that it has been discovered/proven (or whatever word you want to use)

 

so isn't it correct to say, by extension, that other as yet unproven things may exist, we just haven't yet found a method to prove it?

 

i don't believe in god, have no interest in religion and no understanding of science, so i'm not overly bothered either way - just curious

 

The difference is that we had evidence of the existence of the Higgs Boson, but we couldn't prove that existence. The proof was developed from a theory which was generated to explain that evidence.

 

As it stands, there is no evidence to support the existence of a God, or a theory on which to base a proof of its existence.

[barleycorn]

i don't disagree with the first part of the statement, and, not having a scientific gene in my body, i won't argue with the second part, but, as a genuine question, is that really how scientific conclusions are drawn? (and i accept you were being colloquial)

Typical method would be to develop an hypothesis to explain a phenomena and then try to prove that hypothesis wrong. Each time you fail to prove it wrong the hypothesis gets stronger until it becomes a theory. A theory is simply a hypothesis with lots of supporting evidence, if at some point it is shown to be wrong then you have to dump the theory altogether and come up with a new one which not only explains everything the old one did but also the stuff which proved the old one wrong.

The problem with God is that there is no hypothesis to disprove, ergo nothing to test.

... as an example, presumably the higgs boson has been around for a lot longer than the last couple of years - it is only recently that it has been discovered/proven (or whatever word you want to use)

A elementary particle with various properties was theorized to exist which was required to make the Standard Model in particle physics work. A particle with the properties to match was then found by CERN. The problem with God is even if you found it how would you know, how would you recognise it?

so isn't it correct to say, by extension, that other as yet unproven things may exist, we just haven't yet found a method to prove it?

They may but it is pointless to say that this thing of whose properties we know nothing may exist because you wouldn't know it when you found it... how could you because you would have no way of relating this thing you have found with the thing you were supposedly looking for.

 

jb

[janie48]

 

therefore the only scientific conclusion you can make is God does not exist.

Oh really. Well there is absolutely no scientific evidence to prove that, in fact it could only take a leap of faith to believe so.

And then we hear atheists say atheism isn't a BELIEF!

That's highly questionable in your case.

Edited February 24, 2014 by janie48