Fed up of non believers

[dosxuk]

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.

 

A statement of "there is no evidence to support that proposition" is completely different to a statement of "I don't believe that proposition is true".

 

There is no scientific evidence to support the existence of a God, so the only scientific view you could take is that they don't exist. Provided you're willing to re-examine that view if evidence does come to light, then no faith or belief is involved.

[Manlinose]

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

with the exception of the first sentence in the middle paragraph i think i understood most of that, thank you

 

all i can say is, he wouldn't be much of a god if he wasn't recognisable when he was found

 

presumably though, sometimes it works the other way - whilst looking for evidence of something, do scientists find the existence of something else?

[janie48]

A statement of "there is no evidence to support that proposition" is completely different to a statement of "I don't believe that proposition is true".

 

There is no scientific evidence to support the existence of a God, so the only scientific view you could take is that they don't exist. Provided you're willing to re-examine that view if evidence does come to light, then no faith or belief is involved.

What science proves is that there is intelligent design in the creation of the world, it doesn't offer evidence of how the design was created.

I maintain it requires an act of faith to believe that the existence of creation came from nothing.

[dosxuk]

What science proves is that there is intelligent design in the creation of the world, it doesn't offer evidence of how the design was created.

 

I've never seen any proof of intelligent design in the creation of the world, let alone scientific proof - would you like to provide a link to a source?

 

I maintain it requires an act of faith to believe that the existence of creation came from nothing.

 

No it doesn't. You don't need to believe that existence of creation came from nothing to state that there is no evidence to support the existence of God. One is a fact, the other is a opinion.

 

Again "there is no evidence to support the existence of a God" is not the same as "I believe there is no God".

[SnailyBoy]

What science proves is that there is intelligent design in the creation of the world, it doesn't offer evidence of how the design was created.

I maintain it requires an act of faith to believe that the existence of creation came from nothing.

 

Are you serious, science proves Intelligent Design?

 

The overwhelming evidence for life of earth is evolution. Abiogenesis is another thing entirely, but to fill that gap with a 'creator' is bizarre.

[Dromedary]

 

presumably though, sometimes it works the other way - whilst looking for evidence of something, do scientists find the existence of something else?

 

Yes it happens and I think its called serendipity but its not necessarily only done by scientists.

 

---------- Post added 24-02-2014 at 17:41 ----------

 

What science proves is that there is intelligent design in the creation of the world, it doesn't offer evidence of how the design was created.

 

The trouble there is It the leave on big unanswerable question; Who created the being that was the designer?

[discodown]

What science proves is that there is intelligent design in the creation of the world, it doesn't offer evidence of how the design was created.

It absolutely doesn't

I maintain it requires an act of faith to believe that the existence of creation came from nothing.

You can maintain that if you like but you're wrong. I'm an atheist and I can tell you it doesn't take any faith to believe that creation came from nothing. I just don't believe that anything created it.

 

Sorry to burst your little generalisation about atheists

[ivanava]

But the universe isn't infinite.

 

Its very unlikely that we will ever be in a position to prove it one way or the other. But assuming it isn't infinite, the outer edge of it should contain matter, this matter may have formed stars and possibly planets, on one of these planets there could well be intelligent life, they might have built a space ship. Now suppose they aim there ship at the outer edge of the universe, will they hit an impenetrable barrier, or will they simply cease to exist if they pass the out edge and what is it expanding into.

[Ghozer]

i'm not a believer, I'm very open minded..

 

I want there to be something, I believe there is something, but not what we would traditionally call a "ghost" - more-of something else, what it is I don't know, and it's that which interests me.

[RootsBooster]

 

 

 

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.

 

The dictionary isn't wrong, you just misunderstand it.

They are not interchangable and the difference is a minor but important one.

 

You can have evidence that doesn't prove something (which means it's not proof).