Evidence, specifically scientific evidence.

[exchemist]

No god has popped up to break the proof...

As far as proof by exhaustion is concerned, absence of evidence shows that in all cases to date no god exists.

That is not a proof by exhaustion: Proof by exhaustion - Wikipedia

You are merely arguing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which of course it can be. But evidence and proof are different things, as I have trying to explain to our JW friend.

 

[Audie]

I think that they are rather gun shy in that regard. Their hypotheses have been shot down far too often and far to easily in the past. The last halfway serious claim was that of "irrefutable complexity" and that was shown to be wrong. Behe tried to redefine it and it still got easily shot down. Now he totally avoids scientific sources and only talks to and writes for creationists.

Irrefutable or irreducible?

We see, separately, the use of "irrefutable", like
"show me irrefutable proof that....."

 

[Audie]

Does absolute proof exist?

In a sense

absolut vodka - Yahoo Image Search Results

 

[ChristineM]

From my experience only in mathematics. Yet that is the unreasonable level that creationists demand for concepts that run contrary to their beliefs even though the evidence for their beliefs is amazingly weak. They try to demand that others "prove them wrong" when the burden of proof is upon them. They need be able to give evidence that they are right, since they can't their only alternative is to attack the valid evidence of the opposition.

When others do prove them wrong they deny the proof

 

[Subduction Zone]

Missed that, a

Irrefutable or irreducible?

We see, separately, the use of "irrefutable", like
"show me irrefutable proof that....."

I missed that and thank you. My table unfortunately has autocorrect which should be reliable "autowrong". I will try to retype (lol, it just now tried to change the word retype into Reggie) that word and will post whatever comes out irreducible

No issues this time. Perhaps there was a spelling error and it was corrected to irrefutable.

 

[ChristineM]

That is not a proof by exhaustion: Proof by exhaustion - Wikipedia

You are merely arguing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which of course it can be. But evidence and proof are different things, as I have trying to explain to our JW friend.

I am arguing that no god exists and billions of people have failed to prove a god exists. It would only take one success.

 

[Audie]

Missed that, a


I missed that and thank you. My table unfortunately has autocorrect which should be reliable "autowrong". I will try to retype (lol, it just now tried to change the word retype into Reggie) that word and will post whatever comes out irreducible

No issues this time. Perhaps there was a spelling error and it was corrected to irrefutable.

oh I know you know the difference. Just taking advantage of a chance
to mention that "irrefutable proof" canard.

 

[Subduction Zone]

oh I know you know the difference. Just taking advantage of a chance
to mention that "irrefutable proof" canard.

Some creationists have, I am sure, claimed that it was "irrefutable proof", but I can't quote any directly right now so I will not claim that any specific creationist made that claim.

 

[exchemist]

I am arguing that no god exists and billions of people have failed to prove a god exists. It would only take one success.

Sure, I know. I am being punctilious over the distinction between proof and evidence, because muddling them up seems to be one of Deeje's perennial problems. Now that I am taking her to task for confusing them, it makes me wince a bit to see someone else, on the other side of the divide, as it were, doing the same thing.

And also, because philosophically speaking, proof - I mean real proof - of the existence or non existence of God is a famously impossible problem.

And lastly, considering we scientists are happy to use theories of science which by definition are not provable, I do not think it fair that we demand a religious believer to prove his or her God exists. It is reasonable to ask for evidence, perhaps, but not proof.

 

[ChristineM]

Sure, I know. I am being punctilious over the distinction between proof and evidence, because muddling them up seems to be one of Deeje's perennial problems. Now that I am taking her to task for confusing them, it makes me wince a bit to see someone else, on the other side of the divide, as it were, doing the same thing.

And also, because philosophically speaking, proof - I mean real proof - of the existence or non existence of God is a famously impossible problem.

And lastly, considering we scientists are happy to use theories of science which by definition are not provable, I do not think it fair that we demand a religious believer to prove his or her God exists. It is reasonable to ask for evidence, perhaps, but not proof.

Impossible? There are several evidences to show no god exists proof by exhaustion is just one.

We are not all scientists, some people are quite happy that reviewing available evidence is evidence enough

 

[exchemist]

Impossible? There are several evidences to show no god exists proof by exhaustion is just one.

We are not all scientists, some people are quite happy that reviewing available evidence is evidence enough

You are as bad as Deeje. You are still conflating evidence with proof.

And it is now obvious you have no idea what proof by exhaustion entails.

 

[ChristineM]

You are as bad as Deeje. You are still conflating evidence with proof.

And it is now obvious you have no idea what proof by exhaustion entails.

I dont need to see proof that a bee can fly, the evidence is proof enough. If you do require proof then that's up to you

Proof by exhaustion is well defined, my statement meets the requirement's og that proof. If youe think otherwise please explain why

 

[Guy Threepwood]

[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact

That has to be the first time I've heard someone describe academic science as fashionable.

Well I agree, most of us are not victims of that particular fashion line!

 

[Subduction Zone]

[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact


Well I agree, most of us are not victims of that particular fashion line!

Saying this as he relies extremely heavily upon the fruits of science to get his message across.

 

[ecco]

Off topic, but...
NatGeo has a really excellent series currently airing called One Strange Rock.

It's hosted/narrated by Will Smith and seven astronauts.

It's what the JW's and other Creo's consider indoctrination. So if you haven't gotten your annual indoctrination fix yet, tune in.

 

[ecco]

The last halfway serious claim was that of "irreducible complexity" and that was shown to be wrong. Behe tried to redefine it and it still got easily shot down. Now he totally avoids scientific sources and only talks to and writes for creationists.

That's where the good money is.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Finally, even IF all of science was proven to be "woefully ignorant", a believer's position would still need to be proven as factual. It is not truth by default, as many creationists try to claim.

Maybe it's just me, but did anyone else reading this, actually believe that I thought that all of science IS "woefully ignorant"? Did anyone else think that I was making a "sweeping indictment of all science, with a hand wave"? Or, did anyone think that it was a hypothetical, making the point that IF all of science was proven wrong, that it would in no way advance the validity/credibility of any supernatural, religious, or spirit evidence? Believers would still have to prove their own claims, without exploiting the weaknesses in science. I only used "woefully ignorant" as a metaphor(literarily false), because the poster used "profoundly ignorant" as an analogy(literally true). It is my editorial right. Although I am feeling woefully under-appreciated by your woeful misrepresentation, and woeful comprehension. I don't think any rational person really believes that all of science is "woefully ignorant". What do you think?

I think the point of saying "woefully ignorant" is to imply much, while
delivering nothing. Intended as a sweeping indictment of all science,
with a hand wave.

Of course there is much to learn. But "woe" is an emotion, and
if you feel woe because you only got an Omega when you wanted
a Rolex,that is your problem.

Calling science "woefully ignorant"?

I call such "lying with the truth".

I call such "lying with a straw man". You are not entitled to make up any interpretation you want about what people are saying. I would suggest that you try to read what people are saying within the same context that they are saying it. Not in the context that you want them to say it. Although the conversation with your straw man is entertaining, it is more of a distraction than having any actual meaningful point.
​

* dont bold it if you are going to mess up the subjunctive!

I see nothing wrong with my subjunctive(or hypothetical). How does highlighting the past-tense of the verb "to be", effect the entire subjunctive? But then again this is an open religious forum for adults, not an English Comp. class for children. I'm more interested in what people have to say, not how they say it. Many do not enjoy the same level of English proficiency that you do, so they communicate as best they can. This is why my arguments never stoop to exploiting the syntax and grammar of others. Otherwise I would have a field day with your posts. By the way, did you think that my subjunctive was a lie, or the truth? Or, are you claiming that it is both?

Let's say there is someone applying for a job on, oh, evening news
tv. Someone who interviewed her says, "Lets not hire her, she
has crooked teeth, her face is lopsided! One eye is bigger, lower than the
other, same with the eyebrows. Nose is crooked."

What about the responsibility the station has to its investors and shareholders? Do you think that the owners should not hire someone who would improve a good return on their investment? TV is a visual industry like the movie industry, the advertisement industry, or the modelling industry. Looks is everything, and unfortunately looks sell. However, if it was to be proven that a person was discriminated from a specific job because of their gender, religion, physical handicap, sexuality, or race without a job-specific reason, that company or industry could be libel for civil action. Therefore "lying with the truth" is ambiguous at best.

 

[exchemist]

I dont need to see proof that a bee can fly, the evidence is proof enough. If you do require proof then that's up to you

Proof by exhaustion is well defined, my statement meets the requirement's og that proof. If youe think otherwise please explain why

I explained what proof by exhaustion entails in post 43, and provided a link to the Wiki article on it on post 61.

It requires 2 steps:

(i) that you prove that only a finite set of cases exists and
(ii) that you then prove each case individually.

You can do neither in the case of God. The number of cases is as varied and open-ended as the individual conceptions of God that religious believers put forward. And you can only disprove any of these cases if they make testable claims about God. Which most do not.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Correct, all cases so far, any evidence is open to the same constraints.

No, the proof is quite specific and very fragile, it can have billions of evidences in it's favour, it only requires one to break the proof.

The lack of proof given that billions of people over thousands of years have failed to break the proof make it ignorant how?

And then we go into silly season so i lost interest.

I do not disagree with you. I personally don't think that there will ever be any evidence that can support anything supernatural, let alone the existence of a God. I personally agree that every argument that has been presented has been presented before, and have failed the evidence test. Because of this I can take full responsibility of everything I do, everything I say, and everything I think.

But from a rational point of view, my mind must always be open to the possibility that I could be wrong. And that in the future, proof could be presented confirming the existence of God or the supernatural. This is just being intellectually honest and consistent. In the mean time, life will certainly go on with or without religions. But life will certainly cease without science.

 

[exchemist]

[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact


Well I agree, most of us are not victims of that particular fashion line!

Hahaha. I've always felt it rather socially nerdy to admit to having a science degree - all the stereotypes of scientists keeping pens in their breast pockets and of "Green Anorak Chemists", at my university.

But you are not serious in your contention that academic science is some sort of fashion, are you? Or that pure and applied science are "old foes", other than in the sense of the friendly teasing between the Engineering faculty and the Physics faculty at some university cocktail party? Pure and applied science have gone hand in glove throughout history. One era's pure science discovery is the next era's goldmine of applications. For example we are now in the era of the applications of the great pure science theories of the c.20th: relativity and quantum theory.