Proof of the non-existence of God

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
So you are denying here the existence of scientific facts?
What are considered to be scientific facts have been as far as scientists can RATIONALLY judge by the evidence/reason to be proven to be “fact” -that’s why they are called scientific FACTS and not just theories.

Is it not a scientific fact that water molecules each have one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms?
-if so, can you explain how so?

There are considerable differences between facts and things we know on a limited scale. If you haven't been exposed to the terminology--- and it appears that you haven't--- it would certainly aid in the conversation for you to brush up on the differences.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
According to your rationale, science--- true science--- has always held that the number of planets in the solar system is subject to change.

No. You still have it wrong. I have never claimed that the number of planets in the solar system is subject to change, I have claimed that the number of known planets is subject to change. There is a big difference.

Further, also according to your stance, the only audience which received dogmatic instruction on the issue was the general populace... with an emphasis on pre-school children.
Actually I knew perfectly well as a child that the number of planets listed in preschool books was intended to be a list of known planets and not an exhaustive list of all planets. So no, I do not think the general populace received dogmatic instruction, I suspect you are in the minority.

That being said, it should be relatively easy for you to cite the sources--- pre-2006, mind you--- which held to a non-static perspective of the planets.
The very first website I found on the subject has this at the bottom:
Our knowledge of our solar system is extensive. But it is far from complete. Some of the worlds have never even been photographed up close. The Nine Planets is an overview of what we know today. We are still exploring. Much more is still to come:
I think it illustrates my point.

Moreover, such a position is still held by scientists in the field... at least, according to you. What makes your job tough, however, is that at a time which would have been the most advantageous to the supposedly secretive folks at IAU to shed light on their ambiguity over how many planets are in the solar system--- 2006--- they instead opted to say with rock-solid certainty that the solar system's planetary number has been reduced to eight. Officially.
Now it is up to you to provide a quote of that 'rock solid' pronouncement. From the Wikipedia page it appears that the matter was actually rather controversial and is still up for discussion in their 2009 conference.

If anything, that "fact" is more likely to see a reduction than an addition, given the three guiding principles used when classifying planets.
As always you attempt to mislead. We could perfectly well decide that earth is the only body that we shall call a 'planet', but that would in no way reflect negatively on the scientific facts known about bodies orbiting the sun. It only reflects a change in classification and the language we use to communicate.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There are considerable differences between facts and things we know on a limited scale. If you haven't been exposed to the terminology--- and it appears that you haven't--- it would certainly aid in the conversation for you to brush up on the differences.

….There are considerable differences between facts and things we know on a limited scale..…

What on earth does that mean? -are you implying that there are no known facts about things on a microscopic scale? 😛

So, back to my question, are you saying that Is it NOT a scientific FACT that water molecules each have one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms? Yes or no?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No. You still have it wrong. I have never claimed that the number of planets in the solar system is subject to change, I have claimed that the number of known planets is subject to change. There is a big difference.

Further, also according to your stance, the only audience which received dogmatic instruction on the issue was the general populace... sun. It only reflects a change in classification and the language we use to communicate.

I have never claimed that the number of planets in the solar system is subject to change, I have claimed that the number of known planets is subject to change.
The amount of known planets has never been part of the conversation. The conversation has been specifically about what is known in the solar system, as it applies to the amount of planets thought to inhabit the same.

Actually I knew perfectly well as a child that the number of planets listed in preschool books was intended to be a list of known planets and not an exhaustive list of all planets.
Sure. And the "list of known planets" from when you were a child has just been changed. Except instead of being exhaustive, it appears that list was a tad too aggressive.

So no, I do not think the general populace received dogmatic instruction, I suspect you are in the minority.
We're not talking about my studies, we're talking about the general public. If the general public didn't think that there were nine planets in the solar system why do you think the folks at IAU even bothered making their announcement?

The very first website I found on the subject has this at the bottom...
That's hilarious. The very first website you found--- and inexplicably opted to cite anyway--- contains outdated information! And on top of it, in no way, shape or form does the citation you quote help your cause. There is no mention of anything that would lead the reader to believe that perhaps there are more planets, just that some of them haven't been photographed up close. Brilliant!

Now it is up to you to provide a quote of that 'rock solid' pronouncement.
That shouldn't be too hard. Check out iau.org for starters, or any other astrological websites.

From the Wikipedia page it appears that the matter was actually rather controversial and is still up for discussion in their 2009 conference.
Then I guess my primary point is underscored by you again: the scientists can't make up their mind. Go figure.

We could perfectly well decide that earth is the only body that we shall call a 'planet', but that would in no way reflect negatively on the scientific facts known about bodies orbiting the sun. It only reflects a change in classification and the language we use to communicate.
Let's see if I have this straight. You suggest that perhaps one day further definition of the term planet may come to exclude all celestial bodies but the earth, thereby rendering the solar system as made up of one planet and a bunch of, well, other bodies.

So, if I'm figuring this right (and I think I am), when or if that day comes, and we consider the solar system to contain one planet, will that be more or less planets than we have currently? Would that be a change, or would that be the same thing?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So, if I'm figuring this right (and I think I am), when or if that day comes, and we consider the solar system to contain one planet, will that be [b]more or less planets than we have currently? Would that be a change, or would that be the same thing?[/b]

You are selectively blind I see. Not unusual for a Christian. The answer to your question is in the text that you replied to ie:

We could perfectly well decide that earth is the only body that we shall call a 'planet', but that would in no way reflect negatively on the scientific facts known about bodies orbiting the sun. It only reflects a change in classification and the language we use to communicate.

Are you claiming otherwise? Or do you admit that the underlying scientific facts about the bodies orbiting the solar system do not change one single iota simply because someone decides to reclassify them?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are selectively blind I see. Not unusual for a Christian. The answer to your question is in the text that you replied to ie:

We could perfectly well decide that earth is the only body that we shall call a 'planet', but that would in no way reflect negatively on the scientific facts known about bodies orbiting the sun. It only reflects a change in c ...[text shortened]... solar system do not change one single iota simply because someone decides to reclassify them?

You are selectively blind I see. Not unusual for a Christian.
That's about the size of your argument. When your reasoning is exposed by its gaps in logic and deathgrip on absurdity, you're left with nothing but ad hominen attacks. Good for you.

And of course, you are somehow enabled to see others' blindness, and yet are blissfully unaware of those dark corners in your own thinking so blatantly obvious to those around you. Again, good for you.

We could perfectly well decide that earth is the only body that we shall call a 'planet', but that would in no way reflect negatively on the scientific facts known about bodies orbiting the sun. It only reflects a change in classification and the language we use to communicate.
In this, your thinking is exposed. According to the analogy you have decided to use, this future reclassification of planetary designation is how Pluto came to its current de-classification as a planet.

Not the case. Pluto wasn't demoted solely on the basis of further information about it, per se; rather its status was changed when more information was obtained about the solar system and about Pluto's role in the same.

Or do you admit that the underlying scientific facts about the bodies orbiting the solar system do not change one single iota simply because someone decides to reclassify them?
Well now, that depends. Do you consider discovery a change? In the mind of an overwhelming amount of people, discovery is change. Discovery of other celestial bodies, in addition to the further discovery of how the solar system works in the ensuing time since Pluto's classification as a planet led to the same's eventual demotion.

Care to try again?