Spirituality
30 Nov 09
Originally posted by lauseyOh, the little flying girl? Yes, now I know! I've seen the movie and I loved it!
It is a fictional character, a small fairy that flies around. Maybe use a unicorn as an example instead, or anything fictional that has quite a specific definition (more specific than God).
Originally posted by AThousandYoungEverything is evidence, you just may not feel it applies.
Science does not say there's no God. You're throwing out a Strawman.
There is simply no evidence that there is a God. If he exists, he's hiding (unless he sends telepathic messages to individual people somehow and we can't detect it).
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIt's not scientific evidence - or if you like, it's not evidence that would support a scientific explanation.
Everything is evidence, you just may not feel it applies.
Kelly
It'd be like me saying, 'look, here's a hamburger, therefore the sky is blue.' It's clearly meaningless, from a scientific perspective. I'm going to need something a little bit closer to the sky if I'm to understand why it appears blue.
Of course, I understand the perspective of the religious believer - the beauty and magesty of the universe clearly is a sign (ie. evidence) that god exists. It just doesn't cut it for science.
Originally posted by amannionIf KellyJay sees it as obvious to prove the existance of god by just look at the beauty of the nature, then he must realize that this proof holds for any religion, even for an hindu. Does, by this, KJ prove that the Hindu religion is the True Religion? Is KJ an Hindu himself?
It's not scientific evidence - or if you like, it's not evidence that would support a scientific explanation.
It'd be like me saying, 'look, here's a hamburger, therefore the sky is blue.' It's clearly meaningless, from a scientific perspective. I'm going to need something a little bit closer to the sky if I'm to understand why it appears blue.
Of course, ...[text shortened]... clearly is a sign (ie. evidence) that god exists. It just doesn't cut it for science.
Originally posted by lauseyThat is only true if God (or Tinkerbell) is so loosely defined as to be virtually meaningless.
B. Proving that God doesn't exist will definitely require looking everywhere (the whole universe and possibly infinite multiverses) to confirm that he doesn't exist.
Its equivalent to saying:
"B. Proving some unknown undefined object doesn't exist will definitely require looking everywhere (the whole universe and possibly infinite multiverses) to confirm that it doesn't exist."
However, nobody is interested in unknown undefined objects. Most theists have several property that they can specify about God, and that is frequently enough to show either a contradiction between those properties, or a contradiction between one or more of those properties and evidence about reality. Either way, it may constitute proof that such a God doesn't exist.
For example, I can prove that I don't have invisible pink unicorns hiding in my fridge by several methods:
1. If something is invisible, it cannot be pink (internal contradiction).
2. If something is a unicorn, it is bigger than the inside of my fridge. (logical contradiction).
3. My fridge is full of food, there couldn't be anything else in it (contradiction to physical evidence).
Now obviously you can play the old game of "I didn't mean 'pink' I meant something else", but you can go only so far with that game before you admit that what you claimed exists is totally undefined.
Originally posted by twhiteheador simply defined poorly in the first place. maybe it isn't pink all the time, only when it goes to feed on rainbows. maybe the chosen few that can see it will perceive it as pink. maybe it is immaterial and simply chooses to live inside that fridge but its immaterial tail constantly sticks out of the door(still invisible though). maybe it doesn't live in the fridge.
That is only true if God (or Tinkerbell) is so loosely defined as to be virtually meaningless.
Its equivalent to saying:
"B. Proving some unknown undefined object doesn't exist will definitely require looking everywhere (the whole universe and possibly infinite multiverses) to confirm that it doesn't exist."
However, nobody is interested in unknown u ...[text shortened]... r with that game before you admit that what you claimed exists is totally undefined.
it would be similar to some people saying the earth is flat and the sun and the moon is revolving around it. then someone else says, no, that's wrong, the earth is round but still fixed in one place.
the definition of god eludes us. and frankly, why wouldn't it? it is a god, and we use faith to define it. as such, it would be loosely formed, will differ from individual to individual but that is not important.
Originally posted by twhiteheadGood point, and I hadn't even thought of it that way. You can only define something that has been discovered and analysed. It doesn't work the other way around. That being make up something, provide definitions, then ask the question, "Does this thing which I have just 'defined' exist?"
That is only true if God (or Tinkerbell) is so loosely defined as to be virtually meaningless.
Its equivalent to saying:
"B. Proving some unknown undefined object doesn't exist will definitely require looking everywhere (the whole universe and possibly infinite multiverses) to confirm that it doesn't exist."
However, nobody is interested in unknown u ...[text shortened]... r with that game before you admit that what you claimed exists is totally undefined.
Originally posted by ZahlanziThis is what sceptics have a problem with. The fact of relying on faith to define something. A definition has to be precise to have any weight. To be "loosely formed" and "differ from individual to individual" will mean it isn't really defined.
or simply defined poorly in the first place. maybe it isn't pink all the time, only when it goes to feed on rainbows. maybe the chosen few that can see it will perceive it as pink. maybe it is immaterial and simply chooses to live inside that fridge but its immaterial tail constantly sticks out of the door(still invisible though). maybe it doesn't live in t ...[text shortened]... ould be loosely formed, will differ from individual to individual but that is not important.
Originally posted by lauseyDon't forget the contribution of alchemy to science, though. Searching for a chimera, some of those alchemists struck real gold ... By the same token, if the Higgs boson turns out spurious, the hadron collider will nonetheless have occasioned some valuable discoveries -- provided it doesn't keep being sabotaged from the future ...
This is what sceptics have a problem with. The fact of relying on faith to define something. A definition has to be precise to have any weight. To be "loosely formed" and "differ from individual to individual" will mean it isn't really defined.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageFair point, but would you say that something that is conjectured is really defined?
Don't forget the contribution of alchemy to science, though. Searching for a chimera, some of those alchemists struck real gold ... By the same token, if the Higgs boson turns out spurious, the hadron collider will nonetheless have occasioned some valuable discoveries -- provided it doesn't keep being sabotaged from the future ...
It is only after the discoveries you can put a precise definition to it. Up until then, it is just wishy washy ideas.
The Higgs Boson is put in place as an idea because of previous discoveries in quantum theory, a possible missing link. Only when (or if) it gets discovered, it can be precisely defined and established that what they were looking for is correct.
Originally posted by lauseya but i don't need a properly defined god. a god that loves me and is supposedly benevolent is enough. no need to get into the specifics. when it comes to science i however i get demanding. nobody would want an improperly defined LHC or airplane.
This is what sceptics have a problem with. The fact of relying on faith to define something. A definition has to be precise to have any weight. To be "loosely formed" and "differ from individual to individual" will mean it isn't really defined.
Originally posted by lauseyAgreed. But the wishy-washy ideas stimulate discovery. Things are never as tidy as one would wish.
Fair point, but would you say that something that is conjectured is really defined?
It is only after the discoveries you can put a precise definition to it. Up until then, it is just wishy washy ideas.
The Higgs Boson is put in place as an idea because of previous discoveries in quantum theory, a possible missing link. Only when (or if) it gets discovered, it can be precisely defined and established that what they were looking for is correct.