Contrar, contrar!
Approximately, 40 billion people have found the way.
Imagine that!
And you thought it was impossible
.
Once again the volume of people who wish to believe in a thing has no bearing at all on its actual existence.
We have already been down this route with regard to every other deity that other religions follow, not to mention Santa and Unicorns.
Well your partially right on this one.
That isn't how Science works, no doubt.
If they haven't discovered it, it doesn't exist.
I still can't understand how all these odds makers, can keep giving numerically positive probability odds on things that don't exist.
Somebody needs to tell those guys about this Science thing.
Gibberish? why I'm surprised at you.
You heartless brute.
What about those poor atom worshipers prior to discovery.
I shudder to think.
Why just imagine, the ridicule, the belittlement, the outcast status, they had to endure.
Pitiful, truly pitiful.
Science clearly did not "invent", the atom, so it is "self evident" it existed prior to discovery, which is one of literally thousands of examples from the historical record.
Do you disagree with that?
Your unwillingness to actually look into matters such as this is quite disappointing, as is your desire to then repeatedly misrepresent matters such as this.
Lets take a look at the example you proposed,
Atoms. The basic rough concept for them was first put in place by Greek and Indian philosophers as far back as 6BC and subject to much heated discussion and debate, however this was mainly limited to the philosophical side of discussion rather than scientific.
It was primarily picked by by scientists in the 17th century (namely Boyle - who I will come back to in a while), culminating in 1869 with the publication of the first periodic table (Dmitri Mendeleev), however its wasn't until 1897 that J. J. Thomson proved the existence of electrons, overturning the current theory of the time that the Atom was the smallest unit. 1913 brought about the discovery of the nucleus, and so on and on and on we go.
Quite the opposite of what you have stated (incorrectly as fact), science does not dismiss the existence of the unknown. It hypothesis it and then sets out to prove it (well technically it sets out to disprove it as much as it can and if it fails then it meets the scientific standard - falsability is critical), using a well proven standard of evidence (of which probability is not one) that includes falsability. It demands peer review to ensure that the work is sound and should new facts come to light they are tested and review and if valid accepted, often rewriting and refining existing knowledge.
So quite the opposite of science saying that nothing exists until its proven, science took the hypothesis of atoms and has spent two millennia testing and refining what we now know today as atomic theory.
Now the reason why I said I wanted to come back to Boyle is that as well as being a brilliant scientist in his day he was also a religious man (also a rabid anti-Semite and islamaphobe), I do not automatically dismiss the religious from a scientific view, I only do so when the religious dismiss how science actually functions.
While I am sure Boyle would admire your religious devotion, I'm equally sure he would be horrified by your refusal to accept the scientific method (something he held in high regard).
Now the Atom is an interesting one, because the length of study in this field is roughly the same as has passed since Jesus was said to be around. In all that time the evidence that has amassed (to a scientific standard) in this field is colossal, yet in that same time period the evidence (to a scientific standard) for God amounts to zero.
Again, thats your assumption.
My apologies, if you have been offended.
Perhaps, it has escaped you, that I do not relatea from the the single dimensional perspective of the remote science lab,
but from the all dimensional realities of life in the universe.
Needless to say, it has it's place, but there is more to life than science.
I am not attempting to belittle you personally, just point out any shortcomings in your reasonings, for personal beliefs.
Granted they can be difficult to keep seperate at times.
Especially in, shall we say, the heat of spirited debate.
Sometimes there is a little pushing and shoving, and some toes get stepped on, but there is nothing personal involved, at least for me.
Obviously as well, we are on opposite ends of the spectrum, in that you do not believe God exists, and I know that he does, so we are at odds from the get-go.
Perhaps at this point, we should clear the air and reclarify some things.
Exactly what is your positiion, then?
I certainly don't approach the world from a single view point, science doesn't work that way.
Now I have neither the time nor the desire to document my entire journey to atheism, however I am more than happy to share a few key points (for me).
I have no major issue with what people believe, that you believe in God is no more an issue for me than children believing in Unicorns or Santa (my own kids are past that thankfully).
What I do take issue with is when religion is used as a tool to control, subjugate, injure and/or kill others. All things that have been carried out (often gleefully) in the name of religion.
Now none of the above says that all people of faith automatically fall into the latter category, my own wife certainly doesn't. I have however experienced the so called religious morals in a dangerous and harmful manner on too many occasions to easily dismiss it. You may counter that you get militant atheists and that is most certainly true, however the most dangerous they tend to get is in throwing metaphorical rocks and asking unpleasant questions, militant christians, muslims, etc tend to go for the actual rocks and a lot worse.
My biggest issue with religion is however when it is as a substitute for science. In a nutshell science takes facts and finds the conclusion based upon those facts, adapting what we know to what we can now prove (as Atomic theory changed due to the new discoveries that were and are made). Religion takes a conclusion and bastardizes information to make it fit, ignoring what doesn't fit (no matter what the evidence) and making up what doesn't exist to fill in the blanks. As the source of its conclusions are religious texts that 'can never be wrong' it is never amended or corrected. Now that to me is living in a one dimensional place.
A wealth of evidence, proven to the highest standard, subjected to falasbility to a huge degree and peer reviewed over decades shows the true age of the earth to be around 4.5 billion years. Yet because a book gets interpreted in a certain way as to say its only 6,000 years old we get an totally unproven pseudoscience that has never been subject to falsability or true peer review presented as fact.
What deeply disappoints and disturbs me about this is that throughout history (with the exception of a few periods) many religious men were able to separate their faith and science and make remarkable breakthroughs, yet in the 21st century most religious scientists (and I use that term loosely now) have little to no interest in true science and only focus on attempting to prove (with no scientific method) faith as fact.
While I know that Boyle and I would certainly differ on our religious views, I have a feeling that this would be an area that would concern him as much as it does me.
.
