.
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.
Not exactly.
It's not a gaurantee, however, if the thing, does actually exist, it lends credibility to that, and is consistent with what would be expected under real existence.
Likewise I think you would be hard pressed to find 2.1 billion people alive today, or appox. 40 billion historically, who hold any belief in your last two.
How about tightening up your example comparison, with something in the same Galaxy as the existence of God.
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.
I can make the same accusation regaurding you.
So what does that prove?
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 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
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..
I don't think you have a clue, how contradictory your explanation is.
Philosophy, theory, and hypothesis, is still by your standard, probability 0.
At conclusive discovery, is breakpoint.
The only difference is the atom graduated to above 0 in the late eighteen hundreds and evidence for God is (according to your reckoning) is still 0.
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)..
I have never stated, that I am aware of, that I said I do not accept scientific method where applicable.
You don't have to convince me, the atom bomb works, planes fly, cars run, etc. etc. etc.
However science is not applicable in spiritual matters, and I hold no illusions, it ever will be.
What I'm testifying too, has nothing to do with religion, although it is labeled as such.
I certainly don't approach the world from a single view point, science doesn't work that way.
Do you have any idea what you just said?
You really do need to get out more often.
.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 o 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.
I probably should start with an apology here, since I think you are about to get offended again.
You just got through singing the praises of science and the atom, which, oh joy, got us something we can blow everybody on the planet up with.
And then you badmouth religion, which at least with regaurd to Christianity, has a beneficial ratio about the same as your the insurance example of 98%.
How you do not see the flagrant hypocrisy in that is beyond me.
They are not merely religious texts.
That is your assumption, made under the influence of unbelief.
There is a reason why, the Bible is referred to as the "Word of God".
So
if he is who he claims to be and
if he has done what he says he has, there is no appeal to anything higher.
Since you are married, I'd like to ask you this question:
Other than the obvious biological, and to some extent the psychological aspects, what does science have to do with your relationship to your wife?
.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.
Aren't you the one that declared by fiat, a few pages back that this subject matter belongs in another thread,
Well which is it?
Does it, or doesn't it?
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.
Science and religious faith two entirely different dimensions.
The credibility of Scientist with Religious convictions, was openly, challenged with the proposal of Evolution.
For the first time an atmosphere of ill-will and contention was instituted that unfortunately still exists.
Can we agree to disagree? No? Okay, carry on.
