Agnostics are the only ones who aren't fools

S.A.M. said:
Of course, if I do not believe in something at all, I do not consider that there are any alternate theories or hypotheses underlying it.

e.g. I do not believe in perpetual motion machines vs I do not know if enough knowledge or tools as yet to decide if pmm are possible.

Which approach will look at any future possibilities?
Click to expand...

lol you misunderstood.
I said: "It's no until yes" i.e. until there is evidence for something it is considered not true.
It's how science works.
 
Enmos said:
lol you misunderstood.
I said: "It's no until yes" i.e. until there is evidence for something it is considered not true.
It's how science works.
Click to expand...

No thats not how science works. Do you work in science? Science offers no proof or certainty, only inferences based on assumptions. There is no yes in science, unless there is a no and even that yes is conditional upon future noes.
 
S.A.M. said:
No thats not how science works. Do you work in science? Science offers no proof or certainty, only inferences based on assumptions. There is no yes in science, unless there is a no and even that yes is conditional upon future noes.
Click to expand...

Granted, however, I didn't not mention proof or certainty.
If there is no evidence whatsoever for something science does not use it.
If there is overwhelming evidence for something science uses it.

Even is there is but little evidence for something science still does not use it.
 
Enmos said:
Granted, however, I didn't not mention proof or certainty.
If there is no evidence whatsoever for something science does not use it.
If there is overwhelming evidence for something science uses it.

Even is there is but little evidence for something science still does not use it.
Click to expand...

No thats not how it works either.

You make a claim (aka hypothesis) and do everything in your power to prove it false (hypothesis testing). Until you can do so, it is assumed to be true.

The only criteria is that it should be empirical and testable.
 
S.A.M. said:
No thats not how it works either.

You make a claim (aka hypothesis) and do everything in your power to prove it false (hypothesis testing). Until you can do so, it is assumed to be true.

The only criteria is that it should be empirical and testable.
Click to expand...

Well, then.. I have tried everything in my power to prove my hypothesis that God does not exist false, but I failed on all accounts.
So I must consider my hypothesis true.
 
If you are using the scientific method to "test" an unempirical hypothesis [proving a negative] , you can also consider yourself a fool.
 
Absense of evidence is sometimes evidence of absence. If you walk around a wildlife sanctuary and don't see any elephant dung, you can conclude there are no elephants there.
 
I've never seen elephant dung in a wildlife sanctuary. Its considered very good fertiliser and is usually picked up while its still steaming.

Just like not seeing any dog poo does not mean that there is no dog on the street.
 
Some of it maybe, but not all. Absense of beaver dams would tell you there are no beavers there. Absence of a prayer healing effect means there is no agent that answers prayers.
 
spidergoat said:
Some of it maybe, but not all. Absense of beaver dams would tell you there are no beavers there. Absence of a prayer healing effect means there is no agent that answers prayers.
Click to expand...

But that would only prove that there is no God in the traditional sense. It does not prove that there is no intelligence beyond our universe. That is very possible. Neither does it prove that such intelligence did not have an effect on the beginning of our universe.

Again, imagine that we humans create a universe. Billions and billions of year later, life develops. And then intelligent life and it gets to our level. This life then debates on the creation of their universe.

I'm not saying this is the case with us. But what I am saying is that it's a possibility that SOME form of intelligence had an effect, or even created, our universe.
 
norsefire said:
I'm not saying this is the case with us. But what I am saying is that it's a possibility that SOME form of intelligence had an effect, or even created, our universe.
Click to expand...
Just no reason to assume that.

It's a possibility that the creator intelligence then took up residence in the door hinges of my bathroom, and monitors to make sure I perform ablutions before prayer as the Koran commands.

Other possibilities seem more likely, though. And alternatives exclude.
 
S.A.M. said:
No, I can distinguish between absence of evidence and evidence of absence, for the latter there is no ambiguity.
Click to expand...

It's not about evidence, Sam, but belief.

The question is simple;

"Do you believe in God"

A, Yes
B, No
C, Don't know.

Theists are those that answer 'A'. Those not in the set of theists, are a-theists. Simply, not theists. You read too much into the term atheist. It blinds you to the simplicity of the word.

Do you get it yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top