Deleted...

[Fin666]

Oh, I’m sure atheists have there reasons for making there assumptions. Just as theists have their’s.

But we have no evidence either way for the existence of gods etc. So its still an assumption.

All I’m saying is that atheists make there assuptions that aren’t based on any evidence.

Your only reason is a lack of evidence and the fact you’ve never had an experience thats given you reason to believe in god.

I’m agnostic(well mostly) I don’t claim to have knowledge of these things. Your an atheist. Deal with it.

[Fin666]

@Tortoise

I don’t think you realize this:
a lack of evidence IS evidence.

really?

I have no evidence that you brushed your teeth today. Therefore I have evidence that you didn’t brush your teeth today.

hmmm no logic there my friend.

I think your wrong on that one.

No evidence means I shouldn’t assume that something is true. I shouldn’t assume you brushed your teeth. On the other hand I shouldn’t assume you didn’t.

Pretty basic logic.

what have I reduced you too…

I need to sleep…nighty night.

[Fin666]

@Tortoise

@Fin666

I have no evidence that you brushed your teeth today. Therefore I have evidence that you didn’t brush your teeth today.

Yeah.
I don’t disagree.
That is evidence.
Whether it’s enough evidence is another thing.
It is evidence, though.

…that lacks all sense.

[Fin666]

Ok let me get this right.

Whether I did or didn’t brush my teeth, you will never have any evidence.
That being the case, in this scenario, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So “I have no evidence that you brushed your teeth today. Therefore I have evidence that you didn’t brush your teeth today.” is incoorect??? you changed your mind?

So,
whether god does or doesn’t exist, you will never have any evidence.
that being the case, absence of evidence is not evidedence of absence

I’m confused, you seem now to be agreeing with me?

sorry have I got something wrong here?

are you saying we could find evidence of gods existence? If so your using a weird defination of god. Well I guess not weird but not the same as I was using?

If we are asking does “god A” exist? where by our defination of “god A” we should expect to find evidence for god in the universe then a lack of evidence is evidence.

But if we ask does “god B” exist? where by our defination of “god B” we shouldn’t expect to find evidence for god in the universe then a lack of evidence is not evidence.

fair?

now by evidence we mean scientific evidence(as any other kind isn’t really evidence). So now we could say “god A” is within the scope of science and “god B” is not.

disagree with me here???

[Reality_Check]

@Fin666

sorry have I got something wrong here?

Yes.

are you saying we could find evidence of gods existence? If so your using a weird defination of god. Well I guess not weird but not the same as I was using?

So are you saying that X exists although we have absolutely no evidence that X exists?

By making such a claim, what exactly are you saying of significance? Is there something, is there anything beyond logical contradictions that we cannot say that same thing about?

“*%O@!# exists although there is no evidence that it exists.” “The flying spaghetti monster exists although there is no evidence that he exists.” “The ether exists although there is no evidence that the ether exists.”

Oh, OK.

If we are asking does “god A” exist? where by our defination of “god A” we should expect to find evidence for god in the universe then a lack of evidence is evidence.

But if we ask does “god B” exist? where by our defination of “god B” we shouldn’t expect to find evidence for god in the universe then a lack of evidence is not evidence.

fair?

No, it’s not. What does it mean to say that something exists in external reality for which we cannot find evidence for its existence even in theory?

now by evidence we mean scientific evidence(as any other kind isn’t really evidence). So now we could say “god A” is within the scope of science and “god B” is not.

disagree with me here???

[/quote]
Define “evidence.” If all you mean by “evidence” is a belief than anyone has that a thing exists, then by your definition of “evidence,” we have evidence that anything people have ever believed exists. Then we have “evidence” that laetrile is an effective cancer treatment; that copper bracelets cure arthritis; that ghosts exist; that the sun goes around the earth; and on and on.

[Fin666]

@Tortoise

@Fin666

are you saying we could find evidence of gods
existence? If so your using a weird defination of god. Well I guess not
weird but not the same as I was using?

Well, anybody
who says “God exists, and his personality and will are…” could only
make such a claim with evidence, right? I mean, if you’re positing that
there can be NO evidence of God, then you’re also accepting that
anybody who claims to know his will (Christians, Muslims, etc.) are
lying, or at least misled. Unless they recieved some evidence that he
is what they say he is, their claims are pure fiction. Right?

yeah thats my postion on theists. They don’t know.

But do you agree with the rest of my last post?

[Fin666]

Reality check,

Don’t put words in my mouth.

So are you saying that X exists although we have absolutely no evidence that X exists?

No im sayin x may exist even though we have no evidence it exists. Theres a big difference there.

What does it mean to say that something exists in external reality for which we cannot find evidence for its existence even in theory?

that it exists outside of the scope of science. what wrong with that? why should everything be within the scope of science?

Define “evidence.” If all you mean by “evidence” is a belief than anyone has that a thing exists, then by your definition of “evidence,” we have evidence that anything people have ever believed exists. Then we have “evidence” that laetrile is an effective cancer treatment; that copper bracelets cure arthritis; that ghosts exist; that the sun goes around the earth; and on and on.

scientific evidence. Like I said. what are you on about here? I clearly said scientific evidence. Did you not understand my post at all?

now by evidence we mean scientific evidence(as any other kind isn’t really evidence)

is what I wrote.

Im arguing we don’t have any evidence for god. An agnostic point of view.

Please read and understand my post first reality check.

[Fin666]

What does it mean to be “out of the scope of science”?

That it can’t be described by science and that theres no scientific evidence for its existence.

[Fin666]

@Tortoise

@Fin666

Im arguing we don’t have any evidence for god. An agnostic point of view.

Please read and understand my post first reality check.

“Agnostic”, to me, means “mild atheist”.
I can explain my position on the terms, if you want.

No need I understand your postion.

Do you have an argument as to why something can’t exist outside of the scope of science?

[Fin666]

Can you think of a reason why there can’t be things that are real and yet we can not prove they are real from within science?

what about the question puzzles you?

[Fin666]

what things did you have in mind?

[Fin666]

Is it in theory possible to experience these things that are outside of science’s scope?

[Fin666]

how come?

As a matter of fact, there is most certainly many such things.

So your sure that there are these ‘things’ and yet they’ve never been experienced. Ok. So your certain these things exist but without any proof and without anyone ever experiencing them.

…and you think theists are bad…

[Fin666]

Because observation (another word for experience) is the fundamental fuel of science.

As a scientist I couldn’t disagree more. A scientific measurement is something that can be shown empirically it can be reapted so that the same measurement is made each time and the results are described by science. This is science. An experience someone has is just an experience; we can’t prove we had the experience nessarily, we can’t nessarily measure our experiences.

You have this wierd idea of science, defined by a false dichotomy:
Either science must be able to provide all the answers and provide all the truth,
or science and faith are on equal ground.

Again don’t put words in my mouth. I believe in no such dicotomy . I never said anything about faith. You are the one with faith. I haven’t claimed the existence or non-existence of anything. whereas you’ve expressed certainty in both.

I’m simply saying I don’t know. Science gives me a description of reality that is extremely useful. How close that description is to true reality I don’t know.

There is no way of knowing whether all our experiences are within the scope of science.