i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
I simply say that there are mathematical models which are not considered evidence within themselves.
Exactly. The reason being a model has to correspond to physical observation. So how does it become evidence? Because it can now make predictions which correspond to experiment and observation.
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
"I reject the idea that every mathematical model is proof of that model."
That is why I used the word "suggest". Mathematics suggests a way the universe could work. It IS a proof IF it is corroborated by observation. WHY? Because it can now make PREDICTIONS. This is not controversial.
If you merely meant "suggest", what is "obvious proof" doing in this context?
Mathematics suggests a way the universe could work. It IS a proof IF it is corroborated by observation. What the mathematics now allow you to do is to make PREDICTIONS. This is not controversial.
It is not really a contested area but ill be happy to provide other sources.
http://global.britannica.com/topic/atheism
Remedial: You're still doing it wrong. You don't quote an encyclopedia. You quote the source within the Article.
Sure, you don't have to show that such a mathematical multiverse model exist, to my knowledge it does not.
Yawn. Please see: The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - Raphael Bousso, Leonard Susskind
I assume you know who Susskind is? According to Susskind's hypothesis EVERY mathematical string theory model has a multiverse implication. But guess what: Its still just mathematical modelling. Only when observation corresponds to the correct model will predictions be viewed as being valid. Then that model will become a part of the body of scientific evidence.
Thanks for the derail.
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
You clearly don't understand the word "proof" means or you mean something different that me. To me "proof" isevidence and that must be observable, testable, measurable, repeatable and falsifiable.
Not at all. That is why it is called a "mathematical proof". Example: When Einstein suggested special relativity in 1905 it was a revelation. The paper gained acceptance based upon the mathematics alone HOWEVER Einstein still had to wait for 1919 until Arthur Eddington verified it with the eclipse experiment. With no proof special relativity would have been discarded over time.
You should have noted that I used the word "suggest". If you are a scientist this term should be well known to you and what it implies. You are either NOT versed in scientific/mathematical literature or you are constructing a straw man. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and regard our exchange as remedial. Please see: How to Prove It A Structured Approach - Daniel J Velleman
Papers for mathematical multiverses and unified theories abound. This is not controversial and multiverse and unified theory discussions are derailing this thread.
Also please don't quote Wikipedia as an authoritative reference.
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
By the way, according to this mantra - give me one practical example where this has worked.
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
There is no proof of a Multiverse, and how could there be? If there are other universes outside of our own, how would we know about it? Still it is a thought entertained in science and in some of our models.
1. Wrong there is obvious proof. There are mathematical models that may suggest a multiverse. Therefore it is worth investigation. HOWEVER the only way any of these models would be accepted would be through experiment. Until then none will be accepted.
2. There are ALSO tens of mathematical models that suggest a unified theory. So there is mathematical evidence for these theories which merit investigation. HOWEVER the only way any mathematical model will be accepted will be through experiment and observation.
3. There is no mathematical model as yet that suggests God. So why would it merit investigation?
I re-iterate: Atheism is scientific.
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
Atheism is in regard to belief, not fact nor science.
Yes like the belief that fairies don't exist. One cannot disprove that fairies don't exist.
So why aren't scientific papers written about fairies? (Except in relation to anthropology)
The fact is that the faith and belief that fairies do not exist transfers into scientific thought and action.
Lack of evidence automatically discards a hypothesis in science.
In science there is ONE measure: Experiment!
i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.
i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.
"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
LAWHFol,
When I have asked Atheist's, a question like "What science do you feel Supports the non existence of God" Predictably The Atheist has responded with "There is no Evidence or Proof of God & Science requires empirical Evidence."
Your statement above is correct. In your post you also explain why this reasoning is supposedly incorrect. However by your own measure -
One also cannot prove that Elves do not exist.
One also cannot prove that Fairies do not exist.
One also cannot prove that Lord Xenu does not exist.
One also cannot prove that the universe is not the ejaculate of a Giant Space Penis.
So based upon your reasoning science cannot make any statements about the above because it can't disprove these examples empirically.
however
Absence of evidence is good enough to discount ALL of the above for any practical and scientific purpose. For example: When botanists study pollination of plants, they do not seriously consider the possibility that fairy's do this job at night. They don't present this as a possible alternate theory in scientific papers. Why? It is inefficient because it clouds the real evidence (insects, wind etc) for pollination and does not contribute anything to an understanding of the subject. Now if solid scientific evidence were to emerge for fairies pollinating plants then it would be incorporated into human scientific knowledge and would alter humanities perspective accordingly....
The simple facts are as follows:
1. Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence.
2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Science is Atheistic, Aelveistic, Afairyistic, Axenuistic, Agiantspacepenistic. However it always remains open to the possibilities if serious scientific evidence were to emerge.
i haven't seen a topic thread like this one, so i thought i might start one.
as the title suggests, this is a topic thread for anyone's questions that have quick or one line answers.
for example: how many meetings do the witnesses have per week?
If you could compel all GB members to be strapped to a lie detector and you could ask them one question, what would that be? (Must be a ? with YES or NO answer).
Have you ever willfully ignored Biblical evidence to protect old teachings?
i haven't seen a topic thread like this one, so i thought i might start one.
as the title suggests, this is a topic thread for anyone's questions that have quick or one line answers.
for example: how many meetings do the witnesses have per week?
i haven't seen a topic thread like this one, so i thought i might start one.
as the title suggests, this is a topic thread for anyone's questions that have quick or one line answers.
for example: how many meetings do the witnesses have per week?
Hello there,
I haven't seen a topic thread like this one, so I thought I might start one. As the Title suggests, this is a topic thread for anyone's questions that have quick or one line answers. For example: How many meetings do the witnesses have per week? Where can I download a copy of the latest Watchtower magazine? Who was C T Russell?
I would suggest when answering a question, just include the question at the top of your answer. (If this thread becomes very long this could be useful)
So lets see how this goes :)
