Something doesn’t add up

Prove it.

11 Likes

I previously argued in this thread that 1 + 3 can equal 5, and this is a strange turn?

1 Like

Yeah you missed it.

I present the last 20 posts as evidence your Honour… … and I rest my case.

2 Likes

Prove that it’s “strange”. Then where did it turn to? :thinking:

"The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colourful
objections to incorrect or careless thinking.[2][3] Rudolf Peierls documents an instance in which “a friend
showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he
wanted Pauli’s views. Pauli remarked sadly, ‘It is not even wrong’.”[4] This is also often quoted as “That is not
only not right; it is not even wrong”

1 Like

But according to some, it’s just opinion, so therefore of equal weight as the expert.

Which is why Sky News will counter a climate expert with an ignorant denier.

1 Like

That’s how we end up with nonsense like phlogiston, aether and dark matter.
:wink:

It depends what an atheist means by ‘evidence’ for God. Asking for physical evidence is doesn’t make much sense, since whatever created time and the physical universe by its very nature must be outside of it. I.e. immaterial and timeless.

2 Likes

Whatever = god is the problem. That’s what’s known as an argument from ignorance. You don’t know what caused something, therefore “god”.

Also, you cant have a “whatever” outside time and the universe, because that “whatever” must be part of the universe it created.

Arguments which simply state a god always existed and lived before time have no basis in fact and cannot be proven to be true.

The flying spaghetti monster created the entity people call god. Prove that wrong.

So. who created the flying spaghetti monster? Well, it always existed and is eternal.

1 Like

For those that believe no evidence is necessary
For those that don’t believe no evidence is ever sufficient

The first statement is true when it comes to religion as the very definition of faith is believing something where no evidence exists. However, it’s too general as a lot of belief in something requires evidence, hence the reason to believe in that thing.
The second part is just a play on words trying to sound profound.
Those who don’t believe something, they will believe in that something if solid evidence and proof is provided.

2 Likes

If you’ve been saying it for centuries surely you’ve heard it often by now?

No. It’s not.

It’s an argument from first principles - not ignorance.

If there is no God, then either original matter sprang from nothing, or original matter has always existed without a cause, or there is an infinite regress of causes without a beginning. Each of these answers takes us out of the realm of science and the universe we know. And they are nothing short of miracles.

And “prove” you wrong? I cannot “prove” the sun will rise tomorrow. And likewise there is such thing as a scientific proof. Now that is an argument from ignorance.

Good definition!

Well…the sun technically won’t ‘rise’ tomorrow.
The earth will spin on its axis until the bit of it that you’re on is in the line of sight of the sun.
And you can absolutely prove that.

We can go outside the earth’s atmosphere and watch it, for instance.

Actually, it is.

Sorry.
Look it up again.

there’s no such thing as “nothing”. Something exists even in a vacuum.