romansh

renderator

what I was trying to say what you call "positive" and "negative" are a function of language ..... In Russian(?) and English theism is positive (existance) and atheism is negative (non existance) ...... but in a hypothetical language (or perhaps culture) it could be the other way round?

I agree I can't prove or disprove Thor or Zeus or any other theistic god .....I think theistic gods are highly unlikely..... I have had 'a proof' explained to me regarding the impossibility of theistic gods (the proof should work for "revealed" fairies and the like aswell). I have attached the post/explanation ...see if you agree? ....
I'm not sure I agree with the 'proof' and of course this says nothing about a deistic god.

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

Vinterland

The Deist God may have only been the cause of all matter, but that itself is an influence. Your statement would be true if it is a fact that God does not exist; therefore a nonexistent entity could not have influence over anything. I understand Deism alone does not have any real practical applicability as a belief, but that does not mean there is no influence whatsoever. Also, I don't think you answered my question.


Thanks for the correction; I see it's a philisophical idealogy.

Cool, I think Russian would be an awesome language to learn. It seems everyone Russian guy I know is a badass.

I disagree, frist, that is not the premise of atheism; see my post to Marmalade. Two, can you give a specific example of how a scientist can "prove nothing" without assuming God does not exist? When developing vaccinations, a scientist will make observations which lead to a hypothesis that a vaccine will help provide immnity against pathogens. After experimentation they will observe if their hypothesis is correct and if it has a great success rate then it leads to proof for a cure. Does the assumption of God play any part in this or have you made a terrible generalisation?

You're right, I realize that theological and supernatural claims ARE subject to scientific methodology and in your analogy, I agree that the fairy must be dismissed as any form of valid explanation to be included in a scientific conslusion.

It is not impossible to prove a negative. Hypothertically, if I was showing you my new pet finches and I unveiled the cage( in which there are no birds) and said "there are eight finches in here" but you, as a rational atheist said "there isn't anything in there," and would proceed to prove the negative by touch, sight, sound, etc. And I don't think I have ever asserted that God exists, correct me if I'm wrong. I would be silly to do so simply because I cannot substantiat it. So a negative statement can be proved as long as it is feasible. I will say that since God is incapable of being proved or disproved, it is an irrelevant hypothesis to a scientific person, but it should not be denied unless there is evidence proportionate to the claim.

I disagree, giving mental assent to God's existence is unequivalen to believing in God.

I don't understand much of what this man says, and this is no exception. Romansh, can you please paraphrase Og's message for me? What is it a "proof" of exactly?

__________________
And on we walked. Suddenly we heard a voice crying, "This is the sea. This is the deep sea. This is the vast and mighty sea." And when we reached the voice it was a man whose back was turned to the sea, and at his ear he held a shell, listening to its murmur.
And my soul said, "Let us pass on. He is the realist, who turns his back on the whole he cannot grasp, and busies himself with a fragment."
—Gibran Khalil Gibran, “The Greater Sea.”

renderator

What are you going to disprove, if you have nothing to disprove cause no proof has been given to you.
Give me the proof of God and I will disprove it.
It does not matter what language you use.

You have nothing to disprove, if there is no proof.
What does it mean "highly unlikely"? Does it mean that the explanation "I can't start the engine of my car because there is a dwarf settled in it" is valid for you in some cases?

There are boundaries for Universe - time and space connected by psi-function.
The thing is that time and space are properties of our Universe and they have boundaries. Universe is ~14 billions years old and ~156 billions light years wide.

renderator

No it is not influence. The Deist God could be the cause of Bing Bang for example, but He could not change smth inside Universe like theist's God.

There is a big foul language inside Russian language called "мат".

Why do you think so?

It's the premise of strong atheism used in physics and any other natural science.

Yes
You have agreed that any fairy must be excluded from science.
God is worse than any fairy. It must be excluded moreover.

Yes, of course.

"After experimentation they will observe if their hypothesis is correct" - it's impossible if God exists.
How can you be sure that it is the vaccine that kills pathogens and your hypothesis is correct? It may be God killing all pathogens, not the vaccine. Can you prove me that it is not God, who kills them? No you can't because God is unfalsifiable. So you can't prove that it's vaccine that is the cause.

In fact any natural science becomes invalid if God exists, because any prediction/law becomes meaningless, everything becomes God's will.

Yes, It is an irrelevant hypothesis to a science.

Why should not?

romansh

By that analogy I would not have to prove that a perfect vacuum is empty? It would always be up to someone else to disprove it. As it happens I would probably be wrong.

I did not know Ladas were still being made?
I cannot dispute your logic ...... but at the end of the day...

I have no proof or disproof for the existence or non-existence of god. I'm not sure if god came knocking my door I would recognize god (though, usually it's witnesses or girl guides selling cookies)

all the best ......paciba ....(my Russian vocabularly is limited)

ps If the universe is 14 Gy old how do we get to a diameter of 156 Glight years? ( did the speed of light change?)

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

renderator

Of course, it happens.
Physical perfect vacuum according to quantum field theory is not emptyness because there are always particles that are born and die in it.

Yes, they are still being made, and there is still a magic dwarf inside each one.

The thing is that you can't be sure if it is God who has come to you. The most obvious explanation of the vision of Him would be "Damn, those tasty rolls I have eaten today morning were hallcinogenic".

Пожалуйста.

No, of course. Light year is just a unit of measurement for the width.

romansh

I don't remember reading whether physicists have observed this phenomenon. My question is who should prove or disprove the quantum fluctuations?

My point is if the universe expands at the speed of light the radius can only be 14 Glight years; the diameter ~30 Glight years?... not 156???

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

Vinterland

I think the problem here may be semantics. Is the word your looking for "interfere"? Because a Deist God is believed to not physically interfere with the events of this world, but its' influence is apparent in a different sense; not that it controls events, but that it created them. Say, you're a woman who has a child, but gives the child away. You had influence (however little) on that childs life. The Deist God is the same, a deadbeat.

Why do you think so?
Our school gets foreign exchange students all of the time and a "Russians are badass" is a steroptype perpetuated by them. But, it's just that; a sterotype.

I accept this. I guess it's not all that different from that witches making you sick, huh?

Nah, you have in mind the concept of a God that gives a hoot about humans.

Glad we're agreeing more and more.

For the reason Romansh has said. You can never know if God exists or not, so it there is consequently no substantial evidence to bolster your claim.
So why then do you make a claim without evidence?

__________________
And on we walked. Suddenly we heard a voice crying, "This is the sea. This is the deep sea. This is the vast and mighty sea." And when we reached the voice it was a man whose back was turned to the sea, and at his ear he held a shell, listening to its murmur.
And my soul said, "Let us pass on. He is the realist, who turns his back on the whole he cannot grasp, and busies himself with a fragment."
—Gibran Khalil Gibran, “The Greater Sea.”

renderator

Nobody. This phenomenon cannot be observed experimentally. It's just a corollary from relative theory used for convenience.

Yes, because as soon as you assume that God exists, any miracle is possible and you can't be sure if it is a door you open, if it is God you see, if those were rolls you have eaten. Everything can become absolutely anything in a mysterious way.
It's impossible to assume that God exists and think rationally at the same time.

The inflation of the Universe doesn't depend on lightspeed, light moving inside it along a straight line in fact would return to the point it was radiated from. It can be understood with the analogy of 2D objects living in the surface of a sphere. Any 2D objects can move infinitely in any direction, but the sphere itself has a finite radius.

renderator

Yes, 'not interfere' is more exact.

What country are you from?

It's not strange. Any concept of God is as ridiculous as the concept of Macaroni Monster, magic dwarfs etc.

Just the same. Witches must be excluded to.

As it was mentioned above, nobody knows what reality is in fact. But nobody has doubts that that it exists. But it is impossible to think that God exists too and don't come to ridiculous conclusions.