Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific (page 5)

OnTheWayOut

often the Atheist will then Move on one of two Supporting Arguments 1. "Evil exists, therefore God Does not Exist" or 2. "The Bible is Flawed, therefore God Does not exist".

Start with Number 2. ....therefore, the Bible is not the word of a god or else that god is flawed.

Back to Number 1. Incredible evil and injustice exist, therefore the wonderful god that people have created does not exist.

All we can do is say that there is no evidence of God. It is not totally unrelated to agnosticism. They say "I don't know" and an atheist says "I see no evidence." Often, it is the (totally conficting) anecdotes that make agnostics unsure. That's as far as atheism can go- NO EVIDENCE.

Science recognizes that it is totally impossible to prove the non-existence of Big Foot, ancient alien astronauts, and Flying Spaghetti Monster.

By your "unscientific" claim, I can freely start a religion based on Big Foot being the descendants of alien astronauts that built the pyramids in order to sacrifice to Flying Spaghetti Monster. You must not say I am wrong because you cannot "prove" such a thing.

Saintbertholdt

C0ntr013r,

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.

C0ntr013r

Not at all. That is why it is called a "mathematical proof". Example: When Einstein suggested special relativity in 1905 it was a revelation.

Are you making straw man arguments now? I think you know that I don't reject the idea of "mathematical proof". I reject the idea that every mathematical model is proof of that model. Especially when you take into consideration all the guess work that goes into such a model.

Wrong there is obvious proof. There are mathematical models that may suggest a multiverse.

If you merely meant "suggest", what is "obvious proof" doing in this context? You have to forgive me for misunderstanding that phrasing if you meant something else than "obvious proof".

Papers for mathematical multiverses and unified theories abound. This is not controversial and multiverse and unified theories discussions are derailing this thread.

Sure, you don't have to show that such a mathematical multiverse model exist, to my knowledge it does not.

Also please don't quote Wikipedia as an authoritative reference.

It is not really a contested area but ill be happy to provide other sources.

http://global.britannica.com/topic/atheism

Saintbertholdt

"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.

C0ntr013r

Please see: How to Prove It A Structured Approach - Daniel J Velleman

I looked thought it. And again, I don't deny the existence of proof by mathematics. I simply say that there are mathematical models which are not considered evidence within themselves.

_Morpheus

Good to see the first 5 pages in the books! Only 384 more to go... Let me sumerize the next week on this thread for you:

thiest: "you cant prove god dosent exist therefore he does! I see what i want to and therefore you cant me convince otherwise! Also people who dont believe exactly as i do suck!"

athiests: " but we are simply being logical. We just want some reason and evidence" (repeat pointlessly ad infinitum)

i would like to believe my summary will save some time and effort but history suggests it wont..

Saintbertholdt

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.

Saintbertholdt

_Morpheus10 hours ago

Annnnd i predict this thread will go off the rails in 5.....4.......3.......2.....

Prophet.

C0ntr013r

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.

I agree, and we can call it a theory when we have enough observable evidence. Before that we call it a hypothesis.

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.

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.

You say there is obvious proof of a multiverse, do you not? Or how am i supposed to interpret this comment?

Remedial: You're still doing it wrong. You don't quote an encyclopedia. You quote the source within the Article.

LOL, did you look up the source? It is a few book that are not available online, or do you want us to buy some book on ebay for this discussion?

Please see: The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - Raphael Bousso, Leonard Susskind

I will look into it, did you read the entire book yourself?

C0ntr013r

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.

Yes, and I suggested that "something" within science can be a hypotheses without evidence. If the multiverse has evidence my example was a bad one, but you are completely missing the point.

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

C0ntr013r,

_Morpheus10 hours ago

Share this