Stitch on 5/12/2007 at 19:30
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
I could say there is no evidence that man landed on the moon
That would be a very stupid and inaccurate thing to say.
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
Besides, what's the difference between 'there is no evidence' and 'I have never come across any evidence' ?
Faith!
*Zaccheus* on 5/12/2007 at 19:56
Priceless.
Chimpy Chompy on 5/12/2007 at 19:58
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
Besides, what's the difference between 'there is no evidence' and 'I have never come across any evidence' ?
If you haven't come across reliable and testable evidence, has anyone else? Reliable and testable meaning you can take measurements, compare results, display that evidence for others to see, and repeat the observation to gain the same evidence.
That said, "no evidence for god has so far been found" is probably more in the spirit of science than "there IS no evidence".
*Zaccheus* on 5/12/2007 at 20:06
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
If you haven't come across reliable and testable evidence, has anyone else?
Quite possibly, why not?
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
Reliable and testable meaning you can take measurements, compare results, display that evidence for others to see, and repeat the observation to gain the same evidence.
That said, "no evidence for god has so far been found" is probably more in the spirit of science than "there IS no evidence".
That's a very narrow definition of evidence.
Sounds like a physical 'God detection device', which seems like a very unlikely invention indeed.
paloalto90 on 5/12/2007 at 20:10
Quote:
No, the logic is that if there are one million concepts of God (a conservative estimate), then even assuming a deity or deities exists, the chances of any concept being correct is one in a million.
That is no logic at all.
So the probability that God exists depends upon how many concepts of God there are? God's existence doesn't depend upon any concepts of man he either exists or he doesn't.
jay pettitt on 5/12/2007 at 20:11
Sure; put up or shut up.
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
Sounds like a physical 'God detection device', which seems like a very unlikely invention indeed.
It certainly does.:ebil:
*Zaccheus* on 5/12/2007 at 20:13
(
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/babelfish.shtml) The Babel Fish. :joke:
Quote Posted by paloalto90
No, the logic is that if there are one million concepts of God (a conservative estimate), then even assuming a deity or deities exists, the chances of any concept being correct is one in a million.
If you combine that with Stephen Roberts' quote, then the logic says that it is also very unlikely that no god exists.
:p
jay pettitt on 5/12/2007 at 20:19
...and it is very unlikely that 4+4=8 - yet I can demonstrate quite clearly that it is so. I can't demonstrate so clearly that 4+4=some other number. There's a reason for that.
Chimpy Chompy on 5/12/2007 at 20:20
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
That's a very narrow definition of evidence.
Why? It seems like a good way of defining evidence that means anything to anyone other than the person who originally gathers it.
*Zaccheus* on 5/12/2007 at 20:21
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
...and it is very unlikely that 4+4=8 - yet I can demonstrate quite clearly that it is so. I can't demonstrate so clearly that 4+4=some other number. There's a reason for that.
Which is why I agree with paloalto90 that the argument is non-sense.
