Evidence that there is no God

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Go ahead -- tell me how a biologist acknowledges the existence of shares and bonds in purely biological terms. He can give us certain biological behaviours of living entities whilst they are engaged in activities that we (with our economic hats on) recognise as capital market activities, but the existence of those entities themselves cannot be "proved" or "demonstrated" within the realm of biology -- they simply don't exist there.

Of course it can. They can be recognized as inanimate objects by biologists. There is no exclusivity between sciences, there's always overlapping.

This line of thought is pretty irrelevant to the argument, though. Dare I say, it's quite the strawman.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see you are avoiding answering the question of whether God or his influence actually exists in the universe.

I'm not. I'm just pointing out that "scientific evidence" simply cannot, in general, tell us about it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Whether you "care" for either of those arguments or not is irrelevant and a subjective view, much as twh's "God's never tried to contact me" in the first post of this thread.

True, in more ways than one.

I do believe we're sidetracking here and I honestly don't feel like pursuing this point on this thread as it is irrelevant for the discussion regarding the existence of scientifically acceptable evidence.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Indeed, philosophically, one would still have a First Cause even if the Universe extended infinitely backwards in time.

That is a claim. Would you care to support it with anything? I personally don't think 'cause' makes sense outside of time.

Originally posted by Palynka
Of course it can. They can be recognized as inanimate objects by biologists. There is no exclusivity between sciences, there's always overlapping.

This line of thought is pretty irrelevant to the argument, though. Dare I say, it's quite the strawman.

Of course it can. They can be recognized as inanimate objects by biologists.

But they cannot be recognised as 'shares' and 'bonds'. (In fact, in the modern world where dematerialised financial assets exist, they won't even be objects -- inanimate or otherwise).

In fact, if one goes further and considers that a "share" is essentially a legal contract between two entities (the 'share holder' and the 'company'😉, then one finds it even harder to describe or even acknowledge its existence in the same breath as cells, mitochondria, tissue etc. from a biological perspective.

There is no exclusivity between sciences, there's always overlapping.

Not as much as you think. An economist does not require any of the presuppositions or results of biology, chemistry, physics etc. Even with the physical sciences, a biologist does not need String Theory or Relativity.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Of course it can. They can be recognized as inanimate objects by biologists.

But they cannot be recognised as 'shares' and 'bonds'. (In fact, in the modern world where dematerialised financial assets exist, they won't even be objects -- inanimate or otherwise).

In fact, if one goes further and considers that a "share" is essentially a leg ...[text shortened]... n with the physical sciences, a biologist does not need String Theory or Relativity.[/b]

What exactly are you arguing here?

Cannot bonds and shares be proven to exist scientifically? Obviously, they can. We can keep arguing if 'dematerialised' financial assets exist or not, but I don't see the point.

I don't see where you're going with this metaphor. Are you claiming religion is a science or that science will never be able to provide evidence for the existence of God?

If it's the latter then your God is pretty meaningless as it has no detectable influence over this world.

Originally posted by Palynka
What exactly are you arguing here?

Cannot bonds and shares be proven to exist scientifically? Obviously, they can. We can keep arguing if 'dematerialised' financial assets exist or not, but I don't see the point.

I don't see where you're going with this metaphor. Are you claiming religion is a science or that science will never be able to provide evide ...[text shortened]... ter then your God is pretty meaningless as it has no detectable influence over this world.

When I asked about your existance, I was meaning the following:

Your existance as a creature is an evidence that of the existance of creator. The only difference between you and me that you don't call that creator Allah (GOD).

Originally posted by twhitehead
Make up your mind, you start by saying that the communication failed because I did not believe then state that I do believe.
When I was younger I do believe that I believed and tried to communicate without success. Part of the reason for my current lack of belief.
You are free to believe that I believe (in Allah) but I don't believe I do. 🙂

Your 'fa ...[text shortened]... I would not listen to.
3. God is not just if he selectively chooses who to communicate with.

Do you want me to answer you according to my belives, or in General?

When I said you belive of his existance I ment that you belive in the Cause. Although you said you don't but I think it is a fact that every action has a cause. Every creature has a something that cause it to exist. If you don't agree, give me an example of something that doesn't have a cause.

Originally posted by ahosyney
When I asked about your existance, I was meaning the following:

Your existance as a creature is an evidence that of the existance of creator. The only difference between you and me that you don't call that creator Allah (GOD).

Neither my father nor my mother are called Allah. And you shouldn't call them that, they already have a name.

Originally posted by Palynka
What exactly are you arguing here?

Cannot bonds and shares be proven to exist scientifically? Obviously, they can. We can keep arguing if 'dematerialised' financial assets exist or not, but I don't see the point.

I don't see where you're going with this metaphor. Are you claiming religion is a science or that science will never be able to provide evide ...[text shortened]... ter then your God is pretty meaningless as it has no detectable influence over this world.

Unless "science" includes economics and allied sciences, I'm arguing that the existence of shares and bonds cannot be demonstrated. Indeed, the terms 'share' and 'bond' would be meaningless in a domain composed entirely of the physical sciences. Given a share or bond certificate, a physicist can tell you its physical properties, a chemist can tell you its chemical composition and a biologist can identify physiological states of organisms that use it -- but none of that tells you whether the piece of paper you're holding is a share, a bond, a page from a novel or whatever.

To an economist, a share certificate and a demat share are equivalent; the term 'share' is independent of its physical manifestation. That's precisely why a physicist cannot tell you if it exists.

I don't see where you're going with this metaphor. Are you claiming religion is a science or that science will never be able to provide evidence for the existence of God?

The latter.

If it's the latter then your God is pretty meaningless as it has no detectable influence over this world.

Science does not exhaust "detectable influences" in the world; it is as false to argue that science provides a complete account of reality as it is for YEC to argue that religion does the same thing. Reality can be described at multiple levels -- the sciences just cover some of them. It's oblivious/indifferent to others.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is a claim. Would you care to support it with anything? I personally don't think 'cause' makes sense outside of time.

If you are using a Regularity account of causation (i.e. cause and effect are just constant conjunctions of events associated together in the human mind by habit (Hume)) then it won't.

The problem is that such an account of causation has severe problems when, for instance, the laws of nature (and therefore the sciences) have to be explained, when laws of nature have to be distinguished from accidental generalisations, when induction itself has to be explained, when counterfactuals (i.e. phenomena not instantiated in our Universe) have to be understood etc.

My claim makes sense in an Aristotelian account of causation (cause as an object with 'causal powers' to bring about changes in other objects that might not have happened otherwise). Here, the notion of cause is not tied in to time and the argument for a First Cause (as in Aquinas's Second Way) is independent of the age of the Universe.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Unless "science" includes economics and allied sciences, I'm arguing that the existence of shares and bonds cannot be demonstrated. Indeed, the terms 'share' and 'bond' would be meaningless in a domain composed entirely of the physical sciences. Given a share or bond certificate, a physicist can tell you its physical properties, a chemist can tell you ...[text shortened]... -- the sciences just cover some of them. It's oblivious/indifferent to others.

The philosopher John Searle provides an illuminating account of the existence of how things like money and marriage, which exist by virtue of collective agreement, can be ontologically reconciled with a physical world.

Perhaps God is something that exists by virtue of collective agreement then?

Originally posted by Palynka
What evidence for the existence of God is scientifically acceptable?

The GAFE is a poor reason to be an atheist as it only concerns OOMP types of Gods.

There is no evidence for a god that is scientifically acceptable. But that doesn't mean there is no evidence of any kind. There is personal experience, for example. Many, many people have claimed to have had some kind of personal interaction with a deity. This type of evidence is not very convincing, but it cannot be discounted out of hand.

The topic of this thread is 'evidence there is no god', and not 'reasons to be an atheist.' The two are not the same. Absence of evidence is a perfectly good reason to be an atheist, but it is among the weaker bits of evidence in proving there is no god. Absence of evidence raises sufficient doubt about theistic claims, but it does very little to disprove them. The Problem of Evil, on the other hand, very nearly makes the case against OOMP gods.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Unless "science" includes economics and allied sciences, I'm arguing that the existence of shares and bonds cannot be demonstrated. Indeed, the terms 'share' and 'bond' would be meaningless in a domain composed entirely of the physical sciences. Given a share or bond certificate, a physicist can tell you its physical properties, a chemist can tell you ...[text shortened]... -- the sciences just cover some of them. It's oblivious/indifferent to others.

Data on a computer is physical support.

Originally posted by Palynka
Actually, when you get down to it, "I exist" is not simply an assumption -- it's self-evident (you cannot deny it without contradicting yourself). "The Universe exists outside of me" is not an assumption required by science (remember where I said scientists can -- and I know 1-2 -- be solipsists; i.e. believe that everything exists only in their mi ined in a non-circular way.

That some scientists are solipsists is quite irrelevant.

If you don't exist, why should we listen to you?