Religion In A Nutshell

Fred M. wrote:No, not so Quill. I have acknowledged the legitimacy of Islam and every other religion....Shintoism, Taoism, Buddhism, et al...and together with Christianity, the adherents make up at least half the world's population.

But have you denounced your own god in favor of them? If not, you have only acknowledged a bunch of competing religions.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M. wrote:No, not so Quill. I have acknowledged the legitimacy of Islam and every other religion....Shintoism, Taoism, Buddhism, et al...and together with Christianity, the adherents make up at least half the world's population.

But have you denounced your own god in favor of them?  If not, you have only acknowledged a bunch of competing religions.

I don't have to: Accepting the existence and legitimacy of other faiths has long been part of Anglicanism, and at the highest level.

Only a few weeks ago, locally, there was a faith event at which Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and Bahais (the latter of which, incidentally, teaches the the value of all religions) were represented either by clerics or senior figures.

Yes, of course there is competition between religions globally, and it is frequently violent and carried out in the name of extremist factions.

But I would imagine that at the centre of at least most religions there is a supreme being...in other words a God.

You either believe in one or you don't; it's as simple as that.

It seems that half, or even more than a half, of the world's population believe in some form of deity, either singular or plural, and that means that in democratic terms at least they should enjoy just as much right to believe and to question the reasons for non-belief as, in spite of all the semantics, non-believers themselves.

Religion be a force for good and a comfort the problems start when followers put maniacal fervour into protecting dogma to the detriment of non believers, believers of other faiths or even their co religionists that are not seen to be 'doing it right' Mixing cultural practices with religious ones tend to make for huge problems as well. Its a shame some religions try to force their ideas onto other people, if its so good and right you won't have to do so, just show example surely.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But have you denounced your own god in favor of them?  If not, you have only acknowledged a bunch of competing religions.

I don't have to: Accepting the existence and legitimacy of other faiths has long been part of Anglicanism, and at the highest level.

Only a few weeks ago, locally, there was a faith event at which Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and Bahais (the latter of which, incidentally,  teaches the  the value of all religions) were represented either by clerics or senior figures.

Yes, of course there is competition between religions globally, and it is frequently violent and carried out in the name of extremist factions.

But I would imagine that at the centre of at least most religions there is a supreme being...in other words a God.

You either believe in one or you don't; it's as simple as that.

It seems that half, or even more than a half, of the world's population believe in some form of deity, either singular or plural, and that means that in democratic terms at least they should enjoy just as much right to believe and to question the reasons for non-belief as, in spite of all the semantics,  non-believers themselves.

Are you talking about genuine polytheism, or merely religious tolerance?  When you say "believe in one" you seem to be saying monotheism, but many different versions are to be accepted.

Religious tolerance is a political concept; i.e., politics stays out of the question, though each worshiper believes only in monotheism.  Religious worshipers can still chose their religion, just the political machinery cannot be used to enforce one.

Most protestant beliefs, which are derivatives of the Pauline brand (NT, Bible), as well as Judaism and Islam--the Abrahamic religions--are talking about a common god, just different standards of worship, so religious alliances are easily formed.  But, it's when you have worshipers who believe in a non-common god, exclusively, that people want to pull political authority into the fray.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I don't have to: Accepting the existence and legitimacy of other faiths has long been part of Anglicanism, and at the highest level.

Only a few weeks ago, locally, there was a faith event at which Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and Bahais (the latter of which, incidentally,  teaches the  the value of all religions) were represented either by clerics or senior figures.

Yes, of course there is competition between religions globally, and it is frequently violent and carried out in the name of extremist factions.

But I would imagine that at the centre of at least most religions there is a supreme being...in other words a God.

You either believe in one or you don't; it's as simple as that.

It seems that half, or even more than a half, of the world's population believe in some form of deity, either singular or plural, and that means that in democratic terms at least they should enjoy just as much right to believe and to question the reasons for non-belief as, in spite of all the semantics,  non-believers themselves.

Are you talking about genuine polytheism, or merely religious tolerance?  When you say "believe in one" you seem to be saying monotheism, but many different versions are to be accepted.

Religious tolerance is a political concept; i.e., politics stays out of the question, though each worshiper believes only in monotheism.  Religious worshipers can still chose their religion, just the political machinery cannot be used to enforce one.

Most protestant beliefs, which are derivatives of the Pauline brand (NT, Bible), as well as Judaism and Islam--the Abrahamic religions--are talking about a common god, just different standards of worship, so religious alliances are easily formed.  But, it's when you have worshipers who believe in a non-common god, exclusively, that people want to pull political authority into the fray.

Quill, with the greatest respect you do appear to be attempting to fudge what is basically a straightforward matter by now introducing the issues of politics and religious tolerance, neither of which I have previously addressed because they are irrelevant to my original (and still unanswered) question to Lurker, whose contempt for and dismissal of religion triggered off this debate:

You may say to me: "There is no God. If there is, prove it."
And I would reply: "I cannot prove to you that there is a God. Can you prove to me that there isn't?

Both Eil and yourself not unreasonably cited Sagan's Maxim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", simply assuming - wrongly in my opinion - that your
opinion is the truism and therefore needs no proof, while my own stance is "extraordinary" and therefore requires "extraordinary evidence" before it can be proven.

My whole argument is based on the premise that to a believer - and in choosing that particular word I do not differentiate between Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists et al on the obvious grounds that they all believe is one or more deities - the statement that "there is no God" is, in fact, the "extraordinary claim" that requires "extraordinary evidence."

And neither you, Eil nor Lurker can possibly reject that point of view on the grounds that believers in a deity or God must be wrong and must prove their belief because they represent a somehow deluded minority...because research into the subject has shown that at least half the human beings on this planet do so, and, indeed, that the most prominent religion is Christian.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Are you talking about genuine polytheism, or merely religious tolerance?  When you say "believe in one" you seem to be saying monotheism, but many different versions are to be accepted.

Religious tolerance is a political concept; i.e., politics stays out of the question, though each worshiper believes only in monotheism.  Religious worshipers can still chose their religion, just the political machinery cannot be used to enforce one.

Most protestant beliefs, which are derivatives of the Pauline brand (NT, Bible), as well as Judaism and Islam--the Abrahamic religions--are talking about a common god, just different standards of worship, so religious alliances are easily formed.  But, it's when you have worshipers who believe in a non-common god, exclusively, that people want to pull political authority into the fray.

Quill, with the greatest respect you do appear to be attempting to fudge what is basically a straightforward matter by now introducing the issues of politics and religious tolerance, neither of which I have previously addressed because they are irrelevant to my original (and still  unanswered) question to Lurker, whose contempt for and dismissal of religion triggered off this debate:

You may say to me: "There is no God. If there is, prove it."
And I would reply: "I cannot prove to you that there is a God. Can you prove to me that there isn't?

Both Eil and yourself not unreasonably cited Sagan's Maxim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", simply assuming - wrongly in my opinion - that your
opinion is the truism and therefore needs no proof, while my own stance is "extraordinary" and therefore requires "extraordinary evidence" before it can be proven.

My whole argument is based on the premise that to a believer - and in choosing that particular word I do not differentiate between Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists et al on the obvious grounds that they all believe is one or more deities - the statement that "there is no God" is, in fact,  the "extraordinary claim" that requires "extraordinary evidence."

And neither you, Eil nor Lurker can possibly reject that point of view on the grounds that believers in a deity or God must be wrong and must prove their belief because they represent a somehow deluded minority...because research into the subject has shown that at least half the human beings on this planet do so, and, indeed, that the most prominent religion is Christian.

I m not concerned whether people can believe whether a God exists. What I am more concerned morally, is based around the beliefs/religious text people have based around that deity. Which is the fundemental difference here. So arguing over whether a certain god exists is to me really irrelevant. What is more concerning, is if that deity does exist, that harbours some of the worst negative human emtoive traits possible.

As to me, that would be to me, essentially what we define as evil and why I am more concerned at why. People simple bury the worst aspects of those religious beliefs, if they hold liberalist ideals. Or at its worst like ISIS and adhere to those negative emotional beliefs. Which is the inherant danger and we have even see this in the form of Nazism itself. That it becomes like a religious cult. Which allows normal people, whether Nazi's, Communists, ISIS etc, to commit the most appalling acts and then think its righteous to do so. That is the inherant problem with beliefs formulated on fear. Of which they all are.

So to even argue over whether the Abrahamic diety exists is not really important to me. What to me is important, is why people, again through fear and are thus corcered. Follow, something that is for all intents and purposes, evil? So evil, in fact that for the last 2,500 years, countless people have suffered at the hands of these very beliefs. The abrahamic beliefs being the worst. So what you should be questioning is why a need to believe in something that requires people to live within fear of what could happen if they do not? That if they do not follow, they will suffer?

How about we take the examples of Soviet Russia and Nazism, to show exactly what does happen? That people suffer and are persecuted. How and why would anyone follow something so abhorant? So please do not say that Jesus came to save everyones sin, because its written on his return, he is going to come and wipe out a third of humanity. The very fact that to hold beliefs, that people will eternally suffer and simple because they do not believe, is essetnially abhorant. You certainly do not have this deity claim, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This deities view, is that you will suffer for doing so.

So how can you on the one hand defend such a concept by a human, Voltaire, but on the other contradict yourself and back the Chrstian Deity you cannot prove exists. That would make people suffer for doing so? I mean this was something Voltaire wrote and yet there are many things claimed to be divinely ordained by God in the Bible. How can you pick and chose here, when Voltaire, would be in complete contradiction to the commands of the God in the bible?

To me, you cannot defend Voltaire here, if you believe in Christianity.

Lurker wrote:

Is that supposed to be some sort of intelligent contribution to what was an interesting and enlightening (at least some of us appear to have thought so) debate?

At least we may be truly thankful that it's not just another manic anti Trump/anti Republican rant.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Lurker wrote:

Is that supposed to be some sort of intelligent contribution to what was an interesting and  enlightening (at least some of us appear to have thought so) debate?

At least we may be truly thankful that it's not just another manic anti Trump/anti Republican rant.

You claim to have me off ignore, how about this then

I m not concerned whether people can believe whether a God exists. What I am more concerned morally, is based around the beliefs/religious text people have based around that deity. Which is the fundemental difference here. So arguing over whether a certain god exists is to me really irrelevant. What is more concerning, is if that deity does exist, that harbours some of the worst negative human emtoive traits possible.

As to me, that would be to me, essentially what we define as evil and why I am more concerned at why. People simple bury the worst aspects of those religious beliefs, if they hold liberalist ideals. Or at its worst like ISIS and adhere to those negative emotional beliefs. Which is the inherant danger and we have even see this in the form of Nazism itself. That it becomes like a religious cult. Which allows normal people, whether Nazi's, Communists, ISIS etc, to commit the most appalling acts and then think its righteous to do so. That is the inherant problem with beliefs formulated on fear. Of which they all are.

So to even argue over whether the Abrahamic diety exists is not really important to me. What to me is important, is why people, again through fear and are thus corcered. Follow, something that is for all intents and purposes, evil? So evil, in fact that for the last 2,500 years, countless people have suffered at the hands of these very beliefs. The abrahamic beliefs being the worst. So what you should be questioning is why a need to believe in something that requires people to live within fear of what could happen if they do not? That if they do not follow, they will suffer?

How about we take the examples of Soviet Russia and Nazism, to show exactly what does happen? That people suffer and are persecuted. How and why would anyone follow something so abhorant? So please do not say that Jesus came to save everyones sin, because its written on his return, he is going to come and wipe out a third of humanity. The very fact that to hold beliefs, that people will eternally suffer and simple because they do not believe, is essetnially abhorant. You certainly do not have this deity claim, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This deities view, is that you will suffer for doing so.

So how can you on the one hand defend such a concept by a human, Voltaire, but on the other contradict yourself and back the Chrstian Deity you cannot prove exists. That would make people suffer for doing so? I mean this was something Voltaire wrote and yet there are many things claimed to be divinely ordained by God in the Bible. How can you pick and chose here, when Voltaire, would be in complete contradiction to the commands of the God in the bible?

To me, you cannot defend Voltaire here, if you believe in Christianity.

@ Didge.

Your argument would have some validity if Christianity comprised solely of Evangelicals; some of the closed Roman Catholic Orders; some Orthodox Christian (as opposed to Anglican) churches and, maybe, the British Strict Baptist Church, about which I know nothing, as evidenced by my recent contract with them in my capacity as a Royal British Legion officer regarding local celebrations of the end of WW1 and Remembrance services. They ignored me, so clearly, both I and my cause are unworthy.

However, I am none of the above and find that my professional adherence to and respect for the words of Voltaire to be entirely in keeping with my own beliefs.

Personally, I have absolutely no problem with it.

I was originally High Anglican; I now regard myself as a Methodist. The two branches of Christianity are poles apart except for the wording of some of the Liturgy.

Do I take everything in the Bible literally? Of course not; in my opinion only a fool would do so.

And no, your concluding surmise is completely and utterly wrong: We have all been given a choice, not a diktat, and must expect to answer for it at the appropriate time.

I will be more than happy to do so.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Your argument would have some validity if Christianity comprised solely of Evangelicals; some of the closed Roman Catholic Orders; some Orthodox Christian (as opposed to Anglican) churches and, maybe, the British Strict Baptist Church, about which I know nothing, as evidenced by my recent contract with them in my capacity as a Royal British Legion officer regarding local celebrations of the end of WW1 and Remembrance services. They ignored me, so clearly, both I and my cause are unworthy.

However, I am none of the above and find that my professional adherence to and respect for the words of Voltaire to be entirely in keeping with my own beliefs.

Personally, I have absolutely no problem with it.

I was originally High Anglican; I now regard myself as a Methodist. The two branches of Christianity are poles apart except for the wording of some of the Liturgy.

Do I take everything in the Bible literally? Of course not; in my opinion only a fool would do so.

And no, your concluding surmise is completely and utterly wrong: We have all been given a choice, not a diktat, and must expect to answer for it at the appropriate time.

I will be more than happy to do so.

Come on Fred

The view is this and you happen to be moving the goal posts, in my opinion

In Pauline christianity, you have to believe, correct?

If not, you are then damned?

So you are not in a place to even judge or decide, are you?

As much as I know you would be fair and righteous on this. The point is that your deity, would not be, based on bibical law

Hence, this deity, would not apply Voltaire, would he/she?

This is not about taking anything litterally here. Its about the very basic principles of this faith

So lets put this to the test mate and you know I respect you

God says you have to believe in me or be damned

I say, I dont believe that

What use would be defending my right to say that, if I then would be damned?

Fred M. wrote:Quill, with the greatest respect you do appear to be attempting to fudge what is basically a straightforward matter by now introducing the issues of politics and religious tolerance, neither of which I have previously addressed because they are irrelevant to my original (and still unanswered) question to Lurker, whose contempt for and dismissal of religion triggered off this debate...

No, I was asking you: which do you mean, polytheism or simply tolerance for other religions?  It’s hardly straightforward in your post.  If polytheism, we haven’t heard that song since Roman days.  If tolerance, it really is a political issue, if you define politics as living and getting along with others.

It really is politics, no fudging.

Fred M. wrote:You may say to me: "There is no God. If there is, prove it."
And I would reply: "I cannot prove to you that there is a God. Can you prove to me that there isn't?

I  still would answer, no one can prove a negative.  It's a nullity.  Only positives can (and should) be proven. Since the claim of a negative is the assertion of a nothing, what would one prove and how?

You can confirm a negative, but only by the adverse side (that would be you) failing to prove his or her positive claim.  So, if you admit you cannot prove a god exists, ipso facto you have confirmed the negative.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M. wrote:Quill, with the greatest respect you do appear to be attempting to fudge what is basically a straightforward matter by now introducing the issues of politics and religious tolerance, neither of which I have previously addressed because they are irrelevant to my original (and still unanswered) question to Lurker, whose contempt for and dismissal of religion triggered off this debate...

No, I was asking you: which do you mean, polytheism or simply tolerance for other religions?  It’s hardly straightforward in your post.  If polytheism, we haven’t heard that song since Roman days.  If tolerance, it really is a political issue, if you define politics as living and getting along with others.

It really is politics, no fudging.

Fred M. wrote:You may say to me: "There is no God. If there is, prove it."
And I would reply: "I cannot prove to you that there is a God. Can you prove to me that there isn't?

I  still would answer, no one can prove a negative.  It's a nullity.  Only positives can (and should) be proven.  Since the claim of a negative is the assertion of a nothing, what would one prove and how?

You can confirm a negative, but only by the adverse side (that would be you) failing to prove his or her positive claim.  So, if you admit you cannot prove a god exists, ipso facto you have confirmed the negative.

I really don't know how I can present the case for my belief in a more simple and straightforward manner, but it is, as it always has been and will ever be:

An estimated half the world's population, including many of the greatest scholars, philosophers, teachers, scientists and, yes, lawyers, throughout history and in the present day, believe in the existence of a god, deity, supreme being...call him, she, it or they what you will. They cannot prove it, but they still believe.

The estimated other half of the world's population (etc., etc.,) do not believe in the existence of a god, deity or supreme being. They cannot disprove it, but they still disbelieve.

And that is the mystery of religion: We have been given a choice - some would say "God-given"; some would not - and it is entirely up to us how to use it, or how not to use it. We are each answerable for our own decisions and actions here on earth...the only question is whether we will, in whatever hereafter exists or does not exist for all of us without question, be called upon to answer for and justify them.

You don't think so. I honestly don't know. And that - without all the semantics and side issues - is how the matter stands.

Fred M. wrote:I really don't know how I can present the case for my belief in a more simple and straightforward manner, but it is, as it always has been and will ever be:

An estimated half the world's population, including many of the greatest scholars, philosophers, teachers, scientists and, yes, lawyers, throughout history and in the present day, believe in the existence of a god, deity, supreme being...call him, she, it or they what you will. They cannot prove it, but they still believe.

Meaning what?  You are going down the path of the fallacy of popularity…something is true because many people believe it.  One has only to remember the flat earth theory.

Fred M. wrote:The estimated other half of the world's population (etc., etc.,) do not believe in the existence of a god, deity or supreme being. They cannot disprove it, but they still disbelieve.

They don’t need to disprove it.  They are not positing a positive statement (see how positivism works?).

Fred M. wrote:And that is the mystery of religion: We have been given a choice - some would say "God-given"; some would not - and it is entirely up to us how to use it, or how not to use it. We are each answerable for our own decisions and actions here on earth...the only question is whether we will, in whatever hereafter exists or does not exist for all of us without question, be called upon to answer for and justify them.

You don't think so. I honestly don't know. And that - without all the semantics and side issues - is how the matter stands.

We do agree on one thing: there must be an origin.  I gravitate toward the theory of ancient astronauts, with superior knowledge of universal laws.  That would explain the importance of the sky in the many theories of god, as well as the appearance of omniscient powers...that they found us (and not the other way around) proves superior knowledge.

The answer is simple.  They were practicing the art we vociferously practiced on earth, and still do in science: exploration. See, Boorstein, Danial, The Discoverers (1983). Quite likely, they were looking for their origins.

so where did the ancient astronauths come from?


and

abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence....

Lord Foul wrote:so where did the ancient astronauths come from?  


and

abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence....

The answer is simple.  They were practicing the art we vociferously practiced on earth, and still do in science: exploration. See, Boorstein, Danial, The Discoverers (1983). Quite likely, they were looking for their origins.

Vic wrote:abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence....

I don't know what you are referring to...could you place that in context, please?

I would say, 'absence of evidence, is absence of a proposition'.  But I don't know the context in which you are bringing this up. Indeed, the atheist is saying there is no god, no religion, which is to say there is no proposition.

philosophically quill the athiest IS making a proposition...denying a given proposition requires the declaration of your own position.
that being that there is no god

and they use the argument that there is no evidence thereof.....

hence my point

Lord Foul wrote:philosophically quill the athiest IS making a proposition...denying a given proposition requires the declaration of your own position.
that being that there is no god

and they use the argument that there is no evidence thereof.....

hence my point

Well, you have to understand the logical essence of the idea of nullity.  Just as people misunderstand the concept of anti-matter (as matter), they misunderstand the concept of zero or nullity.  It is not something!  It's an linguistic metaphor.  It is a way of denoting, as something, the notion of nothing.

The problem is that, in argument, people lose sight of that little twist.  Without the denotation of nullity or zero, we would never be able to recognize such things as fractions or decimals--indeed, the Romans didn't--but it leads to the logical impasse that religionists, and indeed, some physicists, get lost upon.  Simply put, you don't explain 'nothing', you just use it. And if you don't embark upon an explanation of it, you certainly don't embark upon a proof of it.

there are 3 problems with your above argument Quill

1) zero is (mathematically) a number like any other, sitting as it does not only on the number line between +1 and -1
but also on the interface between real and imaginary numbers
it also can act as an "operator" (maths again)

2) if you propose the existance of "nothing" in the forn of "non existance of a given thing" then philosophically you need to show your case for that

3) you have fallen into the trap whereby the religionist can accuse you of the "faith of athieism", with all the baggage that entails, since your argument above says "thats what I beleive (there is no god), and I refuse to advance a reasonable argument to support that belief.

Lord Foul wrote:there are 3 problems with your above argument Quill

1) zero is (mathematically) a number like any other, sitting as it does not only on the number line between +1 and -1
but also on the interface between real and imaginary numbers
it also can act as an "operator" (maths again)

2) if you propose the existance of "nothing" in the forn of "non existance of a given thing" then philosophically you need to show your case for that

3) you have fallen into the trap whereby the religionist can accuse you of the "faith of athieism", with all the baggage that entails, since your argument above says "thats what I beleive (there is no god), and I refuse to advance a reasonable argument to support that belief.

this is correct on all 3 accounts

it's the reason I hypothesize the sun is a god, it's really just to show to faults of 'fundamentalist atheism'
by what science has already established as the 'functions of the sun in relation to life on this planet' there is a reasonable argument for it being a God, since it IS actually what caused/maintains a lot of the 'functions' that were previously ascribed to gods. Sure it is not as unbelievably powerful as the Abrahamic god but it is actually more powerful than most gods that have been conceived by man.

The way that the Australian Army (in relation to navigation, ordinance and communications..) explained it when I joined the Army Reserves in the 1980s,  and how some maths/computing/philosophy faculties over here may have described it :

" 'Oh' is a letter,
Zero is a number,
'Nought' is nothing."

I would replace the number 'zero' with the term 'nought' in that maxim that Quill presents above, to make it more tautologically correct.

The concepts of both "minus 1" (the 'J factor' in electronics..) and "nought" become essential in many scientifikul, statistical and computing areas..  The Greeks and Romans didn't recognise the existence of 'negative' numbers (i.e. "less than zero") in their counting systems, where they started counting from 1 and moved up and down by simply adding or subtracting from a base of zero  --  when scientifikul/mathematical/"logical" ways of approaching problems came along, they had to resort to Arabic numerals, while at the same time also introducing "negative numbers" into equations to make them work.

Vic wrote:zero is (mathematically) a number like any other, sitting as it does not only on the number line between +1 and -1

What is the value of zero?

Vic wrote:but also on the interface between real and imaginary numbers
it also can act as an "operator" (maths again)

But, how do you prove that?

Vic wrote:if you propose the existance of "nothing" in the forn of "non existance of a given thing" then philosophically you need to show your case for that

That—“a given thing”—would be a materialistic definition. Obviously, since nullity is incompatable with material, it’s an impossibility. Rather, zero or nullity can only be realized as undifferentiated potential. Thus, when you confirm it, it is simply a place-holder.

Vic wrote:you have fallen into the trap whereby the religionist can accuse you of the "faith of athieism", with all the baggage that entails, since your argument above says "thats what I beleive (there is no god), and I refuse to advance a reasonable argument to support that belief.

Belief is cognitive, and not material. Your argument depends upon a conception of a materialistic existence of belief. Just as above, if nullity is accepted as undifferentiated potential, it has no material existence.

veya_victaous wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:there are 3 problems with your above argument Quill

1) zero is (mathematically) a number like any other, sitting as it does not only on the number line between +1 and -1
but also on the interface between real and imaginary numbers
it also can act as an "operator" (maths again)

2) if you propose the existance of "nothing" in the forn of "non existance of a given thing" then philosophically you need to show your case for that

3) you have fallen into the trap whereby the religionist can accuse you of the "faith of athieism", with all the baggage that entails, since your argument above says "thats what I beleive (there is no god), and I refuse to advance a reasonable argument to support that belief.

this is correct on all 3 accounts

it's the reason I hypothesize the sun is a god, it's really just to show to faults of 'fundamentalist atheism'
by what science has already established as the 'functions of the sun in relation to life on this planet' there is a reasonable argument for it being a God, since it IS actually what caused/maintains a lot of the 'functions' that were previously ascribed to gods. Sure it is not as unbelievably powerful as the Abrahamic god but it is actually more powerful than most gods that have been conceived by man.

That depends entirely on your definition of the word 'god'.

If the Sun is a god, everyone is a believer.

The word 'a-theist' specifically refuses the possibility only of certain kinds of gods (namely, theistic and polytheistic ones).

Lord Foul wrote:there are 3 problems with your above argument Quill

1) zero is (mathematically) a number like any other, sitting as it does not only on the number line between +1 and -1
but also on the interface between real and imaginary numbers
it also can act as an "operator" (maths again)

2) if you propose the existance of "nothing" in the forn of "non existance of a given thing" then philosophically you need to show your case for that

3) you have fallen into the trap whereby the religionist can accuse you of the "faith of athieism", with all the baggage that entails, since your argument above says "thats what I beleive (there is no god), and I refuse to advance a reasonable argument to support that belief.

Absurd

An athiest does not believe in a god

Hence the view, they then have to disprove that a god exists, is absurd. Henc the view is not based on nothing, but the view a religious person believes themselves. Hence you are poorly distorting an issue here and religious numpties do this all the time

I mean what faith of athiesm? Athiesm simple means no to not believe and has rationality behind this. As most religious beliefs are based on self attention through negative fears

The above is the biggest load of bullshit you have ever written mate

If I say there is no god, its because, there is no god. I do not need to prove, something that has no evidence. Hence the abusrd reasoning of your argument

and by your exact argument didge...If I say there IS a god, then there is a god, I do not need to prove something that has no currently available evidence since abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

Both those arguments are articles of faith, badly argued, in fact argued from entrenched and antagonistic perspectives......

bear in mind "faith" as used in this argument is merely a statement of belief... and your confidence in that belief

YOU beleive there is no god
I beleive there is a god


you have faith in your position
I have faith in mine

having faith in ones chosen deity however is another matter, personally I wouldnt trust mine to be entirely consistant in his/her/its behaviour for example, but at least he/she/it does have a sense of humour

also faith as used in religious matters usually implies "blind faith" which in turn then requires you to have utter faith in the probity and goodness of those who put themselves forward as "god representatives" a seriously bad idea when you realise that these god reps are in fact humans, with all that implies.

Sorry but that is again absurd mate

Its not a case of me believeing whether a god exists or not. Its on the onus of the believer to prove whether one does or not.

So if you believe there is a God, then that requires evidence

Where is your evidence?

Victor wrote:abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

No. It's simply a non sequitur. Only positive claims need evidence in order to become believed.

Eilzel wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:there are 3 problems with your above argument Quill

1) zero is (mathematically) a number like any other, sitting as it does not only on the number line between +1 and -1
but also on the interface between real and imaginary numbers
it also can act as an "operator" (maths again)

2) if you propose the existance of "nothing" in the forn of "non existance of a given thing" then philosophically you need to show your case for that

3) you have fallen into the trap whereby the religionist can accuse you of the "faith of athieism", with all the baggage that entails, since your argument above says "thats what I beleive (there is no god), and I refuse to advance a reasonable argument to support that belief.

this is correct on all 3 accounts

it's the reason I hypothesize the sun is a god, it's really just to show to faults of 'fundamentalist atheism'
by what science has already established as the 'functions of the sun in relation to life on this planet' there is a reasonable argument for it being a God, since it IS actually what caused/maintains a lot of the 'functions' that were previously ascribed to gods. Sure it is not as unbelievably powerful as the Abrahamic god but it is actually more powerful than most gods that have been conceived by man.

That depends entirely on your definition of the word 'god'.

If the Sun is a god, everyone is a believer.

The word 'a-theist' specifically refuses the possibility only of certain kinds of gods (namely, theistic and polytheistic ones).

In my Hypothesis I am using the definition for the Majority of gods, which are of course Polytheist ones, So it is not my Definition, is the 'Average Definition' or the 'Minimum requirements' as set by Previously accepted 'gods'  

the Sun is Now a Theistic god because I am calling it such 
since there is NO other requirement than Man calling it a god
it is up to you or who ever wants to refute that it is to show that a 'God' is something else, Since we both agree the Sun exists and You accept that Sun Does preform those Functions. And Any reasonable definition of the minimum requirements to be a 'god' the Sun meets and/or exceeds


Atheism is just as flawed as Theism... if one can't accept reality, one's no different than a Christian.  
If You acknowledge that the Bible is Incorrect/untrue, to Even suggest that it's definition of God it provides is True (despite everything else in the book being wrong) is STUPID. So before Any conversation about 'using science to find/define the divine' can begin it has to be acknowledged that every part of bible has to be abandoned, because it has already been Scientifically proven to be False. And it relies on being omniscient so any failing is total failure and subsequently all of it's definitions/requirements/rules/presumptions are void. As would be the case with a Scientific Hypothesis in the same circumstance.

Atheism is the same as skepticism. Is that also rejected?

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:there are 3 problems with your above argument Quill

1) zero is (mathematically) a number like any other, sitting as it does not only on the number line between +1 and -1
but also on the interface between real and imaginary numbers
it also can act as an "operator" (maths again)

2) if you propose the existance of "nothing" in the forn of "non existance of a given thing" then philosophically you need to show your case for that

3) you have fallen into the trap whereby the religionist can accuse you of the "faith of athieism", with all the baggage that entails, since your argument above says "thats what I beleive (there is no god), and I refuse to advance a reasonable argument to support that belief.

this is correct on all 3 accounts

it's the reason I hypothesize the sun is a god, it's really just to show to faults of 'fundamentalist atheism'
by what science has already established as the 'functions of the sun in relation to life on this planet' there is a reasonable argument for it being a God, since it IS actually what caused/maintains a lot of the 'functions' that were previously ascribed to gods. Sure it is not as unbelievably powerful as the Abrahamic god but it is actually more powerful than most gods that have been conceived by man.

That depends entirely on your definition of the word 'god'.

If the Sun is a god, everyone is a believer.

The word 'a-theist' specifically refuses the possibility only of certain kinds of gods (namely, theistic and polytheistic ones).

In my Hypothesis I am using the definition for the Majority of gods, which are of course Polytheist ones, So it is not my Definition, is the 'Average Definition' or the 'Minimum requirements' as set by Previously accepted 'gods'  

the Sun is Now a Theistic god because I am calling it such 
since there is NO other requirement than Man calling it a god
it is up to you or who ever wants to refute that it is to show that a 'God' is something else, Since we both agree the Sun exists and You accept that Sun Does preform those Functions. And Any reasonable definition of the minimum requirements to be a 'god' the Sun meets and/or exceeds


Atheism is just as flawed as Theism... if one can't accept reality, one's no different than a Christian.  
If You acknowledge that the Bible is Incorrect/untrue, to Even suggest that it's definition of God it provides is True (despite everything else in the book being wrong) is STUPID. So before Any conversation about 'using science to find/define the divine' can begin it has to be acknowledged that every part of bible has to be abandoned, because it has already been Scientifically proven to be False. And it relies on being omniscient so any failing is total failure and subsequently all of it's definitions/requirements/rules/presumptions are void. As would be the case with a Scientific Hypothesis in the same circumstance.

My answer to this is simple.

I am an atheist (99%) with regard to every god that is said to have consciousness or any human/animalistic features or characteristics or be claimed to have intelligently designed/created the universe. Or who is said to have walked to earth.

This is NOT akin to a religious person, since there are no doctrines I follow. I am simply saying I don't believe that which is asserted without evidence.

If you say your 'god' is the sun, fine, I believe in your god too. But I do not define gods that way (which is irrelevant, really). If your god is a rock, a tree or your mind, I believe in that too. My atheism doesn't cover it

so If you where Honest with your definitions you are agnostic 
In Science that 1% is Important 

the point is not that sun is or isn't a god 
it is that 'the Sun is a god' is a Valid Hypothesis BASED on Human's Scientific knowledge at the current time. 
therefore According to Science Right Now Atheism is Incorrect and Agnosticism is correct.  


If your going to have 'Faith' in Science and abandon theology may as well be 'true' to it and accept Scientific methodology in all aspects of your life.

Original Quill wrote:Atheism is the same as skepticism.  Is that also rejected?

Atheism is the same a climate change denial 

Atheism is not Skepticism at all, not in anyway shape or form is it even similar to skepticism 
Atheism is a Clear Statement that a Specific Circumstance is Factually Accurate. 

skepticism is the position of disbelief 
'the theory that certain knowledge is impossible'
a.k.a Admission of not knowing 

which is the exact definition of Agnosticism 
"the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable."

Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe. An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. Agnosticism is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know. An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not.

veya_victaous wrote:so If you where Honest with your definitions you are agnostic 
In Science that 1% is Important 

the point is not that sun is or isn't a god 
it is that 'the Sun is a god' is a Valid Hypothesis BASED on Human's Scientific knowledge at the current time. 
therefore According to Science Right Now Atheism is Incorrect and Agnosticism is correct.  


If your going to have 'Faith' in Science and abandon theology may as well be 'true' to it and accept Scientific methodology in all aspects of your life.

But agnosticism, while in pure dictionary terms in true for 99% of the human population, implies way more uncertainty than is actually the case.

I do not think the chances of gods I define them existing is equal to the chance of them not doing, not by a long way.

So I am as much an atheist as the average believer is of whatever they believe.

Atheism can only be incorrect if a theistic god is proven to exist.

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Atheism is the same as skepticism.  Is that also rejected?

Atheism is the same a climate change denial 

Atheism is not Skepticism at all, not in anyway shape or form is it even similar to skepticism 
Atheism is a Clear Statement that a Specific Circumstance is Factually Accurate. 

skepticism is the position of disbelief 
'the theory that certain knowledge is impossible'
a.k.a Admission of not knowing 

which is the exact definition of Agnosticism 
"the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable."

Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe. An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. Agnosticism is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know. An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not.

It's a semantic argument, so it doesn't matter to me. But a-theism means 'no' ('a') 'god' ('theo'), or a-theism, or a nullity with religion.


'Gnostic" means special, mystical knowledge as the connection to god. According to Gnostic beliefs, there is a god that is good and perfect, but impersonal and unknowable. The Gnostic has that knowledge. Hence, someone who is a-gnostic has no ('a') special knowledge ('gnostic'), or a-gnostic, or disavows that special knowledge.

Atheism is the term that denies god. But I'm not going to get into silly word-meaning (semantic) games. Whatever you call it, I say the proposition there is a god is a nullity. The absence of proof, confirms it.

To me, it's as if the subject was never brought up.

"Atheism can only be incorrect if a theistic god is proven to exist."
is the Equivalent of Saying Evolution is Just a theory, Complete Contempt for Science methodology.  Which is Fine But then Don't pretend to be any better than Tommy Rejecting Climate Change. 

At least You admit Your belief in atheism is as supported by facts as much as a Christians beliefs are.


Under the scientific definition 
Atheism is is a Clear Statement of a Specific Circumstance that it is Claiming is Factually Accurate. 
It Like every other Hypothesis It needs to Prove or at least Support it's position before it can be held to be anything other than a theological Fairy-tale. 

Agnosticism Does not imply this 50/50 BULLSHIT Christians keep saying (and reborn Atheists that may as well still be Christians for their inability to get over the childhood brainwashing)  How could it possibly Be 50/50 when most agnostics acknowledge Multiple religions. so we have a dozen way split almost straight away, not that the odds actually matter, only that the options exist.


So at this Point, 
I have an Reasonable Hypothesis Supporting My position of a Sun Deity and Atheists have Nothing, No Hypothesis other than their personal Beliefs which are worth less than nothing to Science. 
Because Most Atheists Do NOT actually follow Science any more than Muslims or Christians. 

You can literally Promote the possibility a Sun God and Be more scientifically accurate than an Atheist... Because so many atheist are So Ignorant of Science.  Many Atheists still talk about the Bible and Not Science, they are just too dumb to even understand what they give lip service to. 

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Atheism is the same as skepticism.  Is that also rejected?

Atheism is the same a climate change denial 

Atheism is not Skepticism at all, not in anyway shape or form is it even similar to skepticism 
Atheism is a Clear Statement that a Specific Circumstance is Factually Accurate. 

skepticism is the position of disbelief 
'the theory that certain knowledge is impossible'
a.k.a Admission of not knowing 

which is the exact definition of Agnosticism 
"the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable."

Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe. An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. Agnosticism is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know. An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not.

It's a semantic argument, so it doesn't matter to me.  But a-theism means 'no' ('a') 'god' ('theo'), or a-theism, or a nullity with religion.


'Gnostic" means special, mystical knowledge as the connection to god. According to Gnostic beliefs, there is a god that is good and perfect, but impersonal and unknowable.  The Gnostic has that knowledge.  Hence, someone who is a-gnostic has no ('a') special knowledge ('gnostic'), or a-gnostic, or disavows that special knowledge.

Atheism is the term that denies god.  But I'm not going to get into silly word-meaning (semantic) games.  Whatever you call it, I say the proposition there is a god is a nullity.  The absence of proof, confirms it.

To me, it's as if the subject was never brought up.

that's post is just WAFFLE and you know it

I say the proposition there is a god is a nullity.  The absence of proof, confirms it.

If you believe that you're Illogical and have no further part in the debate as you Deny the methodology of Science. Absence of Proof Confirms Nothing even the suggestion is the polar opposite to the Scientific Method 

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

Your Opinion of a Nullity, is just an opinion, an Unsupported Hypothesis 
which to Science is Literally Piss in the wind if Lack any Proof or even coo-berating evidence to support your claim. 
Where is the Supporting Evidence for YOUR very clear very defined Statement?


You Claim '(Divinity)= 0' 

I Claim  '(Divinity) = Unknown' or '(Divinity) = Entity responsibly for life on earth' 

And Currently I have been Able to supply a Hypothesis but no Atheist has yet 

veya_victaous wrote:"Atheism can only be incorrect if a theistic god is proven to exist."
is the Equivalent of Saying Evolution is Just a theory, Complete Contempt for Science methodology.  Which is Fine But then Don't pretend to be any better than Tommy Rejecting Climate Change. 

At least You admit Your belief in atheism is as supported by facts as much as a Christians beliefs are.


Under the scientific definition 
Atheism is is a Clear Statement of a Specific Circumstance that it is Claiming is Factually Accurate. 
It Like every other Hypothesis It needs to Prove or at least Support it's position before it can be held to be anything other than a theological Fairy-tale. 

Agnosticism Does not imply this 50/50 BULLSHIT Christians keep saying (and reborn Atheists that may as well still be Christians for their inability to get over the childhood brainwashing)  How could it possibly Be 50/50 when most agnostics acknowledge Multiple religions. so we have a dozen way split almost straight away, not that the odds actually matter, only that the options exist.


So at this Point, 
I have an Reasonable Hypothesis Supporting My position of a Sun Deity and Atheists have Nothing, No Hypothesis other than their personal Beliefs which are worth less than nothing to Science. 
Because Most Atheists Do NOT actually follow Science any more than Muslims or Christians. 

You can literally Promote the possibility a Sun God and Be more scientifically accurate than an Atheist... Because so many atheist are So Ignorant of Science.  Many Atheists still talk about the Bible and Not Science, they are just too dumb to even understand what they give lip service to. 

Have I talked of the Bible here? No. That's your obsession not mine.

You are playing with words and definitions for whatever reason, I presume because you don't like the tone of new atheism.

If I say I have an invisible friend, are you being anti-science by saying I haven't without evidence?

No, and I'm sorry for getting frustrated.

Because Unlike 'new atheism for reborn atheists' (who are happy merely 'rejecting the dogma' of their old religions)
I am a traditional born and raised 'Scientific methodology atheist' on both sides of the family (which I now refer to as Agnostic because it is more accurate, but in my grandfathers generation there was no need to clarify, 'Atheist Agnostic' is most accurate)  and for the 'Scientific methodology atheist' the point is not to merely reject the dogma but to seek 'truth/enlightenment/reality' through logic, reason and the scientific methodology.


I don't know if i am 'Atheist Agnostic' anymore, debating on forums and with myself, playing devil's advocate for things I don't strictly believe has caused me to develop at least Plausible Scenarios for the divine, the best that doesn't require quantum physics is 'the sun is the real god' 


Anyway, I have thought of a better way to explain my hypothesis

Just like this is a real dragon


and this is a Fantasy Dragon



this is a Real God


And this a Fantasy God



Just like Dragons the real thing is not supernatural.
because it would be illogical to contemplate a search/hypothesis for a supernatural thing in the natural world. 
therefore if we take the 'functions of gods' and determine what causes them in the real world, is it not logical to then say that thing that actually preforms the 'functions of gods' is the 'real god' ?


In some ways I don't understand why it so hard to accept that the literal Giant fucking ball of cosmic energy that is so vast it manipulates matter, time and space in the localized universe, that's radiant energy has and continues to sustain all life that we know of..... etc etc etc
is potentially as 'real' as gods get.

veya wrote:"Atheism can only be incorrect if a theistic god is proven to exist."
is the Equivalent of Saying Evolution is Just a theory, Complete Contempt for Science methodology. Which is Fine But then Don't pretend to be any better than Tommy Rejecting Climate Change.

Veya, your so-called scientific knowledge holds that all knowledge is just a theory. Theories, if broken down, are merely explanations of associations between two or more variables. Before proof, they are hypotheses. After positive proof, they are substantiated…or, after negative proof, the null hypothesis is confirmed.

But science holds that all knowledge is corrigible, which is to say: “capable of being corrected, rectified, or reformed”. This means that no knowledge is final and/or complete. The status of corrigible theory is permanent. No one is so foolish as to say, I have final, complete and certain knowledge of a subject. We learned our lesson with the flat-earth theory.

Yes, evolution is only a theory and will always be only a theory. That is because all of scientific knowledge is just theory. I have learned to live with it; you should too. Instead of certainty, you will have substantial evidence, or overwhelming evidence…but you will never have certainty. The day you gain certainty, they will close the patents offices.

veya wrote:Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

Your Opinion of a Nullity, is just an opinion, an Unsupported Hypothesis
which to Science is Literally Piss in the wind if Lack any Proof or even coo-berating evidence to support your claim.
Where is the Supporting Evidence for YOUR very clear very defined Statement?

My explanation of ‘Nullity’ is as a logical concept.  If, after trying to prove a hypothesis, you end up with no evidence, it’s called a nullity.  You haven’t proven the opposite, or other side—that would be another hypothesis altogether--you have only proven that your hypothesis didn’t work: a nullity.  Nullity is logic, not substance…so the closest I can come to describing it for you is: undifferentiated potential.

You ask “Where is the Supporting Evidence” for nullity?  The laws and methods of science apply to empirical phenomenon, not cognitive processes like logic.  Logic is not proved, but confirmed.  It is intuitive.  So, your asking for proof of a logically intuited concept like nullity is like asking for proof of space.  It’s intuitive or definitional…it’s where the objects are not.

If you like, the formal definition of logic is: a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time.  All of logic fits into that mold.  There may come a time when logic will not be confirmed (Einstein suggests it in his theory of light), but in scientific methodology it is still relied upon.

Original Quill wrote:

veya wrote:Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

Your Opinion of a Nullity, is just an opinion, an Unsupported Hypothesis
which to Science is Literally Piss in the wind if Lack any Proof or even coo-berating evidence to support your claim.
Where is the Supporting Evidence for YOUR very clear very defined Statement?

My explanation of ‘Nullity’ is as a logical concept.  If, after trying to prove a hypothesis, you end up with no evidence, it’s called a nullity.  You haven’t proven the opposite, or other side—that would be another hypothesis altogether--you have only proven that your hypothesis didn’t work: a nullity.  Nullity is logic, not substance…so the closest I can come to describing it for you is: undifferentiated potential.

You ask “Where is the Supporting Evidence” for nullity?  The laws and methods of science apply to empirical phenomenon, not cognitive processes like logic.  Logic is not proved, but confirmed.  It is intuitive.  So, your asking for proof of a logically intuited concept like nullity is like asking for proof of space.  It’s intuitive or definitional…it’s where the objects are not.

If you like, the formal definition of logic is: a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time.  All of logic fits into that mold.  There may come a time when logic will not be confirmed (Einstein suggests it in his theory of light), but in scientific methodology it is still relied upon.

we already know that to be false....

Lord Foul wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

My explanation of ‘Nullity’ is as a logical concept.  If, after trying to prove a hypothesis, you end up with no evidence, it’s called a nullity.  You haven’t proven the opposite, or other side—that would be another hypothesis altogether--you have only proven that your hypothesis didn’t work: a nullity.  Nullity is logic, not substance…so the closest I can come to describing it for you is: undifferentiated potential.

You ask “Where is the Supporting Evidence” for nullity?  The laws and methods of science apply to empirical phenomenon, not cognitive processes like logic.  Logic is not proved, but confirmed.  It is intuitive.  So, your asking for proof of a logically intuited concept like nullity is like asking for proof of space.  It’s intuitive or definitional…it’s where the objects are not.

If you like, the formal definition of logic is: a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time.  All of logic fits into that mold.  There may come a time when logic will not be confirmed (Einstein suggests it in his theory of light), but in scientific methodology it is still relied upon.

we already know that to be false....

I know...you make my point for me. It's intuitive. It's known to us to be false by logic, without resort to empiricism. Scientific methodology, on the other hand, tests empirically the nature of being.

Original Quill wrote:

veya wrote:"Atheism can only be incorrect if a theistic god is proven to exist."
is the Equivalent of Saying Evolution is Just a theory, Complete Contempt for Science methodology.  Which is Fine But then Don't pretend to be any better than Tommy Rejecting Climate Change.

Veya, your so-called scientific knowledge holds that all knowledge is just a theory.  Theories, if broken down, are merely explanations of associations between two or more variables.  Before proof, they are hypotheses.  After positive proof, they are substantiated…or, after negative proof, the null hypothesis is confirmed.

But science holds that all knowledge is corrigible, which is to say: “capable of being corrected, rectified, or reformed”.  This means that no knowledge is final and/or complete.  The status of corrigible theory is permanent.  No one is so foolish as to say, I have final, complete and certain knowledge of a subject.  We learned our lesson with the flat-earth theory.

Yes, evolution is only a theory and will always be only a theory.  That is because all of scientific knowledge is just theory.  I have learned to live with it; you should too.  Instead of certainty, you will have substantial evidence, or overwhelming evidence…but you will never have certainty.  The day you gain certainty, they will close the patents offices.

Everything you wrote is simply Wrong/Incorrect. 

 "That is because all of scientific knowledge is just theory" 
that's complete Bullshit.
It shows Complete Lack of Comprehension around what Science is 


Laws are Absolute Proven Universal 
Theories are Ideas Proven to the best of Ability 
Hypothesis are theories/ideas supported with evidence 

Certainty is not required either. 
Your statement that 'Atheism is correct unless proven otherwise' is Fundamentally incorrect by every measure of the scientific Methodology 
It like any other assertion requires evidence.
 

and your formal Definition of Logic is totally Wrong too (I don't think LF was agreeing with you at all) 

logically evidence 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

Mathematical evidence 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox

veya wrote:Everything you wrote is simply Wrong/Incorrect.

I disagree.

veya wrote:Laws are Absolute Proven Universal

That’s the hope. But it’s a futile claim, because all knowledge is corrigible.

veya wrote:Your statement that 'Atheism is correct unless proven otherwise' is Fundamentally incorrect by every measure of the scientific Methodology

Yet, you cannot prove it. The proof is in the pudding.

veya wrote:and your formal Definition of Logic is totally Wrong too (I don't think LF was agreeing with you at all)

I disagree.

Original Quill wrote:

veya wrote:Everything you wrote is simply Wrong/Incorrect.

I disagree.

veya wrote:Laws are Absolute Proven Universal

That’s the hope.  But it’s a futile claim, because all knowledge is corrigible.

LOL... NO!  Your literally saying you disagree with Scientific Methodology Science does NOT in anyway suggest all knowledge is corrigible 
Mathematics is the language of the universe, the opinion of a monkey doesn't effect it at all, just like the LAWS of physics will always be true because they are proven with Mathematics. 

veya wrote:Your statement that 'Atheism is correct unless proven otherwise' is Fundamentally incorrect by every measure of the scientific Methodology

Yet, you cannot prove it.  The proof is in the pudding.
I am not claiming anything!!!! You are therefore you have to prove it,
You are doing a Christian now, "what I believe is right and You have to prove it wrong"
well No!!! we don't YOU have to Prove YOUR Hypothesis
there is No Such thing as a Null Hypothesis it's just stupid to think that Your hypothesis is the default, when you cannot supply anything to support your hypothesis.

veya wrote:and your formal Definition of Logic is totally Wrong too (I don't think LF was agreeing with you at all)

I disagree.

good thing Opinions do not matter to mathematics, science and reality 

Lord Foul wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

veya wrote:Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

Your Opinion of a Nullity, is just an opinion, an Unsupported Hypothesis
which to Science is Literally Piss in the wind if Lack any Proof or even coo-berating evidence to support your claim.
Where is the Supporting Evidence for YOUR very clear very defined Statement?

My explanation of ‘Nullity’ is as a logical concept.  If, after trying to prove a hypothesis, you end up with no evidence, it’s called a nullity.  You haven’t proven the opposite, or other side—that would be another hypothesis altogether--you have only proven that your hypothesis didn’t work: a nullity.  Nullity is logic, not substance…so the closest I can come to describing it for you is: undifferentiated potential.

You ask “Where is the Supporting Evidence” for nullity?  The laws and methods of science apply to empirical phenomenon, not cognitive processes like logic.  Logic is not proved, but confirmed.  It is intuitive.  So, your asking for proof of a logically intuited concept like nullity is like asking for proof of space.  It’s intuitive or definitional…it’s where the objects are not.

If you like, the formal definition of logic is: a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time.  All of logic fits into that mold.  There may come a time when logic will not be confirmed (Einstein suggests it in his theory of light), but in scientific methodology it is still relied upon.

we already know that to be false....

According to naive set theory, any definable collection is a set. Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. If R is not a member of itself, then its definition dictates that it must contain itself, and if it contains itself, then it contradicts its own definition as the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. This contradiction is Russell's paradox. Symbolically:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox

There are some versions of this paradox that are closer to real-life situations and may be easier to understand for non-logicians. For example, the barber paradox supposes a barber who shaves all men who do not shave themselves and only men who do not shave themselves. When one thinks about whether the barber should shave himself or not, the paradox begins to emerge.

 
According to Quill the barber does not exist

My head hurts !

nicko wrote:My head hurts !

 

as it should
we are only the descendants of apes after all
So it is very arrogant to assume we are even capable of 'determining the divine'

therefore it's wisest to be agnostic and acknowledge that we simply 'don't know and may not be capable of knowing'