Posted by Carlos on March 03, 1999 at 11:18:45:
In Reply to: untenable arguments posted by Boje on March 03, 1999 at 01:51:49:
Boje said:
You guys make no sense at all. On one hand, you claim that there is no validity to the mechanics of faith, but on the other hand you demand that we all accept the concept of infinity (without which the entire system of mathematics is groundless) on faith.
I don't recall anyone making such a demand, and it is unclear to me why the concept of infinity would require "faith". Perhaps you are confusing the mathematical concept of infinity with the idea that the universe is infinite. Most scientists believe that the universe is finite but unbounded, and may continue to expand forever.
On one hand, you assert that we should accept un-provable concepts like "string theory", but on the other hand, you claim that concepts concerning the existence of deity are un-provable.
String theory (which posits that sub-atomic particles can best be understood and modeled as 10-dimensional strings with particular vibrations) is an interesting, but by no means generally accepted, scientific theory. I'm currently reading a book called "What Remains to Be Discovered", and a definitive explanation of atomic structure is one of those things. And, you are wrong to believe that theories about atomic structure can't be proved. Rutherford theorized the existence of the neutron, which was later proved experimentally. Other scientists theorized the existence of quarks, which were later found experimentally. Where is your experimental data on the existence of God that will validate your theory?
You claim that there is no God, yet you can’t prove that assertion. You don’t even regard it as being worthy of your effort, yet you spend an inordinate amount of time denouncing the concept. To do that scientifically, you must dis-prove the null hypothesis. That is: you must prove that it is statistically untenable that God exists. Otherwise, you cannot make a "scientific statement" concerning the existence of God. You can’t do that, so stop this inane assertion that "on the basis of scientific evidence" God does not exist.
Wrong, wrong, wrong - the burden of proof is on you, the believer, since you are the one asserting the existence of God. See the link below. Atheism/agnosticism doesn't purport to "prove" that God doesn't exist - it is merely a lack of belief in deity.