The Black Vault

greeney2 wrote:Now, as I keep telling you, science has not claimed "there is no God", it is not the job of science to make such a claim.

Thank you. This was the purpose of this entire post, since so many atheists hinge thier beliefs on science and demand a scientific test as proof of Gods existance.

Well, you're talking about something different entirely there.

One can demand scientific evidence to prove the existence of God before believing, without expecting science to disprove God's existence. The first is reasonable, the latter isn't, due to the inability to prove a negative.

If we use the example of unicorns, we should not expect science to be able to prove there are no unicorns. However, we should not believe in them without scientific evidence of some kind. If unicorns were real, we should expect a scientific proof of their existence to be possible.

The truth of a statement lies in whether or not all the definitions are satisfied.

"God exists" is but one of many examples of that principle. Its truth depends on the definitions of the following words:

1. God
2. exists
3. proof

Thus, depending on the definitions, it is possible to prove that God does not exist, that God does exist, and even possible to prove that you can't prove it either way (i.e., it is undecidable). Anything is possible.


That's precisely why proof does not matter.

at1with0 wrote:The truth of a statement lies in whether or not all the definitions are satisfied.

"God exists" is but one of many examples of that principle. Its truth depends on the definitions of the following words:

1. God
2. exists
3. proof

Thus, depending on the definitions, it is possible to prove that God does not exist, that God does exist, and even possible to prove that you can't prove it either way (i.e., it is undecidable). Anything is possible.

That's precisely why proof does not matter.

There is no agreed upon full definition of God, therefore no possible disproof.

By what method would you go about determining that a logically possible being is not present in the Universe somewhere?

humphreys wrote:There is no agreed upon full definition of God, therefore no possible disproof.

The word set is undefined in set theory and, oddly enough, there is no disproof of the existence of sets. Even though the word set is undefined, many things can be said about sets that are unambiguous, rigorous, and precise.

By what method would you go about determining that a logically possible being is not present in the Universe somewhere?

What is logically possible and impossible is irrelevant.

We'd have as much luck in proving sets are not present in the universe somewhere.

But to more directly answer your question, the universe would have to be exhaustively examined before any conclusion is justified. There might be a way to cheat and not have to examine the whole universe though.

at1with0 wrote:But to more directly answer your question, the universe would have to be exhaustively examined before any conclusion is justified. There might be a way to cheat and not have to examine the whole universe though.

That is not feasible.

Whatever we are searching for might be clever enough to make sure he/it is never where we are looking, or clever enough to evade our best detection methods.

humphreys wrote:

at1with0 wrote:But to more directly answer your question, the universe would have to be exhaustively examined before any conclusion is justified. There might be a way to cheat and not have to examine the whole universe though.

That is not feasible.

Whatever we are searching for might be clever enough to make sure he/it is never where we are looking, or clever enough to evade our best detection methods.

Yes, which is, I think, your point, that there is no feasible way to prove a logically possible being is not present in the Universe.