No scientific proof of god

[TaxAHCruel]

And I am sorry to say you have not been able to change.

 

No worries. I rarely engage with people like you in order to change YOU. If my posts are read by even one person and it affects THEM then my job is done. You are just the soap box I use to air my views from and against. I have changed my mind very often in argument. More often than you might expect reading THIS thread - however I find I have changed it MORE often by vicariously witnessing the debates of _others_.

 

But I have to admit that I have learned a lot thanks to your posts.

 

Then my time was well spent.

 

but if you reread my post it was not angry, nor I claimed ignorance of anyone

 

Indeed - but it did fit the description of entering the thread - making some complaint about people in it - and not adding a single thing to the actual topic of the thread. Much of which fits _exactly_ with what you just said to the user above.

 

You have since improved of course - after some pressure from people like myself - but in terms of your first post alone - the shoe fits - and I just thought you might see a little bit of your own self in the advice you just gave out above.

[therhythm]

No worries. I rarely engage with people like you in order to change YOU. If my posts are read by even one person and it affects THEM then my job is done. You are just the soap box I use to air my views from and against. I have changed my mind very often in argument. More often than you might expect reading THIS thread - however I find I have changed it MORE often by vicariously witnessing the debates of _others_.

I can grant you that your post have affect me and I have taken a great deal of fresh air and new points of view that enhance my understanding of the topic!

 

 

Then my time was well spent.

Thank you!

 

 

 

Indeed - but it did fit the description of entering the thread - making some complaint about people in it - and not adding a single thing to the actual topic of the thread. Much of which fits _exactly_ with what you just said to the user above.

 

You have since improved of course - after some pressure from people like myself - but in terms of your first post alone - the shoe fits - and I just thought you might see a little bit of your own self in the advice you just gave out above.

 

I think that my problem there was more my incapacity to explain correctly myself in English than complaining about anyone in the thread.

I may have mad a poor point with the post but it was not intended to be judgmental at all.

[TaraMaiden]

Ugh....

Never mind.

[therhythm]

Einstein being painted as religious and claiming there is no evidence for people like Napoleon or Julius Caesar ARE ignorant sentiments. Truth is never offensive, unless someone is a liar...

 

Who has painted Einstein as religious? And what are your scientific evidences that Julius Caesar ever existed? I am really curious to the answer of those questions...

Ignorance is making claims without having read properly the thread posts...

 

Truth is never offensive but false statements are

Edited June 25, 2013 by therhythm

[therhythm]

Again this is not exactly true for the same reasons I laid out in the Aquinas arguments. They are all laws of our universe NOW. All our laws as we think we know them break down at Planck time "before" the Big Bang. So we simply do not know the above to be true in terms of the universe itself.

 

While I was re reading your posts a question came to me... how can we scientifically proof that God ever existed if we can't not apply the scientific laws to proof He existed?

If we are excluding the scientific universal laws as scientific proofs that God exists are we not just saying that it can't be scientifically be proven even if He exists?

 

Just thinking a bit trough all the information you have provided today

[therhythm]

Have you ever heard the statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?" Now, claiming the existence of Julius Ceasor (SP?) as a man is not an extraordinary claim, and would not require extraordinary evidence. We know men exist, and have existed for a very long time.

 

However, if you were to make Julius into something more than a man, like the Son of God, it requires a lot more evidence. We've never seen the Son of God before, and we've no idea of the existence. SOG performed miracles, another extraordinary claim, SOG was born of a virgin, another extraordinary claim, he was resurrected, another extraordinary claim. That's a lot of extraordinary claims, and it's backed with no supporting evidence other than a book, of questionable authorship.

 

That was just an example. You say you're not discussing "religion" per se, but understand-we learned about "God" via religion, and thus, in the "God debate" religion is a necessary talking point.

 

Let's take your example-we know animals exist so someone making the claim that unicorns and pink panthers exist is reasonable. No, we know animals (of what we have discovered) exist, and it would not be unreasonable to assert that three thousand years ago, a lion ate a man alive (just making it up) because we know men and lions exist. It's not an extraordinary claim, by any stretch of the imagination. However, if you were to say that a woman was impaled through the ribs by a unicorn's horn, you'd have a job proving that the unicorn actually existed because we know of no such thing existing.

 

I hope all of that made sense.

 

Yes it makes indeed a lot of sense... still I don't agree with those arguments.

 

First I don't agree we understand God via religion.. this is a very wrong statement and I will not accept it as valid... Religion is something man has made up and how groups of people have chosen to believe in God and the morals, rituals and organizations they have created around the figure of God.

God is undefinable and there is an individual definition of its essence... the only general statement you can make when defining it is that it is a superior intelligence... that is all!

 

Then again saying that because we know men exists Julius Caesar existence is proven is Disneyland science... for the same money you can say that Conan the barbarian existed :lmao:

 

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is not science is just a claim from Carl Sagan... for what to me concerns you need as much evidence to proof anything that has not scientifically proven yet... that is it...

 

Saying that you need extraordinary evidence for the claim of God is just trying to play with marked cards against any claim of using the same lame argument of lack of scientific proof of God for other assertions.

 

By the way to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is to make an extraordinary assertion. How does the person know that the statement is true? Think about it. It is a universal statement! Isn't that extraordinary? Is it a universal principle? If so, that is amazingly important. So, please show us the extraordinary evidence that the statement is true.

[therhythm]

I accept the Theory of Evolution...because it's right. We do share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, which not only means do we share a common ancestor with the great apes, but we are apes ourselves.

 

Even if you don't believe in it, it would still be true. That's the things with facts, opinions don't change them.

 

Ohh I didn't say I don't believe in evolution lady... I say that the arguments Taramaiden made were only usable if people believed in the evolution theory...

I don't know if you realize but the evolution theory is a "Theory"... not a fact.

There is another claim that is called creationist which is a "theory" as well.

 

As far as I know evolutionary theory has not been 100% proven yet...(not absolutely certainty hence not a fact)

[therhythm]

No, it is not an extraordinary statement.

 

Here's another statement from the late, great Hitchens

 

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

 

I honestly don't see the point in believing in something "undefinable," with no evidence of it existing. At least religion makes an attempt (albeit a poor one) at defining what it is they believe in. Saying things like "God is love," "God is nature," "God is the Universe," is a little pointless for what people call "god," we have another name for it that suffices, rendering the concept of god useless.

 

It's not necessarily science what I was saying. It was merely an attempt to point out how you were flawed in your thinking. I was pointing out that claiming someone called Julius Cesar existed is not necessarily an extraordinary claim. If you add in supernatural elements to the claim, extraordinary elements to the claim, then you need to ramp up the evidence in order to make it believable.

 

Ahhh.... I have this discussion already today... see bellow and then use your "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" dogma with it...

 

Claiming that God doesn't exist because there is no proof of HIM is like claiming that other people have not minds, given that I can only observe the behavior of others, how can I know that others have minds? Please see this link to understand what I am trying to say Other Minds (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

I don't need to define what i don't understand and i don't need to understand something to believe it can exist....

[therhythm]

I don't think you understand what the word "Theory" means in science.

Creationism is not a "theory," more a "hypothesis," and it is wrong.

 

 

Theory in Science is not "a guess, an idea, a wild stab in the dark," but rather a, " well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations."

 

So yes, evolution is as much a fact as gravity is. People often throw out the "it's just a theory," in relation to evolution, but they never apply that to the "Theory of Gravity."

 

Yes, TaraMaiden's arguments were valid even to people who do not accept the Theory of Evolution because they are true. Someone accepting that truth is another matter, but it does not make them false.

 

 

all theories describe objects or events that are not directly observable. This is the core concept of theory. A theory describes aspects of nature that are beyond (or beneath) what we can observe, aspects that can be used to explain what we observe.

Germs, atoms, caloric, curved spacetime, and elemental strings are all, to one degree or another, unobservable. That's what makes them theoretical. But that doesn't make them unreal.

 

theory" doesn't necessarily imply it is a "fact," or even that it is well-supported by the evidence:

A theory is true if it describes unobservable things that really exist and describes them accurately. Otherwise it is false. This shows the mistake in contrasting "theory" and "fact." A fact is an actual state of affairs in nature, and a theory, or any statement for that matter, is true if it matches fact. Some theories are true (atomic theory), some are false (caloric theory), and the scientific method is what directs us in deciding which are which.

 

Peter Kosso

[therhythm]

Wrong.

 

That is all.

 

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcod9bEMso1rsi7hf.gif

 

I am sorry if that doesn't work with the Darwin's lobby...

 

Evolution as "Both Theory and Fact"? A Philosopher Blows Away the Often-Heard Darwinian Claim - Evolution News & Views

I am just arguing with you and providing you other points of view... I don't have a position of claim here since I am not informed enough... but Mr Kosso seems to have one and I am interested to see what you have to say to it

 

You don't need to take offense of someone not agreeing with your argumentation

 

http://i.imgur.com/It5PJ8A.gif

 

http://i.imgur.com/FfO4k0A.gif

 

You see, we all can put a gif in our post without adding any value to it

Edited June 25, 2013 by therhythm

[TaxAHCruel]

While I was re reading your posts a question came to me... how can we scientifically proof that God ever existed if we can't not apply the scientific laws to proof He existed?

 

Scientific laws and proving things scientifically are actually two different things. I was going to mention this earlier in response to quite a few of your posts but I thought it would derail what I was saying at the time. Perhaps now is the time.

 

Science is a methodology. Scientific laws are Theories we have created using that methodology. They are two separate things. It is like using cooking methods to bake a cake. In the end you have cooking methods - and a cake. The cake is not the cooking methods that produced it. It is separate from the methods. It is a thing in itself.

 

The scientific laws we have written down break down just at the big bang. The Methodology we used to discover them however still remains. We can use that methodology - testing, prediction, falsification, all the things that make science what it is - to evaluate any claim scientifically.

 

The problem is the Theists of this world define their god specifically to make it what is called "an unfalsifiable claim". Science can not address unfalsifiable claims. Therefore theists are specifically defining their god in such a way as to avoid science entirely.

 

The term "scientific evidence" is actually a misnomer. A useful one at times - but a misnomer none the less. There is no such thing as "scientific evidence". There is only "evidence" and science is one methodology for evaluating that evidence.

[therhythm]

Scientific laws and proving things scientifically are actually two different things. I was going to mention this earlier in response to quite a few of your posts but I thought it would derail what I was saying at the time. Perhaps now is the time.

 

Science is a methodology. Scientific laws are Theories we have created using that methodology. They are two separate things. It is like using cooking methods to bake a cake. In the end you have cooking methods - and a cake. The cake is not the cooking methods that produced it. It is separate from the methods. It is a thing in itself.

 

The scientific laws we have written down break down just at the big bang. The Methodology we used to discover them however still remains. We can use that methodology - testing, prediction, falsification, all the things that make science what it is - to evaluate any claim scientifically.

 

The problem is the Theists of this world define their god specifically to make it what is called "an unfalsifiable claim". Science can not address unfalsifiable claims. Therefore theists are specifically defining their god in such a way as to avoid science entirely.

 

The term "scientific evidence" is actually a misnomer. A useful one at times - but a misnomer none the less. There is no such thing as "scientific evidence". There is only "evidence" and science is one methodology for evaluating that evidence.

 

Thank you! That opens another question for me, if the scientific laws break down at the Big Bang... why the scientific method can't be claimed to be broken down at the same point?

If previous to the big bang or outside the universe the scientific laws are broken can we not say that we may need another methodology to study it since we can't test, predict or falsify what we can't understand? Probably this is the same as the unfalsifiable theory but then I would like to understand based on what you think the unfalsifiable theory is wrong.

 

(sorry if I ask too much just let me know and I will let you go.. it is just too interesting!).

[therhythm]

Wrong.

 

That is all.

 

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcod9bEMso1rsi7hf.gif

 

The macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture... so how conjecture can be a fact?

 

It seems obvious that a theory that is outside of empirical science, or a theory that lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis cannot qualify as a scientific theory. Any suggestion that these challenges to the status of evolution as a scientific theory are exceptions can be refuted by a thorough search of the scientific literature. Although these quotes are fairly old, they are still true and relevant.

 

By the way I would love to see a more extended explanation for the bellow

 

Wrong.

 

That is all.

 

because that is not really a scientific explanation (not even a logical one )

Edited June 26, 2013 by therhythm

[TaxAHCruel]

Thank you! That opens another question for me, if the scientific laws break down at the Big Bang... why the scientific method can't be claimed to be broken down at the same point?

 

Perhaps it does. We simply do not know. That is the kind of question we are currently asking and exploring in places like CERN and when we look into things like String Theory, Chaos Theory and more.

 

Our methodology is based on axioms like "X can not be true and false at the same time". Perhaps when all we know about the universe breaks down we _could_ enter a realm where things can be true and false at the same time. Where 1+1= something other than 2. Where up and down and left and right are all the same thing. Where time goes reverse or perpendicular to what we know now. Where where where...

 

It is all just postulation at that point. We simply can not know at this time.

[TaxAHCruel]

The macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions

 

Is it? Why? If you look at things like the RNA origins hypothesis they lay out quite clearly how one can get from random proteins to self replicating cells in a series of minor steps. It is not as fantastic a notion as you think.

 

theory doesn't necessarily imply it is a "fact," or even that it is well-supported by the evidence

 

Of course it does. This is what you get for going to a philosopher and not a scientist for a definition of "Theory". Kosso is not a scientist and demonstrates here clearly a lack of knowledge of the field.

 

Let us instead look at definitions of "Theory" from institutes of science instead. The bolding below is mine as it directly refutes Kossos use of the word "Theory".

 

The United States National Academy of Sciences for example defines Theory as "It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)"

 

While the American Association for the Advancement of Science say something similar "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

[therhythm]

Perhaps it does. We simply do not know. That is the kind of question we are currently asking and exploring in places like CERN and when we look into things like String Theory, Chaos Theory and more.

 

Our methodology is based on axioms like "X can not be true and false at the same time". Perhaps when all we know about the universe breaks down we _could_ enter a realm where things can be true and false at the same time. Where 1+1= something other than 2. Where up and down and left and right are all the same thing. Where time goes reverse or perpendicular to what we know now. Where where where...

 

It is all just postulation at that point. We simply can not know at this time.

 

Thank you and if we can not know at this time why can't we not use the same statement about God?

[therhythm]

Is it? Why? If you look at things like the RNA origins hypothesis they lay out quite clearly how one can get from random proteins to self replicating cells in a series of minor steps. It is not as fantastic a notion as you think.

 

There is as much evidences of the RNA origins as for the creationism hypothesis (non).

 

 

 

Of course it does. This is what you get for going to a philosopher and not a scientist for a definition of "Theory". Kosso is not a scientist and demonstrates here clearly a lack of knowledge of the field.

 

Let us instead look at definitions of "Theory" from institutes of science instead. The bolding below is mine as it directly refutes Kossos use of the word "Theory".

 

The United States National Academy of Sciences for example defines Theory as "It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)"

 

While the American Association for the Advancement of Science say something similar "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

 

Yes that has sense but what about the caloric theory... that theory is not a fact... but is still scientific theory

 

Regarding the evolution theory assert I made was from evolutionists David Green and Robert Goldberger... this is my source The Nature of Science and of Theories on Origins

[TaxAHCruel]

Thank you and if we can not know at this time why can't we not use the same statement about God?

 

I do not recall anyone suggesting you cant?

 

There is as much evidences of the RNA origins as for the creationism hypothesis.

 

If you are doing an inventory of the contents of your knowledge perhaps. But otherwise the above statement is false. There are plenty of evidences suggesting the progress of proteins - to self-replicating structures - to RNA - to DNA and cells is a very likely candidate for the origin of life.

 

Whereas there is zero evidence at all of any type for creationism.

 

what about the caloric theory... that theory is not a fact... but is still scientific theory

 

What about it? If you read the definitions I pasted it clearly said that no new evidence is "likely" to change or falsify the theory. That does not mean it never happens. Of course it does. Such things still retain the "theory" label so we know what we are talking about when we say "caloric theory" but it is not theory in label only.

 

Your quoted philosopher is stating that calling something theory does not mean it is grounded or supported in evidence. Quite the opposite is true.

 

Remember also I am discussing modern science here. Not 2 or 3 hundred years ago. There were doubts about Caloric Theory all over the place like in the late 1700s.

 

The point is not that a Theory can not be abandoned or proven false. It can and does happen often. The point is that suggesting the word Theory does not mean it is supported by evidence is entirely false. Kosso is simply wrong here.

 

What further complicates matters of course is the use of theory in the vernacular as well as the scientific sense. In the vernacular theory simply means hypothesis - while in science it means what I quoted above from the Science Acadamies. Scientists use it BOTH ways and this can add to the confusion of people like yourself.

[therhythm]

 

The point is not that a Theory can not be abandoned or proven false. It can and does happen often. The point is that suggesting the word Theory does not mean it is supported by evidence is entirely false. Kosso is simply wrong here.

 

What further complicates matters of course is the use of theory in the vernacular as well as the scientific sense. In the vernacular theory simply means hypothesis - while in science it means what I quoted above from the Science Acadamies. Scientists use it BOTH ways and this can add to the confusion of people like yourself.

 

While I agree with you that Kosso is wrong when saying that a theory can be not supported by evidence I agree with him that Theory does not equal fact... since (even when not likely) can be proven wrong in a moment of time when a fact is irrefutable!

[therhythm]

I do not recall anyone suggesting you cant?

 

 

But that whole notion reduces the "There is no scientific evidence that God exists"to a just "there is no scientific evidence that God exists"... We don't understand God thus we just don't know yet how to define it or proof it.. it does not equal it does not exist...

[therhythm]

While I agree with you that Kosso is wrong when saying that a theory can be not supported by evidence I agree with him that Theory does not equal fact... since (even when not likely) can be proven wrong in a moment of time when a fact is irrefutable!

 

Just to say that the thumbs down in the post was not intended... it just happened... all the rest on it still is valid.

[Robert Z]

Whereas there is zero evidence at all of any type for creationism.

 

I would cite one possible exception to this statement. Were the values of the physical constants slightly different than what they are, life could not exist; nor could atoms or molecules. How it is that the physical constants have just the right values to make life and the universe we see possible?

 

It may be that through M-Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, or one of the competing models, the values of the physical constants will be found to be an inevitable consequence of existence. But for now it seems to be a one-in-a-million chance that anything can exist at all!

 

While not direct evidence for a God, it does open the door to the possibility that this occurred by "design".

 

One model that I like suggests that universes are constantly bubbling up from the void in a multiverse of universes, most of which fail in that matter can never form. But every once in a while a universe is produced where the constants have just the right values for atoms to form and life to evolve. So we are a one-in-a-million, but there are an infinity of universes so our existence was a certainty.

 

It should also be noted that in keeping with the proper definition of a theory, M-Theory [string Theory] is not really a theory. It is a model or hypothesis for which we are trying to develop tests that will allow us to support or falsify the hypothesis.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Robert Z

[therhythm]

Well, if we define God as a plasma TV, then God exists.

 

Stop blowing smoke. While there is no explicit definition about God, most people would agree in their implicit definition God would be something that is above the laws of physics, something that is able to influence the physical universe and in most cases something that is willing to interact with it at some point in time. Saying that there is no exact definition and it cannot be given so there is no evidence it doesn't exists is the adult version of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling lalalalala during a debate; if you don't want to debate then just get out and stop wasting peoples time.

 

And ffs, learn to multiquote. It's bad enough to have to read your verbal (posted?) diarrhea, having more than half the posts per page be from you makes it even worse.

 

I just keep loving the new atheist rants... it proofs my point about how it has become a new religion they feel offended when attacked... For people who claim not making any claim they get pretty frustrated when their claims get contested...

 

I don't multiquote or I do it when I want.. .you are free to read my verbal diarrhea or not... you are free to skip my posts too

 

Since you are so kind to quote me and give some of your points of view I will answer to your amazing dialectics and well thought post... :rolleyes:

 

So lets begin with your definition of God...

 

most people would agree in their implicit definition God would be something that is above the laws of physics, something that is able to influence the physical universe and in most cases something that is willing to interact with it at some point in time

I will say that I agree with your definition (I don't precisely think it is too off from a good general definition but I definitely don't agree with the third premise - willing to interact with it at some point'- ), if something is above of the law of physics means that can't be explained with them right... what brings us again to the complex situation of how to find scientific evidences of something that is outside of the universe laws and therefore can't be measured with the Universe laws... the answer is clear ... you can't! But not because God doesn't exist but simply because the concept of God is too complex f as science can only explain anything within the Universe, for what we know outside or before the Universe the rules are totally different and 1+1 doesn't equal 2 ...

 

saying that there is no exact definition and it cannot be given so there is no evidence it doesn't exists is the adult version of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling lalalalala during a debate; if you don't want to debate then just get out and stop wasting peoples time.

 

I actually feel quite the same with the atheists with their dogmas "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and 'What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"...

 

Both are general statements and both are generically wrong!

 

By the way and for the records I don't believe in God but I don't disbelieve either!...

Edited June 26, 2013 by therhythm

[TaxAHCruel]

I agree with him that Theory does not equal fact

 

As do I. Theory in science is a higher level than "fact". Theories unite and explain facts. Gravity is a fact. The Gravity Theory however is something different. Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is something else.

 

There is no fact that will ever be discovered that will cause us to change "Gravity Theory" into "Gravity Fact".

 

But that whole notion reduces the "There is no scientific evidence that God exists"to a just "there is no scientific evidence that God exists"

 

And as I keep saying I agree with you on this. It is where you go FROM that point that I have been disagreeing with. Such as the false equivalence (intended or otherwise) you establish off the back of it that the proposition is therefore somehow equally believable as unbelievable - or in fact contains any credibility at all.

[TaxAHCruel]

I would cite one possible exception to this statement. Were the values of the physical constants slightly different than what they are, life could not exist; nor could atoms or molecules. How it is that the physical constants have just the right values to make life and the universe we see possible?

 

Firstly the most important thing to note is that the above is a question. Questions are _not_ evidence. So this is _not_ an exception to me saying "there is zero evidence at all of any type for creationism.".

 

It is a question - an open one - and a good one. Evidence however it is not. Open questions are evidence for nothing but open questions.

 

However it is also worth nothing that the question contains an assertion. You said if the values were different life could not exist. How do you know this? Have you built and modeled every single other possible combination of the universal constants and tested them for this? Have you then built every possible combination of those constants with OTHER constants this universe does not have?

 

Until you have - which you never will because the possible combinations are inifinte - the point being made is based on baseless and unsubstantiated assertion. We simply do not know what other kinds of universes are possible.

 

Further again: We also do not know what other kinds of _life_ are possible. When one makes an assertion like yours it is built on the implicit foundation assertion that life as we know it is the only one there can ever be. How do we know this either???

 

While not direct evidence for a God, it does open the door to the possibility that this occurred by "design".

 

And I have not once discounted the possibility. Of course it is _possible_. But simply pointing out it is possible says nothing at all. It is also possible that the universe only existed right now and it was created only 1 second ago with everything in place - all our memories - objects - universe - everything - never existed before 1 second ago and it was just invented now.

 

It is fun to say what is _possible_. It plays with our minds - gives us fun things to think about - especially while drinking. But we are simply churning out unsubstantiated hypotheses.

 

Thats a _good_ thing. It is great our species can do it. But I think if we are discussing the existence of god that we are doing it with the already unspoken agreement that we all agree it is _possible_ there is one.

 

The question is whether there is any argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to lend the idea there actually _is_ one even a modicum of an iota of credence.

 

The answer thus far appears to be a firm "No, there is not".