I don't find a belief that something doesn't exist
is any different to a belief that something does exist.

If you catch my drift.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:10, archived)

Weight of evidence is on the side of the atheist, though

( Cap'n Tallbeard, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:10, archived)

I don't see that there is any way to replicate experiments about it in a controled environment,
so there's nothing other than conjecture and personal experience on both sides.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:14, archived)

Piffle.
There is a vast weight of experiment to back up the bulk of our current scientific understanding of the universe. Millions and millions of hours of work by the greatest minds in the world. And almost every shred of it points to religions being full of shite.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:16, archived)

You're better at this than I am
I'll leave you to it
( Cap'n Tallbeard, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:20, archived)

Ah yes, I don't disagree that science explains the universe or whatever domain you want to extend it to (e.g. the Bulk) but it doesn't specifically rule out things existing outside of it.
It simply makes no predictions about those things.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:22, archived)

To quote Lee Smolin:
"It makes no sense to talk about things 'outside the Universe'. The Universe is defined as being all that there is."
Although I expect that's what you mean by 'the Bulk'. How can something outside our lightcone affect us?
( Cap'n Tallbeard, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:25, archived)

The bulk is a prediction of some Brane theories.
Those theories though like all scientific things only operate in their specified domain, and make no prediction of what happens outside of that domain.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:28, archived)

Tired sophistry.
You're just pushing out the boundaries until there's a realm where the fantasy might exist. The religions are quite clear (if generally full of internal contradiction) about how the universe works and what role the magic beings play in it. They're all quite clear and all quite wrong. All of that stuff can be easily disproved.

Inventing something else that hasn't been disproved yet is just playing a game. It's the equivalent of saying "yeah? well ... it's my ball so I say that wasn't a goal because I've just invented this new rule ..."

Well I'm not seven years old and I can afford to buy my own ball so I'm not playing.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:26, archived)

Again, you're arguing a subtly different point there, and now trying to justify it with false analogies.
I'm simply saying that all things have a domain in which they operate.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:31, archived)

I'm arguing precisely what I was arguing at the beginning.
There's nothing subtle about it: the supernatural claims of religions are all demonstrably nonsense. End of argument.

If you would like to change the argument to "can we invent a domain in which fluffy woolly definitions of fantasy beings might exist" then you are perfectly welcome.

I won't be joining in though. Because it is meaningless and immensely dull and the last resort of a dying philosophy.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:43, archived)

If you said that they aren't provable, then I might have agreed with you (unless I was just arguing for the sake of it)
but that something that makes predictions within a finite domain, can make predictions outside of it's specified domain (which is the case, unless you add the rider that our hypothetical 'believer' believe that God only operates within the realms of known science), to demonstrate that something is nonsense or not, is not self consistent.

You simply need to change your "demonstrably nonsense" to "can't be proven" so something similar, and you'd be logically consistent.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:53, archived)

You're just going around in circles.
My argument is simple: God does not exist and can be proven not to exist. And I've said several times that I'm not interested in a tedious semantic dick-waving competition. It's dull and utterly irrelevant.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:03, archived)

So you want to discuss philosophy but you're not interested in logic?
Because that's what you're saying.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:05, archived)

agreed.
though the "how, when, where and what" questions science answers still leaves the "why" to religion for the most part.
( evilstevie misses the Orange Place of late, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:25, archived)

But that's just meaningless semantic twaddle.
Atheists don't 'believe' that gods don't exist. Any more than they 'believe' that the ovaltine pixies don't wank dew onto the grass in the morning.

The "don't" bit is the give away.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:13, archived)

I'm pretty sure it's basic logic.

( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:15, archived)

No. It's semantic twaddle.
Not believing in something is not a belief.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:17, archived)

Of course it is.
And I'm pretty sure that formal logic backs me up.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:23, archived)

Really? This could be terribly clever.
I'm not an apple.
What sort of apple does that make me?
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:28, archived)

No, you've selected an analogy that doesn't quite with what we're modeling here.
The case is more akin to having a circuit in which lightbulb lights if the logic level on a line is not 1.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:33, archived)

You're going to have to explain to me how that is in any way relevant.
Take your time. I'm quite clever and I work in electronics so I'll probably be able to follow it if you're patient.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:45, archived)

Statistically, I'll bet that you're not as clever as me.
Over here, we're about 16 standard deviations up from the average IQ, and batting in excess of 175. So there's only about 100-200 people in the UK with a higher IQ.

It's also odd how you seem to work in whatever area it is that you're currently arguing about all the time.

I suggest a basic refresher course in logic.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:02, archived)

Hahaha.
You're honestly going to resort to a gong-waving competition rather than attempt to justify yourself? And not even real gongs ... Mensa gongs? That's weak. You can do better than that.

How about rather than attempting to patronise me, you actually answer my question? I genuinely don't understand and I'd quite like to know what you mean. (and I already have a PhD and a successful career so I probably won't take up your offer of a 'refresher course' ... thanks all the same)
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:05, archived)

hahaha a PhD means shit.
I'm not short of degrees my self, and I'll bet that I had them when I was younger than you too, given that I was the youngest physics grad ever from my university,

Additionally I work in a university too, half of the people here with PhDs couldn't form a logical argument if their life depended on it.

Edit: And if you'd like to discuss your career success I point you towards ownership of my own company, my two board appointments, and my board level consultantships to several multi-million pound turn over corporations.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:10, archived)

GONGS! LOOK AT THOSE GONGS!
Pay no attention to the argument behind the curtain! Look at the gongs!

You've lost, sonny. Give it up.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:19, archived)

You started the gong waving by claiming to be terribly clever,
but you clearly can't compete so I'll let you back out of that one before it gets too embarrassing for you as everyone realises that you're a middle of the road average academic.

Congratulations on moving on to the the next Argument Success(TM) method of trying to make rumour equal truth though. You know you can get a book with about 10 of these in? I think you're only up to about 5 at the moment, so there's considerable scope for improvement.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:25, archived)

No I didn't.
I did not understand your point so I asked you to clarify. You apparently couldn't answer. That was the point where the discussion finished and the floundering started. Up there. The rest of this is just me allowing you to dig yourself into a hole labelled 'loser'.

And I've had your mum. Although granted I wasn't the youngest person ever to have her.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:30, archived)

A new argument method!
Oh no, actually just a rehash of rumour equals fact.

You really are stupid, aren't you?

I couldn't careless what you think of me, as your thoughts have been demonstrated to be inaccurate and even fail to be self consistent.
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:35, archived)

I think you're probably a perfectly nice and intelligent person
who has got too involved in an argument on the internet.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:45, archived)

Another argument that isn't even self consistant with the previous ones.
But at least we're on to a new argument method now.

How many more can you think up?
( Sygiinu, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:52, archived)