I have given plenty of proof. You simply misunderstand the concept. Proof necessitates a causal chain. God reportedly doesn't. The two are mutually exclusive. The first is a part of reality we use for surviving and the second is a fairy tale. 2+2=4, for sure. Without adding something else in there, there is nothing else 2+2 could be, ever, even on another planet far far away.
And one does not prove that the basics of proof are valid through science, it is an epistemological concept. If reason and logic weren't first epistemologically valid, science wouldn't work. And you want me to prove that the process of validation is valid, otherwise you are going to stick to science, which depends on this process.
@August: Note, it's easier to follow conversations if you hit the "reply" button directly beneath the comment you are responding to.
Regarding nanotubes: why would you assume that the scientist hasn't done his homework and studied the forces at work in building such a hypothetical structure? Even if he ultimately turns out to be wrong (and who knows, such a thing might not even be attempted for hundreds of years), the concept of space elevators is based on scientific method and analysis, not "faith". The two are not comparable.
August, at least carbon nanotubes have the property of actually existing. It is at least plausible that something impressive could be built out of them. Comparing a nanotube space elevator to the concept of god is ridiculous. And there is a difference between "science" and particular scientific claims. Nobody here thinks that every scientific hypothesis will bear out; we know that science moves forward by correcting its mistakes, which means at the leading edge, science gets things wrong. That's why scientific findings are expressed tentatively.
The concept of god is in a different category--it is logically impossible. Thus, it should not be accorded any plausibility whatsoever. There should be no uncertainty about the nonexistence of the logically impossible.
And while the concept of god is inherently irrational, nobody here has made the claim that theists are 100% irrational or that atheists can't believe falsehoods. Humans compartmentalize; devout theists can be perfectly rational in nonreligious endeavors. Atheists are just as fallible as anybody else. But that doesn't mean we are wrong when we show the logical impossibility of god. It doesn't even mean that there must be a chance that we are wrong about this claim.
ok i live in japan. japan has many gods. most are rocks and trees.a few are living people, like yokozuna or champion sumo wrestlers. i never say that rocks and trees or yokozuna do not exist.
of course i understand that you are talking about supernatural beings. supernatural means untestable and non scientific, or un-natural.
Omniscience always means to know everything, as in all there is. It is not just what one person wants to know. And every time someone has knowledge, it is by a singular limited mind. It is always anthropomorphic. Only a singular brain can have knowledge and it can only be about a particular part of the universe. Omniscience, of course, implies sentience. All knowledge, if it is knowledge, comes from a sentient mind, else it is reflex or information, but not knowledge, until it is integrating by a mind via reason and logic. The nature of knowledge is such that it can only be incompletely had by a limited conscious brain.
My posts may sound cold, but that is on purpose. My goal is not to make people feel welcome or happy. It is to work through the concepts, removing contradiction. My goal is to view and challenge other viewpoints to further adapt and/or strengthen my own. I am on the internet for my own selfish reasons. For my own knowledge. And, I must admit, also partially for what I consider posterity. If someone else would like to cater to nice warm feelings over reason, and value tolerance over integrity, then they should do that. And if others can't take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen. I don't think it is as hot in the living room.
Calling someone's argument or statement ridiculous, I think, does have a place in debate. It is not as if I called someone's mom fat and then didn't explain why. By, ridiculous, I am stating that it is unreasonable, as in not logical. And as you have seen, I do try and communicate my ideas. I do not simply name call.
I call a spade a spade and I think one of the biggest problem in this world is that not enough people do. They are OK with using whichever definition of words they like and it leads to poor and inaccurate knowledge bases/ worldviews. I take that shit seriously and when I see, I am liable to point it out.