Any other atheists here? Some frustration

[SadisticNature]

Up to 4 your argument makes sense. However once you have asserted by assumption an axiom is true, you can either show it false by contradiction, or you have a model of the universe in which its true, so within that model 5 is certainly wrong. 6 is true, however the same argument can be made about assuming gods don't exist.

7. is a reach that doesn't follow from 1 to 6 at all. It isn't even provably true, as how would you identify divine influence if it were happening in 100% of experiments.

As for the temperature scale:

My point is the actual temperature we identify as 100 celcius may in fact be different from the true temperature at which water boils if some divine entity were causing the true laws of nature to be violated in all instances. In this case we would discover false laws based on the violations.


As for philosophy if you choose not to debate it that's fine, but truth has long been consider in the realm of philosophy by both mathematicians and scientists. Scientists discover truth about the physical world, these aren't the only types of truth.

You continue to misunderstand point 6.

My point is consider two models of the universe.

Model A is the model you gave before where the assumption is that no gods exists.

Model B is the model where god exists by assumption.

Neither model is inconsistent, so you cannot rule out either model as a state of the universe. The only way in which an assumption can prove anything about itself is a proof of falsity by contradiction.

In Model A god does not exist is a true statement by assumption, this isn't evidence however because in Model B god exists is a true statement also by assumption. If you wanted to show god does not exist, you'd have to show that model A is consistent, while model B is not.

Model A provides evidence for god not existing as within Model A the statement god does not exist is true. Model B provides evidence for god existing as within Model B the statement god exists is true. None of this evidence is useful however as it is all circular reasoning and as neither of these models is consistent assuming a statement doesn't result in its proof.

Con (AoS) -> Con (AoS + 'God does not exist')
Con (AoS) -> not Con (AoS + 'God does exist')

would say that if one assumes the axioms of science are correct then one is forced to conclude god does not exist. This means any argument for the existence of god would have to argue the scientific method was wrong. However these statements have not been shown and from a logical standpoint are not derivable unless there are axioms of science that imply statements about god.

If you propose to advance a rigorous argument I suggest you use Models properly. If you'd like I could suggest a formal logic text or a model theory book, I've studied both.

[SadisticNature]

The Ancient Greeks have no verifiable evidence of gravity, and thus should conclude gravity does not exist. Of course this is a false conclusion.

Absence of verifiable evidence is insufficient to conclude something is false. You'd need to be able to show its negation is verifiable to show anything about the truth of the existence of God.

It is perfectly fine to assume God does not exist for the purpose of doing science, and that's a perfectly rational position to take. However, it is not a proof, so you have not done enough to show the public that god does not exist.

[Wiscoman]

It is perfectly fine to assume God does not exist for the purpose of doing science, and that's a perfectly rational position to take. However, it is not a proof, so you have not done enough to show the public that god does not exist.

The burden of proof is with the claimant. If it were the other way around, we'd be disproving every crazy-assed thing someone came up with. Was John Wilkes Booth possessed by demons? Up to you to prove he wasn't. Was the Hindenburg brought down by a UFO? I don't know, prove it wasn't.

It's not up to skeptics to prove a god doesn't exist, it's up to believers to prove it does.

[Thorne]

The Ancient Greeks have no verifiable evidence of gravity, and thus should conclude gravity does not exist. Of course this is a false conclusion.

You're saying they didn't know that if you dropped something it would fall? That's a silly notion. Of course the Greeks knew about gravity. They didn't know what it was, and they certainly weren't able to quantify it, but that doesn't mean it did not exist.

Absence of verifiable evidence is insufficient to conclude something is false. You'd need to be able to show its negation is verifiable to show anything about the truth of the existence of God.

No argument from me here. I've said all along that you cannot prove a negative. I've never said that gods cannot exist. I've only said there is no evidence that they do and therefor no reason to believe that they do. There's no evidence that Neverland doesn't exist either. That doesn't mean Peter Pan will be dropping by tomorrow.

It is perfectly fine to assume God does not exist for the purpose of doing science, and that's a perfectly rational position to take. However, it is not a proof, so you have not done enough to show the public that god does not exist.

You misunderstand! I don't have to prove that he doesn't exist! Again, such a proof is impossible. If you want people to believe he does exist, then it's up to you to provide proofs of that existence.

[Thorne]

As for the temperature scale:
My point is the actual temperature we identify as 100 celcius may in fact be different from the true temperature at which water boils if some divine entity were causing the true laws of nature to be violated in all instances. In this case we would discover false laws based on the violations.

It doesn't matter what the so called actual temperature should be. A being violating the laws of nature in all instances is identical in results to no being violating said laws. It's not a proof of divine intervention, though an assumption of divine intervention can be made if you wish. But why would you?

Model A provides evidence for god not existing as within Model A the statement god does not exist is true.

No, it does not provide such evidence. Assumptions are not evidence. If any evidence for the existence of gods were to be found it would falsify our assumption, thereby making our hypothesis false.

Model B provides evidence for god existing as within Model B the statement god exists is true. None of this evidence is useful however as it is all circular reasoning and as neither of these models is consistent assuming a statement doesn't result in its proof.

Again, the assumption of the existence of gods' does not constitute evidence of their existence.
In these two instances either hypothesis works. You can assume gods exist or not and the results are identical. However, there is no evidence of such existence, so the only reason for hypothesizing them is to make yourself feel better. Their existence, if it is true, has no bearing on the running of the universe.

the axioms of science are correct then one is forced to conclude god does not exist.

I'm not sure which axioms you are referring to here, but the only reason to conclude that gods do not exist is because there is no evidence of them. For the same reason we can reasonably conclude that unicorns do not exist, that there is no green cheese on the Moon, and no ancient civilizations on Mars.

This means any argument for the existence of god would have to argue the scientific method was wrong.

The scientific method is simply a tool used to verify the work of fallible human beings. Repeated experiments and observations, duplication by independent sources and peer review of data and conclusions. There's nothing to say that you cannot prove anything, just that you have to have the evidence and the data to verify it.

However these statements have not been shown and from a logical standpoint are not derivable unless there are axioms of science that imply statements about god.

I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that we cannot prove God exists unless we make God's existance an axiom? "God exists, therefore we have proven that God exists"? Which god? Your god, or Caesar's god, or Muhammed's god? All of them? None of them?