Without God

[Barry Shnikov]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Nevertheless it's a jolly useful indicator.

In any event, stewart's science/philosophy distinction is fallacious. (No, not that, that's spelt with an 'e'.)

One philosopher might say 'God must exist because you can't have nothing before' and they other would say 'What are you burbling about?', unless he knows stewart38 quite well in which case he would say 'It remains to be established that anything is necessary before the start of the universe.'

He might also say: 'It's not established that the universe did have a beginning'; or 'it's not established that the big bang started the entire universe'; or 'it's not established that the existence of some everlasting entity is more likely than the big bang'.

He might go on to say: 'if we're going to have a philosophical discussion we need to thrash out first what our basic assumptions are; only then can we start to make the sort of conclusions that have been splashed about in this thread as if they were axiomatic, rather than highly contentious'.

The scientist will reply: 'OK, well let me know what you decide - I'm sure it'll be fascinating - I'm off to try to design an experiment to detect gravitons'.

[stewart38]

And the ones who can communicate that understanding with concision and clarity are even more highly prized...

BS Im afraid your in the science camp

Science or Philosophers

Rubbish.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I think the scientific view is that the various theories of "God" are unproven or unverifiable.

[stewart38]

The scientist will reply: 'OK, well let me know what you decide - I'm sure it'll be fascinating - I'm off to try to design an experiment to detect gravitons'.

I thought we understood how gravity works very well