Dualism

[Purple Rabbit]

@ fr0d0

When it is not a strong claim about the physical universe that your god created it, then please tell me what in your opinion does constitute a strong claim. I claim that it is indistinguishable from the claim that a malevolent purple rabbit in the 26th dimension accidentally created the universe. Making the claim without evidence is illogic, not the demanding of evidence for wild claims. Your statement "There is evidence for God, it just can't be provable" is in fact a fine example of illogic.

BTW: I take it you mean "...it just can't be proven" instead of "it just can't be provable". In oder to claim provability or non-provability you technically need proof.

Do you mean or include theology when you speak about non-scientific philosophy? Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god. By asserting that god can have no proof you in one stroke contradict theologian claims and affirm the illogic of your conclusion. You in other words have quite effectively burst your little bubble.

But that aside you are juggling with the meaning of words. Generally in debate the word 'proof' refers to a sound deductive logical argument (a valid argument whose premises are true) and 'evidence' refers to combinations of verifiable facts about the world supporting the premises and valid logical arguments. Because all facts about the world only can be obtained through our senses, technically facts do not constitute sound deductive logical arguments. In that sense we have no definite proof for anything. The whole of science (with exception with certain parts of mathematics) has no absolute proof and science makes no claim about it.

So juggling with the meaning of 'evidence' and 'proof' may be a nice therapy to get us through the day, it is not in these words that the diffrence between science and religion lies. The distinguishing factor of science is that it works. It has been capable of predicting unknown phenomena and results and has effectively been put to use (just visit a modern hospital) whereas the my-god-did-it claim (and fill in any god you like or dislike) has shown no explanatory power and has not been put to use in further understanding of the world we live in. And that is the real difference that ultimately counts. While only about four hundred years in place, science has outsmarted millenia of religious knowledge forging and has become the undeniable new standard. Not wanting to measure up to this benchmark is a nice try but rather irrelevant in the discussion about what is true and what is probable. This debate will go on and improve without religious claims about physical phenomena. It effectively does so for quite a time already. To join is to deliver evidence, to just claim that its stances need no proof is not getting the point what the debate is about.