As an atheist (note the lower case "a") I take the position that there is a fundamental lack in sufficiency of information upon which to make an assertion as to the nature and quantity of deity.

There's nothing out there that points to an existence of deity and you can't prove a negative.

In the face of insufficient data and an inability to prove a negative I take no position on deity.

The Atheists (note the capital "A") take the position that there is no deity. That's as indefensible a position as asserting that there is.

And as to questioning the rigor of a scientist with faith, I have no problem with a scientist believing in God. So long as "God did it!" isn't one of their premises when they're trying to harness the atom...

A good scientist can separate the two components of faith and science. Each has its place.

Second time in this thread, you can't prove a negative. What on earth does that mean????

You can't prove God doesn't exist.

The only negative proofs are in logic.

There isn't a test or a sensor designed to test for the Big O's. You can't test for infinity, in either direction.

So, you can prove a negative. What does that have to do with a discussion of God?

No, you can't prove a negative. Which means that the existence of GOD can't be disproved, any more than it can be proved.

I am not a dog. 2 is not equal to 4. I can prove the negative statement, with rigor. Yes, you can prove a negative.

what I'm saying is that the idea of not being able to prove a negative is not found in logic. A negative may be proven or disproved with logic. Hence "not proving a negative" has nothing to do with proving or disproving the existence of God. Which by the way is a really bad thing to debate. Discussion is nice. I kind of look at it like coke and pepsi, no commercial ever changed my mind about how coke kicks the pants off of pepsi.

I will say again, that in any system there are statements that are true that cannot be proved. I know, I'm being a stickler for accuracy in language here. I think it is important to use the proper language for the ideas being expressed.

Well that's chock-o-block full of fail...

I stated clearly before, proving a negative is only possible in logic.

In an empiricist model you can only show a lack, a zero value or a positive value. There is no negative vacuum, there is no negative Stasis. You can't measure a negative value of an absolute.

And why is discussing the evidence for the existence of deity a bad thing? I quite enjoy it. God doesn't seem to have a problem with it either as I've gotten no memo otherwise.

Who says it's a bad thing to discuss?

This:

Hey look, I can quote too. :rolleyes:

I maintain, a negative can be proved. The statement does not belong in a discussion about the existence of God.

Prove it.

Both assertions.

That's not a negative.
That's not a negative.

Nope.:headshake

The first statement that you can prove a negative is true. The second statement that this does not belong in a discussion of the existance of God is my opinion.

As to the first statement:

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philos...eanegative.pdf

regular.joe, I would like you to prove you have never punched a woman in the face.

You can't prove it beyond a doubt, because there is no evidence to back you up--there is only a lack of evidence that you've ever done it, and a lack of evidence doesn't prove that it never happened. This sort of scenario is what is meant by "you can't prove a negative."

Clod,

The smart guy at the University explains it much better then I can, fuck I'm just a Drill Sergeant. I recommend reading the link in my last post.