@atheist
I thought so too while I was thinking !

@atheist
I was thinkin the same thing ?

@atheist
Don't know if I can make one, let me think about it ?

@atheist
Yeah, very deep in thought !

Lols to the spaghetti monster! Do you get to eat him for communion?

Ah, just checked out your website and found the answer is yes. Yummy, that's my kind of church

@atheist actually not because you can never prove that you just didn't find it.

@atheist It is a philosophical truth that they may exist. Clearly the probability that they are true is extremely small. As Dawkins said of the probability of the existence of God, less than the chance that a Boeing Dream-liner 777 would assemble itself out of a pile of junk when a tornado passed over the junk yard.

Perhaps we are living in a "simulation." The probability that we are is far more than any of the others I've mentioned above.

Are you talking about "faith"?

@Petter good one!!

@atheist huh????

Why does this not surprise me?

@nvrnuff yes, a sad truth. Makes me think of the OJ trial

@CoastRiderBill I totally get what you are saying but there are times when evidence does not produce the truth. It happens a lot in child sexual assault cases and also in DV cases. I did that work for 8 years and it was often overwhelming odds

That's how the system works, it's only about what can be proved with evidence, traceable facts. I understand the emotional part of it, however the system has to prevent scenarios based on "he/she said" and that leads to the reality where the truth at times may get overrun by available evidence (or the lack of)

@atheist Evidence that proves a point depends on memory which is encapsulated thought time. Evidence that does not offer proof to another thought is timeless. Example: “I am what is known now” is a statement of evidence that can only be proven now in the ever changing present moment which remains forever timeless. You can dissect this statement and add analysis and try to make it a thing or bring it into time but that which is no thing remains forever timeless.

@atheist Well said notwithstanding being a double negative.

@atheist Google?

@atheist We can't really keep philosophy out of it. We need to keep it in mind because ignoring it means possibly making critical mistakes in our reasoning. It is a driving position n the practice of science. Scientists know that you don't prove anything. You can provide supporting evidence but that is all.

@atheist No actually you are wrong but you apparently don't realize that at all. I think perhaps you don't grasp the line of reasoning.

It doesn't say nothing, it says no thing. A play on words.

@nvrnuff What’s the difference?

I think he means that a thing is the hypothesis? So no thing is a failed hypothesis or one that needs tweaking.

@girlwithsmiles Guess I need to learn to read between the lines better. Thanks.

@atheist Then it is a good statement. That which cannot be proven scientifically must be taken with a certain element of faith regardless of the evidence presented.

Ah, I think after reading that several times I finally understood. Thank you for taking the time to explain. Yes a lack of something could indeed be a type of evidence e.g. a lack of bullets embedded in a surface said to be shot at. Cool.