Re: Did you "Choose to Believe," or "Choose not to believe"?

On May 13, 1:44 pm, magi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Arturo Magidin) wrote:

>
> Isn't one of the attributes of "god" supposed to be omnipresence and
> another detectability? If so, there is evidence there is no such
> thing.
>

omnipresence and detectability... hmmm
if you define that detectibility is required, then you define how to
measure this as well.
I don't have detectibility as a measure for my faith, so this isn't
one of the attributes I'd try to measure.
It would be a strawman for you to define me, then prove by your
definition that I'm wrong.
This would only be a supposition for you.

> The absence of intervention also provides (weak) evidence in favor of
> the proposition that no such thing exists, just as the lack of
> blood-spatter evidence provides evidence that no murder was committed
> in your house while you were out this morning.

In science we say that a theory can never be proven, only disproven.
When a stated theory is disproved, it might lead to a new theory or a
more defined theory.
Absence of proof is not, in science, proof of the negative.
It is still just an unproven theory.

From your example, the proof is not there there was no murder in my
house this morning.
The proof is only that there was no blood splatter.
Someone could be murdered in a number of ways that don't involve blood
splatter.
And even if the murder involved blood splatter, there could be a
number of ways not to have blood splatter on the wall.