Dude, you can't prove a negative. All you can do is appeal to logic. The idea of an omnipotent, interferring god is illogical. For all I know, there is one.

In that case, Heaven is going to be sheer hell.

There is always logic. Fairies are for children and the retarded.

No matter how puzzling the course of events, there is always a chain of logic.

Saying you don't believe in logic, is like those that say science can't tell us everything. It can.

The querying of science's abilities comes from people who don't even know what science is.

Do you?

You misunderstood my post, or misinterpreted my words to fit in with your excessive belief in logic.

Logic does not explain everything and nor does a belief in fairies. Most people are somewhere in between and I'm one of this thumping majority of sensible people.

We do believe in science, but not excessively. We don't yet know how the universe was formed, nor do we know for sure whether there is a God or not.

We accept that we may never find out, just as we may never know whether the Taliban shot down a helicopter full of Seals, or whether something else caused the crash.

I'm curious. Do you actually know what science is?

Science and logic can, given the proper resources explain everything.

If fairies were real, then they would fall under the remit of science. If there is a god, then science will be able to tell you his shoe size, if he has feet.

so what are his\her feet size ?
or is that just a logical question ?

Sensible!

Give me the money and the time, and I'll tell you. Before you say that's a cop out, how about I say to you prove to me absolutely that there are polar bears on the Artic ice cap. You would need the resources and time to get me out there, to find a reasonably sized sample scattered over a random area (so I know you haven't set them there to fool me ) and then i'll believe that all the pictures aren't doctored and faked.

See what I mean?

Do you know what science is?

Or unimaginative?

sorry

why have I got to have resources and time (which is a resource so actually now redundant in this statement) to get YOU to get you out there when I have to prove it to you. There is no qualifying statement as to how it is to be proved. There is no guarantee that you would ever be satisfied with the "proof" provided to you just out of your sheer cussedness and not wishing to admit the proof.

and what have polar bears got to do with God and his\her feet. You have to prove there is a God first (which has not been asked for) before you can endeavour to provide information on his\her foot size. There is no qualifying statement as to how it is to be proved, but obviously the proof must be to my satisfaction. How am I to know whose feet they are. There is no guarantee that I would ever be satisfied with the "proof" provided by you just out of my sheer cussedness and not wishing to admit the proof.

Science is best described by Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained. However it must be tempered by logic and experience - which is why true scientists are so rare. Maybe as rare as polar bears in the Arctic Circle but not as rare as God's feet size. And we are not going to get an answer to that one until you get out there and prove there is a God first.

rgds
Dom

You want the info, you pay. You want me to explain something to you that would take my time and money, do you really think I'm going to pay to do that?

If you hire a private investigator, you pay, and you pay up front, with all costs paid promptly as they go along.

A body of knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained is indeed scientific knowledge., but I didn't ask you that.

I asked you what is science? That's something very different.

I cannot pay your expenses for proving who god is - nor for the size of his\her feet. You have said science can prove his feet size, all I am asking is to know what size they are. It is up to you and science to prove there is a god first to be able to comply with the lower level question.

If I want a PI it is to prove something to me I may have a prior knowledge of. From that may come something which I had not been aware of. I do not pay him to find out what it is I want to know.

You didnt ask me "what is science?" you actually asked
I have answered that question
but obviously you wish to argue with Aristotle - please do so but I don't know what forum he can be found on.

rgds

Oh dear god.

It's not that I'm arguing with Ari, (nice attempt at deflecting btw) I'm just amazed you see no difference between science and scientific knowledge. The one is the product of the other.



What is the difference between "What is science?" and "Do you know what science is? "

That's like arguing a difference between "What is a doctor?" and "Do you know what a doctor is?"

I take it from that that you neither know what science is, or what is science.

To be honest, I figured as much.

As you say Oh dear god......... and I ask the angels to send their spirits to a place where they can rest.

And dont ask for anymore justification on why I said that .Your quote 40 said you would charge for explanation on why you say what you do.

You can pay me if you want more info.

Yeah. Angels. Riiiiight. Trust me, I'd pay not to hear it.

You don't know what science is either, do you?