Changes

:::::::: You've got it almost right in your last sentence - they should, indeed, be free to consider any explanation that fits the observations, but they base those possible explanations on those observations.  To 'rule in' any explanation before examining the evidence is filtering science through a 'world view'.  Otherwise we have the situation of the invisible pink unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster and Great Snozuflu being solid science, as there is nothing conclusively proving them wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You've got it almost right in your last sentence - they should, indeed, be free to consider any explanation that fits the observations, but they base those possible explanations on those observations.  To 'rule in' any explanation before examining the evidence is filtering science through a 'world view'.  Otherwise we have the situation of the invisible pink unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster and Great Snozuflu being solid science, as there is nothing conclusively proving them wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::: "''Now that I point out how absurd that argument actually is...''": Given that that wasn't my argument, you've only demolished a straw-man.[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::: "''Now that I point out how absurd that argument actually is...''": Given that that wasn't my argument, you've only demolished a straw-man.[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: And despite putting this in the article and saying it here several times, you still don't get it.  Science hasn't 'ruled out' God, and neither has 'weak atheism'.  It has, basically, failed to 'rule in' God as <u>there is no solid objective evidence of God</u>.  I should also point out that, if you now admit that following the evidence is scientific, then the edit you made to the article, which started this whole discussion off, is wrong - 'weak atheism' follows the evidence, as does science. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: And despite putting this in the article and saying it here several times, you still don't get it.  Science hasn't 'ruled out' God, and neither has 'weak atheism'.  It has, basically, failed to 'rule in' God as <u>there is no solid objective evidence of God</u>.  I should also point out that, if you now admit that following the evidence is scientific, then the edit you made to the article, which started this whole discussion off, is wrong - 'weak atheism' follows the evidence, as does science. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: How do you ''scientifically test'' that there were people in England capable of building Stonehenge at the time that it was supposed to be built?  You can't.  But does that therefore mean that you can't propose such people as builders of the monument?  Of course not.  But you would argue (if you are being consistent with your arguments about God) that you can't propose that people built Stonehenge because you can't scientifically prove the existence of such people!  Instead, you are forced to conclude that Stonehenge is a natural phenomenon, presumably carved by the wind and rain over thousands of years!  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: How do you ''scientifically test'' that there were people in England capable of building Stonehenge at the time that it was supposed to be built?  You can't.  But does that therefore mean that you can't propose such people as builders of the monument?  Of course not.  But you would argue (if you are being consistent with your arguments about God) that you can't propose that people built Stonehenge because you can't scientifically prove the existence of such people!  Instead, you are forced to conclude that Stonehenge is a natural phenomenon, presumably carved by the wind and rain over thousands of years!  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Sorry, in absence of solid evidence, to follow scientific practice, I would have to conclude (b), in your hypothetical situation, which would leave the question of 'who built Stonehenge?' unsanswered.  I could maybe propose (a) as an unproven hypothesis, or even a pure conjecture, but it would face major problems to be overcome before it could even remotely be called a 'theory'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Sorry, in absence of solid evidence, to follow scientific practice, I would have to conclude (b), in your hypothetical situation, which would leave the question of 'who built Stonehenge?' unsanswered.  I could maybe propose (a) as an unproven hypothesis, or even a pure conjecture, but it would face major problems to be overcome before it could even remotely be called a 'theory'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::: "''...if you try to do science on the basis of something that is not proven, ... that is still unscientific''":  Not at all.  You seem to be saying that the solutions have to be proved before they can be proposed.  Science is about ''proposing'' solutions then trying to determine if they are correct.  Sometimes you are unable to prove them one way or the other, which means that (in a scientific sense) the solution remains tentative.  But you don't rule out a solution/explanation ''a priori'' on the basis that the solution/explanation hasn't (yet) been proved.

::: "''...if you try to do science on the basis of something that is not proven, ... that is still unscientific''":  Not at all.  You seem to be saying that the solutions have to be proved before they can be proposed.  Science is about ''proposing'' solutions then trying to determine if they are correct.  Sometimes you are unable to prove them one way or the other, which means that (in a scientific sense) the solution remains tentative.  But you don't rule out a solution/explanation ''a priori'' on the basis that the solution/explanation hasn't (yet) been proved.

::::::::Well, if you're considering possible explanations before looking at the evidence you are NOT proposing solutions based on evidence.  You are proposing solutions based on imagination. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Well, if you're considering possible explanations before looking at the evidence you are NOT proposing solutions based on evidence.  You are proposing solutions based on imagination. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::Having read this whole fascinating correspondence I have to say that  Urushnor is correct.  The point "Weak Atheism" makes is that there is no evidence that God exists.  It goes on to suggest that - given this - we have no obligation, need, or reason to  to believe in Him.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:11, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::Having read this whole fascinating correspondence I have to say that  Urushnor is correct.  The point "Weak Atheism" makes is that there is no evidence that God exists.  It goes on to suggest that - given this - we have no obligation, need, or reason to  to believe in Him.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:11, 26 April 2008 (EDT)