DavidWahl

I don't think there's any problem to interpret "proving" as "evidence that suggests the certainty or high possibility of " when we specifically talk about science. Interesting. Then at that point I think you can safely call me a blatant ignorant but only if that ever happens to begin with. I see that your stance is more reasonable here but nothing prevents me from having a belief of my choice in the absence of evidence (or I should say inexistent) either, as long as I don't use those beliefs as facts in making rational arguments. Just to be sure we're on the same page, I'm not talking about the case when we assume those beliefs to be true before making our arguments, though I'm aware of this as well. Once more I'll restate it in a different way just for you. Trash in a scientific sense, not necessarily philosophical.

It's the same thing except this time you've blended two things together. We used information about a phenomenon in animals to suggest the same existing pattern to be in plants as well. In most cases, we cannot directly observe evolution which is why we use fossil records, genetics and even presently existing features like the curve beaks you mentioned, to prove it's relevance. These are footprints or aspects of reality that were previously not known to have connections with each other and they're all manifestations of Evolution. And yes, using this we can also forecast the future. What is even more worthless is the very notion of proving God's existence as a scientific endeavor. A wasteful attempt with a likely useless result which serves no practical purpose. There are much better things to invest our time on. Again, I'm an atheist not an agnostic. Anything that is both unfalsifiable and contains no scientific possibility is simply trash to me. Just by looking at the way how religions have turned out in this world, I'm sure if I were God I would never want to be proven to exist only to entertain such individuals and their beautiful beliefs.

You mean physical footprints or remnants. What I had in my mind when you said "predictions" was to forecast future events, I almost forgot that revealing the existence of something that was previously unknown is also a form of prediction. I still strictly believe that even if God exists, there's just no way we can ever prove the being's existence or even have a hint about its true nature. Whether it's mathematical equations, observational predictions, conceptual models or even pure reasoning. It's impossible and as good as wishful thinking.

I appreciate your honesty and formality. But I have to disagree with you about the nature of such an evidence. To be able to find evidence of God that allows us to make predictions, on what grounds? Offer me clarity, what kind of predictions? To foretell what God's next move will be? Science, especially the field of physics, is heavily relied on mathematics to make predictions (even the fundamental laws are encoded as mathematical equations) and the idea to think we can find an equation that not only proves God but also make predictions is not only interesting but extremely absurd to me. Please enlighten me.

Now you want a wikipedia page on that too?

I believe you are aware of the fact that when we use "we", it usually conveys in general terms, obviously exceptions are going to be there as well but that still doesn't in any way prevent me from speaking on behalf of the majority. I know my community very well. Thanks for the unneeded reminder tho.

As atheists, we intentionally demand evidence to provoke a sense of rationality in the minds of people with religious dogmatism, in a way to shut them up, whereas we're also greatly aware that no such evidence can be provided. These people desperately want to validate the truth of their beliefs and the annoying part is they do this by unnecessarily filling the gaps of understanding in science by a mysterious entity and its so-miracles. The most elegant and well-known method that they could come up with. Even in the absence of knowledge, they are greatly confident and deluded in their idea of God that they have the divine arrogance to challenge an actually knowledgeable individual; and so by questioning and demanding evidence, we are simply helping them cultivate a sense of humility while also make them realise that they are as clueless as we are when it comes to proving the existence of God. It's more of a tactic than a serious request. Theists will claim various sorts of characteristics about God's true nature, as if they've encountered or observed God themselves which thus gives them the right to make assumptions about God's nature. Let's assume a being like God does exist, how are you so sure that God is non-physical in nature? On what concrete basis did you come to that understanding? Did God have a personal chat with you and told you that?

I knew that just throwing the term in as if it is of no importance is going to be catastrophic. I don't necessarily agree that the phrase itself is contradictory in nature. I should have been more specific in terms of how I defined the phrase. A phenomenological illusion refers to a type of experience where there is a discrepancy between how things appear in our consciousness and how they actually are in reality, e. g., mirage, hallucinations etc. It recognizes the reality of the subjective experience of the illusion. In essence, a phenomenological illusion is an experience where what appears in consciousness does not align with external reality, but the experience itself is undeniably real to the subject. The only controversial thing about my statement is the claim that consciousness itself is a phenomenological illusion because the very concept of an illusion presupposes a conscious experiencer. It does presents a paradox that challenges the coherence of the notion itself. Phenomenology, with its emphasis on the reality of subjective experience, generally rejects the idea that consciousness could be an illusion and treats consciousness as if it objectively exists.

I agree. I had a somewhat similar opinion about consciousness. I think it's a "phenomenological illusion", it feels real by human experience but it could or could not be an objective thing at all. We're all trying so hard to come up with a proper definition of consciousness which can be both scientific and universally agreed upon. Right now there's no such definition and the current philosophical definition is the "awareness of one's existence". And if consciousness does exists, more questions can be asked like: What are the common/fundamental characteristics/components of all conscious beings? With the rise of AI, how can you tell the difference between a system that is actually conscious and a system that appears/pretends to be conscious?