Sure numbers don’t exist but we don’t claim numbers to be anymore than a concept from which we made to explain things.
Most people think god is more than a concept.
Yes, burbinator. Humans can have and think about a relationship when the other person/relationship isnt there, or is dead. This means we have the ability to make fake relationships. i.e. With god.
numbers DO exist in nature. We didn’t make them, we found them.
That is WHY we can explain things through mathematics.
If you use pythagoruses theorem for a right angled triangle: left side is 3cm the bottom is 4 cm, the hypotenuse will be 5cm. But why is it a whole number? wouldnt it be something like 5.283942cm ?
(sorry for double post)
Numbers are just symbols that have been assigned value.
If there was a god I’m sure he’d smite double posters.
I reject your apology!
Numbers are given meaning by us they are symbols just like max said.
They do not exist in anything but a concept. The equation for general relativity is not randomly floating around in space. It is an idea created in our minds to describe a process.
It does not physically exist.
I really thought I made some good points in my last post. Damn 
Good work, Mr. Dictionary.
Oops, fixed 
Um, first of TL;DR on everything but the last page (And I apologise for any boozed up ramblings beforehand). First off Athiesm in it’s purist form is not a belief system, (in the relegious sense) it is a lack thereof. Amirite?
Secondly, there is nothing pre-big bang? I think not, there is nothing that could possibly be calculated pre-big bang.
Tertiarily, science and religion do not mix. Any sensible scientist will not even try to argue the two. Nor are they entirely mutually exclusive. Science cannot argue belief in the same way I cannot argue the finer points of extreme fishing. I do not extreme fish and know very little of extreme fishing other than by name and know they catch big ass fish. I could still argue with an extreme fisherman on the best way to obtain an “extreme fish”. If I said to an extreme fisherman, “Wrap the area around the fish in something and use a torpedo to hit him, trawl in the wrapping; I have caught an extreme fish.” He’d likely say “Fuck off you twat, that’s not fishing.” If he said, “I catch it on a rod, at exactly the right moment, with exactly the right lure I made myself after years of experience, that is a perfect moment, that is the essence of extreme fishing,” then i’d say “Fuck off you twat, my idea took 20 minutes, no experience, I got the same fish you did, and I’ve still got it.”
Which is more true? Who knows. Are we any wiser? No. Is the arguement pointless? Entirely.
PS: If it’s a horrible analogy I’m sorry, I get like that after a few beers 
Yah because if that analogy is comparing religion and science it would be a different.
The science guy will accurately show how he caught a fish while the religious guy brags about a huge fish he supposedly caught but cannot tell how or show it because it is invisible to any sort of detection and if you don’t believe there really is a huge fish the fish will send you to burn forever in a lake of fire.
Um, the science guy was the torpedoer and the religious guy the “conventional” extreme fisherman. How exactly is that different?
The religious guy would have never caught a fish in the first place but he will brag about it’s size and then say he cannot show evidence.
If you can’t prove God does not exist, you better not weild that sword of “scientific athiesm” so readily. The best a scientist can say is “God probably does not exist, as there is no evidence he does not exist.” However a lack of evidence of existence is not the same thing as a proof of non-existence. Which is why God and science are not mutually exclusive and a true scientist will not argue belief.
Lack of evidence also does not mean evidence for existence. Science is all about falsifiability. God is not falsifiable so is not science. Science does not mix with God. God mixing with science, however…
Scientists are not claiming anything about god.
My example is that while scientists are out there providing evidence for how the universe works religious people are saying “god did it” with no evidence.
Hence the fish and no fish example.
Wait. What?
Why exactly is it a scientist or anyones responsibility to PROVE that imaginary things are imaginary. If a scientist believes that the easter bunny isn’t real, and then provides poignant evidence that he doesn’t is his responsibility not fulfilled? Isn’t it reasonable to expect some sort of solid evidence before you expect him to go around saying that the easter bunny is real?
I think what Max is trying to say is, there is no need to prove that God isn’t real because there is no real evidence pointing towards his existence in the first place.
Sort of like fanfiction is not part of the actual canon unless stated otherwise.
You cannot tell that there is completely no evidence, you are forgetting about “eyewitness testimonies”. Historians (which are scientists too I guess) use ancient manuscripts to decipher historic events and to learn how people lived in the past. The only problem is to separate facts from fiction. You should also notice that the New Testament never meant to be a literary work as opposed to e.g. Epic of Gilgamesh.
Eyewitness testimonies are used to back up evidence, they aren’t evidence in and of themselves.