The evidence isn't in the math, the math predicts it. Just because something can be predicted doesn't mean evidence exists. If that is so, I predict God exists... see how that works?
Can you make that prediction with mathematical certainty?
Just because I can't show you a formula, doesn't mean anything... 150 years ago, no one could show you a quantum physics formula. Although, if the theories are correct, they were likely working regardless of the fact they hadn't yet been theorized and formulas discovered. This is why it's very problematic for me when people say: We know X, therefore, God is nil. X is an unresolved variable, we'll never absolutely have a value for X. Therefore, it can never prove God nil.
Well, I guess that answered that question. 150 years?!?! Really?!?! You guys have had some
2,000 years to come up with something better than, "Because we say so..." So, until there is some sort of objective evidence to the contrary, I will stay on the neutral null position of "There is no God".
Do you have proof that there is no God?
Coming late to the party. I don't need proof. The way hypothesis testing works is that when one proposes the hypnosis that "X exists", in order to avoid confirmation bias, one does not start with the affirmative position of "X exists"; rather one starts from the neutral null position of "X does NOT exist" and proceeds to look for evidence to prove the existence of "X".
In this case, the null position is God does not exist. It is up to the theists to provide the evidence to the contrary. One does not
prove nonexistence. Nonexistence is presumed, unless proven otherwise.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk