Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jennifer
In physics we work in a slightly different way. There's nothing to suggest that there's a dependence in the nuclear energy levels on orbital angular momentum and spin, but since we're not talking about electromagnetic forces, there's no reason why it can't be. So we put it in, to see if were could find a rule that matched observations. And we did. And we tested to see if this term was actually there, and omg, we found the 30% polarization we expected
|
Whilst induction has been dropped as a failure ('The only problem with induction is that it doesn't exist'), it doesn't mean that everything can be gotten from a simple set of axioms, in the style of mathematics. Empiricism comes in somewhere. 'There's nothing to suggest that there's a dependence in the nuclear energy levels on orbital angular momentum and spin' you say; surely the existance of a correlation should suggest such a dependence, otherwise the theory which is acquired would not work.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jennifer
But what is 'proving negatives'? If God didn't create the universe, then presumably it came into existence all by itself. You got any proof for that? Why don't you need to prove that? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
|
Yes, but an absence of evidence can be empirically assumed to be evidence of absence (by Occam's Razor), until such a time when sufficient evidence is gathered that the hereto accepted assumption can be refuted.
You cannot prove that god doesn't exist, but to assume that god does exist, when there is no evidence for it other than the limitations of the thoughts of man, is a fallacy of the highest order.