IMO: A rock exists, but does not live and it becomes 'no longer a rock' by chemical and physical degradation and disolution over geologic time. Radiation exists, but was not recognized or understood until we developed methodologies to detect radiation and hypotheses/theories to explain radiation. God exists, but is not recognized by 'nonbelievers' (atheists) until methodologies are developed to detect and evidentially demonstrate God. Believers (theists) recognize God as real regardless of evidentiary demonstration of His existence.
You are being deliberately obtuse. E̶i̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶,̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶n̶a̶l̶o̶g̶y̶ ̶i̶s̶.̶ ̶ ̶ E̶i̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶w̶a̶y̶,̶ ̶I̶'̶l̶l̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶s̶m̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶d̶s̶.̶ ̶ ̶ J̶a̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶:̶ ̶D̶r̶a̶g̶o̶d̶ ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶g̶a̶r̶a̶g̶e̶.̶ ̶ D̶a̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶:̶ ̶S̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶m̶e̶.̶ ̶ J̶a̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶:̶ ̶Y̶o̶u̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶.̶ ̶I̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶a̶l̶.̶ ̶ D̶a̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶:̶ ̶G̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶m̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶t̶e̶s̶t̶ ̶s̶o̶ ̶I̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶t̶e̶l̶l̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶,̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶i̶m̶a̶g̶i̶n̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶.̶ ̶ J̶a̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶:̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶s̶u̶c̶h̶ ̶t̶e̶s̶t̶.̶ ̶ D̶a̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶:̶ ̶S̶o̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶'̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶i̶s̶.̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶w̶a̶y̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶e̶l̶l̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶i̶m̶a̶g̶i̶n̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶.̶ No. you're being obtuse. You're a classic troll, Jan. You have ticked off every troll tactic in the book. I gave you more credit than others, who saw through you right away.
Did I say that? . . . . .NOT!! Science historically has employed the Scientific Method to examine and observe otherwise unexplainable phenomena, and via the Method to determine and explain the underlying causes of such phenomena. But phenomena are seemingly not finite in number. Newly recognized or observed phenomena will require application of the Method to determine new causalities that are perhaps yet unrecognized.
Dave, explain why the dragon cannot be detected at all. After all it is a dragon. We have Comodo dragons with us. They don't breath fire but they are called dragons. If Sagan's dragon was a Comodo dragon, we would expect to see it. If it was invisible, we would expect an explanation. If one wasn't forthcoming, or if it was stupid, we would resort back to what we know. Jan.
Radiation did have a physical effect whether we understood it or not. What physical effect do we need the hypothesis of god for? And then, how do you propose we test that hypothesis?
Is this not a fallacious argument, in that you're assuming that radiation and rocks are of the same category as God for the purposes of detection. Do you honestly think that being able to evidence God is just a matter, say, of refining our lab equipment? And you state that God exists in your opinion, but do you have anything other than your opinion to support that assertion? I.e. is there anything you are able to add to the discussion other than "I think God exists"? For example, why do you think God exists?
That seems to just beg the question that God is the source of our ability to understand. Since there are theories for the ability to understand that do not include the need for God, the question almost certainly remains: what physical effect do we need the hypothesis of god for? Are you able to offer anything that perhaps does not beg the question?
Comodo Dragon is a freeware web-browser. As such we do not see it but we do see it's implementation. What you are referring to are the Komodo dragons. Just thought I'd point that out.
According to a definition by Princeton, Internet trolls are individuals who purposely post inflammatory, off topic or extraneous posts on websites in an effort to stir up drama or harass other members. It is important to define the Internet troll as an important factor in maintaining the cyber safety of children. jan.
