Prove that God doesn't exist.

[top gun]

numinus;78733]You brought up fairies in this discussion. I couldn't care less if you believe in them or not.

Or are you suggesting I believe fairies? Personally, I think they do exist. A couple of them hang out in this forum, in the homosexuality thread.

No I'm not. I'm simply saying that fairies and God hold the same weight of real testable definitive proof. None.

LMAO

You need only possess a rational faculty to be 'open to proof'. Being agnostic means one recognizes the existence of something unknowable, an makes a belief system based on this.

You, on the other hand, cannot even discern the difference between a metaphysical and scientific inquiry, not to mention the standard of proof required for each.

So you see, there are agnostics and there are ignoramuses.

You're entitled to your opinion. I however see no problem whatsoever at calling your belief unprovable because it is without doubt just that.

And I also think one should keep an open mind to new scientific discovery. Who knows maybe it was some alien force so advanced we just can't comprehend. Maybe we're intentionally being kept in the dark by them.

Could be anything or nothing. I'll await proof and not just make something up.


And again... the rest of your post was... Because I don't believe in the metaphysical mumbo jumbo of your voodoo witchcraft you know the truth and I don't.

Not buyin' your snake oil... sorry!

 

[Dr.Who]

But God as defined by Christians is logically impossible.

Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive.

Also, omnibenevolence is incompatible with the notion that god made everything.

So the existence of god cannot possibly be the conclusion.

Now, put you little book of petty insults away and try to respond sensibly.

Or does being a christian preclude you from that and dictate that you must be extremely rude to those whose are arguments you fear?

There are two flaws with that logic. First most people do not claim that God is absolutely omniscient nor absolutely omnipotent. So go ahead and disprove a God that most people do not even believe in.

Second there are limits to how well logic makes sense. It just might be that when you are talking about God that as logical as you might be that you just can't grasp God.

For example, if there were a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and it was all booked up (full). It could still accommodate a new guest. there are two solutions: 1) logic is wrong, or 2) infinity does not exist. The problem with answer number two is that other paradoxes and math problems require that infinity does exist.

This is the situation that your paradox of the omniscient and omnipotent God not being possible comes up against. Your logic might be flawless but it might still be wrong. or it might be that that omni-God might not be possible but it just might exist anyway.

Here is food for thought:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Here are some more paradoxes that are unresolved. WE might not understand them, they might be false (illogical) or logic might have limits.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Unexpected-hanging-paradox

And my favorite that probably proves that logic itself is limited:

"This sentence is false."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/par-liar.htm

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

So god is not omnipotent and omniscient?

And most people think that?

Your analogy about the hotel is flawed because if it had an infinite number of rooms it could never be full.

If you are happy to give up ominscience and omnipotence to save the notion of god then you have something of a pyrrhic victory and I do not believe that most people think of god in that way.

At least you can see that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive which is a step in the right direction.

Perhaps yu could give us some idea of the extent/limit of god's power?

 

[numinus]

I did group interviews and talked fast--listened fast as well.

Of course you did. Have you taken your medication lately?

Fairy? As in sky-fairy, or a dig at gay people? If the latter, I gotta tell you, Nums, I'm not gay--sorry.

God forbid!

How can I even begin to contemplate a dig at gays -- god's chosen creatures -- a singular existence that merits special rights over and above everyone else's -- a way of life no one dares impune without inviting the wrath of creation itself????

I never said it was.

Yes you did.

Show a little respect for my age, you whippersnapper.

Sure thing, tinkerbell.

 

[numinus]

I see you have run out of arguments.

I wasn't aware further argument was necessary. After all, no one has yet provided a logical fallacy for the cosmological argument.

That's too bad, but not surprising, as you are trying to prove what can not be proven.

Correction. You haven't provided a logical refutation for an elegantly simple argument.

Dawkinsrocks is also trying to prove the unprovable, but has not yet given up. I guess that means he has won the "prove what can't be proven" debate.

Won what? ***** of the year?

Or are you suggesting that his posts are somehow attempts at argument?

To sum up, here are the possibilities:

The Earth, with its complex and highly orderly web of life, just happened with no cause, no intelligent guidance at all (highly implausible, of course), or

So, some material phenomena have causes and some don't? Is that what you are saying?

There is an intelligence that has created it all, whom we refer to as god, but none of us has ever seen that god

Neither has anyone seen gravity, electrostatic forces, black holes, nor a host of other physical quantities. What's the point?

or any evidence that he/she/it/they exist, other than that creation (also highly implausible).

What sort of evidence were you expecting? Or are you suggesting that the whole of creation is not evidence enough?

One of he implausible ideas has to be true, but proving which one it is is not possible.

The cosmological argument proceeds from the premise of causality, as does science.

Now, if you say that that is not a valid premise, then the conclusions made by science are not valid as well.

Understand?

So, what you are asserting is that everything we know is a mountain of implausible nothing all built precauriously on top of one another. If you are peddling such a view as agnosticism, then I suggest you check your definitions again.

Personally, I subscribe to the hypothesis that the creation proves that there is a creator, but, then, I can't prove that either.

Sigh.

That is the conclusion. It is not the premise. Nor is it a hypothesis. So you see, talking to dawki merely serves to lower one's iq.

 

[PLC1]

I wasn't aware further argument was necessary. After all, no one has yet provided a logical fallacy for the cosmological argument.



Correction. You haven't provided a logical refutation for an elegantly simple argument.



Won what? ***** of the year?

Or are you suggesting that his posts are somehow attempts at argument?



So, some material phenomena have causes and some don't? Is that what you are saying?



Neither has anyone seen gravity, electrostatic forces, black holes, nor a host of other physical quantities. What's the point?



What sort of evidence were you expecting? Or are you suggesting that the whole of creation is not evidence enough?



The cosmological argument proceeds from the premise of causality, as does science.

Now, if you say that that is not a valid premise, then the conclusions made by science are not valid as well.

Understand?

So, what you are asserting is that everything we know is a mountain of implausible nothing all built precauriously on top of one another. If you are peddling such a view as agnosticism, then I suggest you check your definitions again.



Sigh.

That is the conclusion. It is not the premise. Nor is it a hypothesis. So you see, talking to dawki merely serves to lower one's iq.

My point, of course, was that you can't prove the existence of god any more that Dawks, or anyone else, can prove the non existence of god. I'm not peddling agnosticism, or any other "ism", actually. I stated my opinion on the matter clearly, and then admitted that I can't prove it any more than you can.

But, when you make statements like:

talking to dawki merely serves to lower one's iq.

which you constantly do, of course, merely says to the world, "I have no more arguments, and so I've stooped to the level of personal insult."

And, I can't help but make one more observation:

If talking to Dawki merely serves to lower one's IQ,
and if you have been carrying on a debate with him for page after page, well, then

given your own premise, then the conclusion is obvious to all.

But, then, since I don't subscribe to the original premise, neither can I agree with the obvious conclusion.

 

[numinus]

The answer that god made everything is a fabrication and unsupported by evidence.

You do not even know what constitutes as evidence to begin with.

What ignorant nonsense.

The answer is.. we do not currently know how it all started

Of course you don't. Are you any bit surprised that you cannot even begin to understand current physics, much less imagine a theory of everything?

if indeed it did.

LMAO

If it did not start, then what the hell are you still doing here??? I mean, what fungus denies the fundamental existence of one's self???

The extent of your willingness to humiliate yourself is astounding!

That is my position.

By your own admission, you are not even sure if you even truly exist. But you are sure of your position, eh?

Hello?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

More insults

No substance.

No wonder you believe the fairy tale

You are a good christian.

Angry, abusive, ignorant and gullible.

 

[numinus]

The deeper question is how can you relate that "god" to something that you would fear, praise, worship, pray to, etc.

Rational beings predisposed to see order would necessarily 'relate' to the creator of a rational universe, no?

We even call them 'scientific laws' -- as if a logical principle is somehow promulgated by a higher power in much the same way as human laws are promulgated by humans.

Would the religious people here please explain why the same "god" that brought about the universe also personally micromanages all our lives?

Our actions are propelled by our own wills WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF RATIONAL LAWS.

One may wish to fly under one's own volition but can't. So he does the next best thing -- ride an airplane.

If the operation of rational laws and principles is 'micromanagement' to you, then so be it.

I "worship" my "god" by studying science, not by going to church or praying.

You can do that as well. In fact, you're not the first, nor the only person who thinks this way.

How you wish to 'relate' to your creator is your own personal concern -- hence freedom of thought.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Shame there is no evidence of this creator.

And even if there was there would be nothing to suggest that the creator is benign.

Sucker

 

[numinus]

These people you speak of believe in those "all sorts of things" because they know that they can be researched and proven scientifically... by people in the here & now.

You don't even know the relationship between knowledge and belief, do you?

One believes something because one knows the truth value of that thing.

In contrast, you purport to believe something you have no personal knowledge of and entirely based on the knowledge of someone else.

Therefore, you have FAITH that someone else will do the thinking and proving for you.

The rest of your post was your typical... So just go ahead and believe in ghosts because others (like me) do.

And here, you go even further in absurdity to suppose that because you have faith in someone else, that I would necessarily have that same faith.

Hence... no need to respond because no one can prove ghosts don't exist. Just as no one can prove fairies or leprechauns don't exist... can't prove a negative.

You keep coming back to this straw man as if you are incapable of fashioning an argument without it.

What we can say is none of them or God can be proven. That's all I'm saying. Believe whatever makes you feel good.

So, you are saying that there cannot be proven to not exist. So be it.

BUT -- god's existence CAN be proven.

Satisfied?

 

[numinus]

No I'm not. I'm simply saying that fairies and God hold the same weight of real testable definitive proof. None.

You forgot to mention singularities, tacheon particles, dark energy, etc., etc.

You're entitled to your opinion. I however see no problem whatsoever at calling your belief unprovable because it is without doubt just that.

LMAO

Have you identified the fallacy in the cosmological argument yet?

Or did it suddenly become fashionable to have FAITH in the non-existence of something?

And I also think one should keep an open mind to new scientific discovery. Who knows maybe it was some alien force so advanced we just can't comprehend. Maybe we're intentionally being kept in the dark by them.

If you define an 'alien force' as incontingent, infinite and necessary, then I have no problems with that.

WHATEVER YOU WISH TO CALL IT HAS NO BEARING ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.

Could be anything or nothing. I'll await proof and not just make something up.

Now you are waiting for proof of 'nothing'.

What hilarious ignorance! The 'agnostic' who purports the impossibility of proving a negative awaits the proof of nothing!!!

What else can one say in the face of such blatant ignorance?

And again... the rest of your post was... Because I don't believe in the metaphysical mumbo jumbo of your voodoo witchcraft you know the truth and I don't.

Not buyin' your snake oil... sorry!

The self-proclaimed agnostic who do not even know what agnosticism is claims metaphysics is voodoo witchcraft!

Aren't you embarassed with yourself yet?

 

[numinus]

My point, of course, was that you can't prove the existence of god any more that Dawks, or anyone else, can prove the non existence of god. I'm not peddling agnosticism, or any other "ism", actually. I stated my opinion on the matter clearly, and then admitted that I can't prove it any more than you can.

Why do you people insist on going back to this 'can't prove a negative' nonsense.

When one proves the existence of a NECESSARY BEING, its non-existence is automatically REFUTED.

Is that logical enough for you? Or do you feel smart stating axiomatic statements using defective language?

But, when you make statements like:



which you constantly do, of course, merely says to the world, "I have no more arguments, and so I've stooped to the level of personal insult."

Do you expect me to suffer his insults quietly?

He is a bigot -- which wouldn't have been as bad if he had some measure of intelligence to back it up.

And, I can't help but make one more observation:

If talking to Dawki merely serves to lower one's IQ,
and if you have been carrying on a debate with him for page after page, well, then

given your own premise, then the conclusion is obvious to all.

But, then, since I don't subscribe to the original premise, neither can I agree with the obvious conclusion.

Is it even possible to make up your mind?

You claim that I have stooped to the level of personal insults in one breath and claim that I am carrying on a debate in another.

So, which is it?

 

[numinus]

Shame there is no evidence of this creator.

And even if there was there would be nothing to suggest that the creator is benign.

Sucker

For someone who, by his own admission, could very well not exist in the first place, you do talk a lot. As it stands, free-floating fart makes a more valid statement than you.

Get back to me when you've sorted out your personal dilemma.

 

[numinus]

More insults

No substance.

No wonder you believe the fairy tale

You are a good christian.

Angry, abusive, ignorant and gullible.

You're quite right. It would be an insult to fart if I compare it to you.