Prove that God doesn't exist.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Although you might want to cut-down on the use of fairy. You might inadvertantly set mare off.

Hardly a nice comment, Nums, a cheap-shot in fact, Jesus would be proud of you. By the by, I am not a homosexual, I am a transsexual and I would expect a man of your obvious learning to know the difference before he insults someone. There are all kinds of nasty things that you could say about trannies, Nums, at least get your bigotry right--it will make you look a bit less of a fool.

 

[numinus]

You are misquoting it, I think. Eliminating "probable" explanations is pointless. The quote is more correctly: when we eliminate all other possible explanations, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true.

The improbable is still possible, no?

In the Dark Ages people could not imagine electronic computers, that doesn't mean that computers are "god". We have just begun learning about the Universe, to suggest that we have already ruled out all the "possible" or even "probable" explanations is ridiculous.

This is nonsense.

You eliminate a possibility by showing the defect in an argument -- either by logic or demonstration.

You haven't done any of that, have you? Therefore, the conclusion stands.

I said your proof was not proof, I never said God didn't exist. You don't have to resort to changing my posts in this discussion. I think that a Creative Force does exist, but I don't think your proof is anything like adequate.

Just like this statment here. What the hell has your opinion have to do with logical proof?

You do not think the proof is true within its domain of logical inquiry. Sadly, you have not provided any logical refutation -- merely an assertion said over and over again.

You don't like "froth"? How about sophistry?

Why would you think I don't like the word froth? If you have some intimate knowledge of froth, then by all means, mention it as much as you wish. Just so long as you do not cloud your rational judgement by it.

 

[numinus]

Hardly a nice comment, Nums, a cheap-shot in fact, Jesus would be proud of you. By the by, I am not a homosexual, I am a transsexual and I would expect a man of your obvious learning to know the difference before he insults someone. There are all kinds of nasty things that you could say about trannies, Nums, at least get your bigotry right--it will make you look a bit less of a fool.

It was merely a friendly advice to topgun. Unless of course its ok with you if topgun mentions fairy over and over again. No sense in getting your panty in a knot by it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It was merely a friendly advice to topgun. Unless of course its ok with you if topgun mentions fairy over and over again. No sense in getting your panty in a knot by it.

It was a cheap-shot, it's one of the reasons that few people respect you. Have you ever noticed that lying about things doesn't make them better?

 

[numinus]

It was a cheap-shot, it's one of the reasons that few people respect you. Have you ever noticed that lying about things doesn't make them better?

No cheaper than ascribing all sorts of things, like goblins and fairies to my belief, wouldn't you say?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The improbable is still possible, no?

Indeed, but as we yet we have not ruled out the possible, probable, or even the improbable, so why jump to conclusions? We have no proof except your antics in semantics.

You eliminate a possibility by showing the defect in an argument -- either by logic or demonstration.

You haven't done any of that, have you? Therefore, the conclusion stands.

A wild conclusion is just that: a wild conclusion. No proof either way doesn't support a wild conclusion.

You do not think the proof is true within its domain of logical inquiry. Sadly, you have not provided any logical refutation -- merely an assertion said over and over again.

There's nothing to refute, you made a chain of logic and drew a conclusion, you have not shown the validity of the initial assumptions.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No cheaper than ascribing all sorts of things, like goblins and fairies to my belief, wouldn't you say?

Look back, Nums, you'll find that I haven't made any goblin or fairy accusations. I rarely use the denigrating terms for people that I see being posted.

 

[numinus]

Indeed, but as we yet we have not ruled out the possible, probable, or even the improbable, so why jump to conclusions? We have no proof except your antics in semantics.

What are you saying? I have already ruled out all other possibilities.

That the first cause, whatever you might want to call it, is infinite, incontingent and necessary.

That because of this, the first cause is effectively beyond the methods of science.

Take note that the words I used have very distinct meanings that can withstand logical scrutiny.

A wild conclusion is just that: a wild conclusion. No proof either way doesn't support a wild conclusion.

Again, if it is a wild conclusion, it would be a simple matter to show exactly where the defect in logic is.

There's nothing to refute, you made a chain of logic and drew a conclusion, you have not shown the validity of the initial assumptions.

What initial assumption have I made that is not valid, hmmm?

That all contingent phenomena have causes? How is that invalid, eh?

 

[numinus]

Look back, Nums, you'll find that I haven't made any goblin or fairy accusations. I rarely use the denigrating terms for people that I see being posted.

Maybe you should look back and examine all your posts directed at me, personally, and all christians, in general.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Maybe you should look back and examine all your posts directed at me, personally, and all christians, in general.

I don't have a lot of use for self-identified Christians for the most part, but goblins and faires are Topgun's terms.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What are you saying? I have already ruled out all other possibilities.
That the first cause, whatever you might want to call it, is infinite, incontingent and necessary.
That because of this, the first cause is effectively beyond the methods of science.
Take note that the words I used have very distinct meanings that can withstand logical scrutiny.
Again, if it is a wild conclusion, it would be a simple matter to show exactly where the defect in logic is.
What initial assumption have I made that is not valid, hmmm?
That all contingent phenomena have causes? How is that invalid, eh?

"infinite, incontingent and necessary"

"the first cause is effectively beyond the methods of science"

Words are not proof.

 

[numinus]

I don't have a lot of use for self-identified Christians for the most part, but goblins and faires are Topgun's terms.

Just because you did not use the words goblin and fairy doesn't mean you did not attempt to insult me, now, does it?

 

[numinus]

"infinite, incontingent and necessary"

"the first cause is effectively beyond the methods of science"

Words are not proof.

Of course not. They are the conclusions.

You don't expect me to post the whole argument again, do you? You didn't understand last time. What makes you think you'd understand now?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Of course not. They are the conclusions.

You don't expect me to post the whole argument again, do you? You didn't understand last time. What makes you think you'd understand now?

Words aren't proof, they're words. Any logic is based on intial assumptions, I read what you posted and it didn't prove anything. People have used semantics to prove all kinds of things--like the Earth is flat, blacks aren't human, homosexuls are condemned by God... lots of dumb stuff like phlogiston and phrenology. Why don't you just say you take it on faith? Ain't nothin' but faith coming out of your posts.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Just because you did not use the words goblin and fairy doesn't mean you did not attempt to insult me, now, does it?

Why would I insult someone who has been so nice to me and called me queer? Why would I insult someone who didn't know enough to tell homosexuals from transsexuals when delivering a denigrating comment? Me? Insult you? Never.

You keep claiming that you have "proved" the God business and anyone who can't understand is obviously a mental defective of some sort. Any teacher who blames the pupils for not being able to understand is a pretty poor teacher. I've been to college, I can't find PROOF in your postings, you have words strung together in tidy lines but it's not proof to me. Explain better.