Prove that God doesn't exist.

[numinus]

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.

The premise is that all contingent phenomena have causes. Feel free to bang your stupid head denying the self-evident truth in that.

 

[numinus]

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.

So you did not insult me in much the same way that I didn't insult you.

What the hell then, is your problem, hmmm?

You keep claiming that you have "proved" the God business and anyone who can't understand is obviously a mental defective of some sort.

Anyone who denies it without some logical refutation is indeed suffering from a mental defect.

Any teacher who blames the pupils for not being able to understand is a pretty poor teacher.

That is true. But then again, I'm not your teacher. At least your teacher got paid for the aggravation of teaching you.

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.

And if you would just say what standard of proof you are looking for, then I might be able help you in this regard. At this point, what you have been looking for is scientific evidence. We all know that not everything that exists has some sort of scientific evidence.

For instance, your political system is based on the exercise of free will, no? Have you found any scientific evidence that free will does, indeed, exist?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The argument that everything must have a cause is not supported,

If it led to god god would also have to have a cause and you would need to start all over again.

Numinus, you are close to the truth.

You accept that the bible is nonesense.

You accept that god cannot exist as defined as omnipotent and omniscient.

All you have to do now is accept that the causation argument is self defeating and you are there.

And even if it were not the conclusion that the unmoved mover is god is a leap of 'logic' that has no grounds whatsoever.

Now, please don't respond with 300 words of pseudo intellectual mumbo jumbo as per ususal.

Insted, try insulting me, call me a half-wit etc and then I will know that you do now get it and you accept that your arguments just amount to the desperation of christian 'logic'.

 

[numinus]

The argument that everything must have a cause is not supported,

Eh?

Not only can you discern the logical relationship between cause and effect, you even suffer it.

Now, run along to a *****'s forum where your post would be appreciated for what it truly is.

If it led to god god would also have to have a cause and you would need to start all over again.

Sigh.

INCONTINGENT, INFINITE AND NECESSARY.

Numinus, you are close to the truth.

I wish I can say the same for you.

You accept that the bible is nonesense.

Nope. Never have.

You accept that god cannot exist as defined as omnipotent and omniscient.

Nope. Never have.

All you have to do now is accept that the causation argument is self defeating and you are there.

If I were somehow infected by a bad case of stupid as you are, then perhaps.

And even if it were not the conclusion that the unmoved mover is god is a leap of 'logic' that has no grounds whatsoever.

See what I mean?

Against supreme idiocy, even god contends in vain.

Now, please don't respond with 300 words of pseudo intellectual mumbo jumbo as per ususal.

Yeah. We should all follow your lead posting half-ass rhetoric with neither proof nor justification. Life would be easier if everyone were as dumb as you.

Insted, try insulting me, call me a half-wit etc and then I will know that you do now get it and you accept that your arguments just amount to the desperation of christian 'logic'.

By all means. I aim to please.

*****.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The premise is that all contingent phenomena have causes. Feel free to bang your stupid head denying the self-evident truth in that.

Great! Doesn't prove God. May prove "something" but it's only faith that makes it prove God.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So you did not insult me in much the same way that I didn't insult you.What the hell then, is your problem, hmmm?Anyone who denies it without some logical refutation is indeed suffering from a mental defect.That is true. But then again, I'm not your teacher. At least your teacher got paid for the aggravation of teaching you.And if you would just say what standard of proof you are looking for, then I might be able help you in this regard. At this point, what you have been looking for is scientific evidence. We all know that not everything that exists has some sort of scientific evidence.For instance, your political system is based on the exercise of free will, no? Have you found any scientific evidence that free will does, indeed, exist?

Two points: lack of proof is a logical refutation. And I don't have a political system, sorry, I'd like to, but as an individual I haven't been able to accomplish that yet.

Free will? Give me a break, will ya? Note my comments and your insults about my comments vis a vis existentialism.

 

[numinus]

Great! Doesn't prove God. May prove "something" but it's only faith that makes it prove God.

It proves the first cause which we call god.

Clear?

 

[numinus]

Two points: lack of proof is a logical refutation.

Nope. The logical impossibility of nothing proves something.

Do try to keep up.

And I don't have a political system, sorry, I'd like to, but as an individual I haven't been able to accomplish that yet.

So, you really aren't suggesting to ammend laws to include gay marriages since that would be, itself, a political system.

Free will? Give me a break, will ya? Note my comments and your insults about my comments vis a vis existentialism.

Noted.

How this particular comment adds to your argument, however, is beyond me.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Sounds like you are saying the logically impossible is possible.

Sums up your understanding of logic quite well

 

[9sublime]

Yes Dawkins that does seem to be the gist of it. And I'm sure the only way to "understand" this concept is to "have faith".

 

[numinus]

Sounds like you are saying the logically impossible is possible.

Sums up your understanding of logic quite well

Duh-uh.

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

Logical negation is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition, that produces a value of true when its operand is false and a value of false when its operand is true. So, if statement A is true, then ¬A (pronounced "not A") would therefore be false; and conversely, if ¬A is true, then A would be false.

Would it be too much to expect you to understand such a simple thing?

 

[numinus]

Yes Dawkins that does seem to be the gist of it. And I'm sure the only way to "understand" this concept is to "have faith".

It takes zero faith -- 100% noodles.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The logically impossible is possible.

That is exactly the kind of nonesense you need to accept if you are going to believe in god.

Numinus - are noodles what you have in place of brain cells?

 

[numinus]

The logically impossible is possible.

That is exactly the kind of nonesense you need to accept if you are going to believe in god.

Numinus - are noodles what you have in place of brain cells?

Good luck with that *****.

 

[top gun]

Good luck with that *****.

Not much text here?