Prove that God doesn't exist.

[numinus]

LMAO. You are right. Boneheads don't understand subtly or sarcasm at all. Only more thoughtful people understand that. I hope Dawkins sees this and knows who I'm talking about. This whole thing is hilarious and I hope people that read this understand what I'm talking about.

Oh, and I suppose you think being vague on purpose is indicative that you are 'thoughtful', eh?

Well, good luck with that. After all, you couldn't get your points across using rational language. Perhaps a different tact would do the trick for you.

 

[numinus]

There you go again with... metaphysical truth. I'm simply choosing not to jump to a magical Wizard of OZ hypothesis just because I don't know everything. That seems reasonable.

Duh-uh.

When you don't know what the subject matter is about, then the reasonable thing to do is admit that you don't know -- instead of saying you are an agnostic and that what you don't know is unknowable to begin with. And since you don't know, you can't possibly relate it to magic, fairies, the wizard of oz, or some such nonsense, now can you?

You're free to suppose anything you like. I'm just saying there is no proof of your current supposition.

Like this one right here. There IS proof. You just can't make a personal judgement on its truth-value -- since, after all, YOU DON'T KNOW.

I've read or studied about thousand of things that at one time or another in history were to the people of the time considered as mystical as the beginning of the earth...

Again, why bother yourself 'about a thousand things at one time or another' when we are talking about a particular inquiry?

If you cannot refute this particular conclusion, then be honest enough to say that you can't refute it, instead of getting into prolonged sour-graping and declaring faith on some fallible human construct which is irrelevant to the conclusion.

remember, the earth used to be flat!

And for numerous practical purposes, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that the earth is flat.

The more exact shape of the earth is a GEOID, which is defined as the summation of differentials of area perpendicular to the line of gravity passing through its center. So, if you are working within a differential of area, the earth is necessarily flat.

Study enough ancient religions and Gods and you start to see a pattern and it's called self serving.

Same thing with science. We do not look at something random. We look at patterns concieveable in it.

I don't think that's what it is at all. While I do think in the end there is an extremely high likelihood there is a scientific explanation that we have just yet to discover.

So, you are waiting for an explanation to the phenomenon of something coming from nothing within the the bounds of scientific inquiry, eh?

But such a thing runs COUNTER to the CONSERVATION PRINCIPLE.

Have you ever encountered a validated 'scientific theory' that contradicts conservation, hmmm?

I'm also saying I'll gladly go along with the magical being idea. I just need to see some real evidence... or better yet actually see magical being.

Have you seen gravity?

Does the fact that everything fall in the general direction towards the earth's center infallibly say the exact nature of gravity?

And yet, you state with absolute certainty that gravity is one of the most fundamental quantities of nature, do you not?

You're in a tough spot once you cling to a faith based argument. It's by it's very nature disallows you to be open to anything else. I am not so inclined. I'm open, interested and still searching.

You're in a tougher spot when you allow others to do the thinking for you.

There is no proof my friend either way, that's appears to be the whole point.

Until you refute the argument using logical rigor, there is proof. You are just too dumb to see it.

I know all through history when people didn't understand something they said... Oh God did it. And I also know those things repeatedly were later proven scientifically.

If a particular thing is merely a link in a long causal chain terminating at a first cause, is it not reasonable to say that this thing, along with all the links, is attributed to this first cause?

Duh?

And while I may not know jack$hit I also don't feel any need to make up his brother Holy$hit.

That is infinitely better. You admit that you don't know. No more of this agnostic nonsense.

 

[numinus]

If you just called the first cause "God" then there would be no problem, but it's all the other nonsense about this first cause that I object to--you know, the parts about slavery, selling children, killing gays, killing adulterers... all the religious accretion that you attached to the first cause with NO proof, in fact not even any evidence.

And where in the cosmological argument do you see anything about slavery, selling children and all that nonsense you find it reasonable to attach to it, eh?

Unbelieveable!

 

[numinus]

If no one speaks against the Nums of the world, then they will prevail. My verbal sparring with ol' Nums is aimed at anyone else who might be listening or reading. Nums is a lost cause, he may well be reincarnated as a gay or transperson (if you live by the sword so shall you die by the sword).

You call what you're doing verbal sparring?

Should I break sweat anytime soon?

Part of my problem with the practice of Christianity is that there are many good people who aren't bigoted and hateful like those who persecute us in Jesus' name, but most of those good Christians are silent, allowing their religion to be hijacked in the same way that Islam is being hijacked by the haters and hurters. When will the "good" Christians rein in the hate being done by their religion?

If someone persecutes your transexual a$$, then I'd be the first to defend you.

 

[numinus]

Epistemological arguments aside, when one takes rights from others that one claims for their own and does so with neither evidence nor proof of reason, that is unacceptable.

What fundamental right has been taken from you, eh?

That is clearly a travesty, since fundamental rights are independent of positive law. They may NOT be conveyed NOR taken away.

Why is it that you are here debating semantics while Nums does his best to spit on the teachings of Jesus?

What teaching might that be?

Why do Christians accept that kind of behavior in silence?

What behavior might that be?

Like it or not, the Nums of the world are the spokespeople for your religion,

Hardly! I don't consider myself competent enough for that role. You need a phd in philosophy for that, I think.

the Ted Haggards, the James Dobson, the Anita Bryants, and the Fred Phelps clones are continuing to debase your religion every single day.

Sorry. Don't know them.

 

[numinus]

Everyone has specialized knowledge, it doesn't make you better than anyone else.

I don't doubt that. I was just asking if dawks was competent enough to discuss this with me?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Numinus grandstanding about his engineering is an illustration of how weak he knows his religious argument is. There is no logical connection but he hopes that people will think 'cor, he's clever so everything he says must be right'.

His argument is that there has to be a creator.

He can't explain where that creator came from and so he tries to cover up with bluster and pseudo intellectual grandstanding.

What is clear is that he is fooling nobody.

Even if you could prove a creator which so far he has failed to do you could prove nothing about the character of that creator.

I just hope that Numinus is a better engineer than he is defender of the faith.

Because he is rubbish at that.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

BTW I am really clever, honest.

I am dead clever.

I can do mathematics and erm copy formulae of the ineternet and erm everything so when I say black is white you have to just accept it or you are stupid.

If you argue back you are a *****

Capice?

 

[top gun]

numinus;79859]Duh-uh.

When you don't know what the subject matter is about, then the reasonable thing to do is admit that you don't know -- instead of saying you are an agnostic and that what you don't know is unknowable to begin with. And since you don't know, you can't possibly relate it to magic, fairies, the wizard of oz, or some such nonsense, now can you?

Sure I can... I just did in fact. There's no arguing that you can't prove anything. You can't show one single thing that PROVES even anything leading up to what could be the answer.

I on the other hand can't prove everything... but I can prove many things through scientific research.

The difference is I don't immediately jump to the world of the magical when I don't know something. I keep looking for the answer.

Totally logical.

You know Native Americans jumped to the magical and had several Gods that were all different parts of nature. Greeks at one point likewise. They believed and worshiped devotedly to them every bit as much as you are now. History does tend to repeat itself.

Like this one right here. There IS proof. You just can't make a personal judgement on its truth-value -- since, after all, YOU DON'T KNOW.

You have no PROOF. So that puts us on totally equal standing. The difference... I'm not trying to seel snake oil to anybody.

Again, why bother yourself 'about a thousand things at one time or another' when we are talking about a particular inquiry?

If you cannot refute this particular conclusion, then be honest enough to say that you can't refute it, instead of getting into prolonged sour-graping and declaring faith on some fallible human construct which is irrelevant to the conclusion.

You can keep trying but I'm not going to jump to your Fairy Phenomenon just because you say so. There's no proof of anything you report. My grandson doesn't know exactly how his electric toothbrush either works but even he's not attributing that process to invisible Gnomes.

And for numerous practical purposes, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that the earth is flat.

I'll leave it at that then! I think we see your "supposing" again taking it's natural, be it wrong, course.

 

[Lagboltz]

Oh, and I suppose you think being vague on purpose is indicative that you are 'thoughtful', eh?

Well, good luck with that. After all, you couldn't get your points across using rational language. Perhaps a different tact would do the trick for you.

Gotcha didn't I, numnuts. Why don't you copy and paste more irrelevant formulae here so we can see how pathetically insecure you are while attempting to sway us by your sophistry. BTW, your "rational language" that has no point isn't really rational at all. Understand? Duh.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Bingo

 

[numinus]

Numinus grandstanding about his engineering is an illustration of how weak he knows his religious argument is. There is no logical connection but he hopes that people will think 'cor, he's clever so everything he says must be right'.

His argument is that there has to be a creator.

He can't explain where that creator came from and so he tries to cover up with bluster and pseudo intellectual grandstanding.

What is clear is that he is fooling nobody.

Even if you could prove a creator which so far he has failed to do you could prove nothing about the character of that creator.

I just hope that Numinus is a better engineer than he is defender of the faith.

Because he is rubbish at that.

I can understand that for someone who hasn't step into college, having an engineering degree would appear awesome. Heck, even the barista I know at the local starbucks have some college.

So, do yourself a favor and get an education.

Duh?

 

[numinus]

BTW I am really clever, honest.

I am dead clever.

I can do mathematics and erm copy formulae of the ineternet and erm everything so when I say black is white you have to just accept it or you are stupid.

If you argue back you are a *****

Capice?

Of course you can do math. My 6 year old can do math also.

Duh?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

And where in the cosmological argument do you see anything about slavery, selling children and all that nonsense you find it reasonable to attach to it, eh?

Unbelieveable!

It's YOUR holy book, Nummies, you are the one pushing the Catholic agenda. If you don't know where those things are in the Bible let me know and I'll send you some scripture notes and you can do Bible study in the evenings.

You know, if you would stick to cosmology and forego the anthropomorphic, vaporous hominid-in-the-sky routine we'd probably come closer to seeing eye to eye--not to suggest that you want to, I was just observing.

 

[numinus]

Sure I can... I just did in fact. There's no arguing that you can't prove anything. You can't show one single thing that PROVES even anything leading up to what could be the answer.

I on the other hand can't prove everything... but I can prove many things through scientific research.

The difference is I don't immediately jump to the world of the magical when I don't know something. I keep looking for the answer.

Totally logical.

You know Native Americans jumped to the magical and had several Gods that were all different parts of nature. Greeks at one point likewise. They believed and worshiped devotedly to them every bit as much as you are now. History does tend to repeat itself.

Apparently not. Why else do you write 5 paragraphs to say 3 simple words? YOU DON'T KNOW. That says it all, imo.

You have no PROOF. So that puts us on totally equal standing. The difference... I'm not trying to seel snake oil to anybody.

And now you wish to insist that I don't know as well? YOU DON'T KNOW. That should be enough for you. No sense in claiming we are on 'equal standing' because I know and you don't.

You can keep trying but I'm not going to jump to your Fairy Phenomenon just because you say so. There's no proof of anything you report. My grandson doesn't know exactly how his electric toothbrush either works but even he's not attributing that process to invisible Gnomes.

But you don't know. No point in explaining what something is or isn't, because, you don't know.

I'll leave it at that then! I think we see your "supposing" again taking it's natural, be it wrong, course.

What other statement can you leave me with except, you don't know, hmmm? Whatever other assertion you are inclined to make has no merit, simply because, by your own admission, ---- all together now ----YOU DON'T KNOW.