Prove that God doesn't exist.

[numinus]

No, I was thinking of the current Pope, they all look the same to me--little men in big hats (kinda like George Bush in that way, ol' George is all hat and no cattle).

Which clearly demonstrates the general confusion in your posts. No need to explain. I understand perfectly.

 

[numinus]

Popes are men in dresses wearing hats that are symbolic penises.

That explains your preoccupation with homosexuality.

Numinus will do anything but address the following points.

1) You cannot use the causation argument to prove there is a creator.

You cannot use causation argument because..... oh yeah, I vaguely remember you blabbing about it. There is NO CAUSATION. Everything happens on the say so of MORONS, eh?

2) Even if you could you cannot make any justified statements about the character of that creator

Its called FIRST CAUSE, because it is the FIRST.

Its called UNIVERSAL CAUSATION because it is the cause of EVERYTHING.

Logically justified enough for you?

3) Even if you could then it would be infinitely more likely that the creator was a nasty piece of work.

Infinitely more likely? An occurence that is both only probable and certain at the same time?

Do you even know what you are talking about?

4) Even though numnuts keeps banging on about having a degree in engineering he can't restrict his extraordinarily dull verbiage to the point.

LMAO

As if my posts leave any doubt as to my competence.

I stated that I am an engineer to correct the notion that I am a pilot. Quite frankly, what differential geometry has to do with piloting an aircraft is beyond me.

Can you imagine what the forum would be like if morons presumed whatever absurd idea that catches their fancy?

5) Even if he could it would still not address the points made above because the conclusion he desperately wants is unsupportable by fact and or logic.

What point? That there is no causation? No free will? That an infinite regress is logical?

And if you as much as utter these nonsense in a college philosophy class, you would have earned the distinction of being the class clown together with your f. And you would have deserved it completely.

The alternative, of course, is that you've never been to college.

As a footnote I will just add that when I was at University every one used to mock the engineering students for being dull.

LMAO.

Like anyone would believe that you went to college. And if the engineering students were dull (I assume, intellectually), Id hate to hear what you call the fungus residing in the college of law, literature and social sciences.

Anyone could get an engineering degree numnuts.

Of course anyone can get an engineering degree. Just not you.

Even you could.

Of course. I even got it on a full scholarship. Finished in the top ten of the board exam.

Duh?

If you learn a bit of logic and understand how when it is applied to true premisses true conclusions will ensue then you might get through.

I even get paid doing just that.

You could probabaly even get through by plagiarising from the internet which you seem to be reasonably adept at.

Plagiarising? Is it still plagiarising when you post the source? Have you even done a simple term paper, much less a college dissertation?

And you also seem quite skilled at engineering 'facts' and 'logical steps' too so I reckon you are probably ready to start a course on engieering and then you might be able to become a real one instead of the fantasy one you are at present.

My contracts with wagner biro, louise berger and a host of japanese engineering consultants look real enough.

But you should give up on the god stuff - it makes you sound like you are over-extending yourself.

And you ignorantly think you can provide an alternative to the 'god-stuff', hmmm?

And you say you went to university?

As what?

Janitor?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

''Anyone can get an engineering degree. Just not you''.

That sums up your 'appreciation' of logic.

Keep em coming numnuts you are giving us all a great laugh

 

[numinus]

Getting an engineering degree requires a certain amount of intelligence and perseverance, but in my experience many engineers often lack the wisdom to know how to apply their knowledge.

Hello?

Engineers are concerned with what actually works. Nothing speculative about the practice of engineering. We take into consideration the sentiments of tree-huggers in formulating environmental impact assessments. We have to simplify the work so that even the iq of a politician can comprehend. And we do it in the least possible cost. God forbid we require lawyers to employ cost-benefit analysis in the legal practice.

Unlike lawyers or doctors, who you pay huge amounts of fees and still end up dead or in jail, we engineers actually put our professional integrity on the line in everything we do.

And if 'your experience' have anything to do with the practice of engineering, then you must be in the company of a lot of engineers who had their license revoked.

Duh?

Attempting to apply that knowledge in proving the existence of god is of course futile. Almost all of the engineers I managed could see the "trees" in great detail, but could not see the "forest". We are definitely seeing that here with numnuts.

The operation of logic is futile, eh? Just because you failed miserably in your proof using set algebra doesn't mean you need to give up on logic.

 

[numinus]

''Anyone can get an engineering degree. Just not you''.

That sums up your 'appreciation' of logic.

Keep em coming numnuts you are giving us all a great laugh

Did you actually believe your state of ignorance was indicative of the population's median?

Is the us education system in an inextricable dump?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Fabulous

Where do you keep getting them from?

Engineering non-sequitirs monthly?

 

[numinus]

Well then your opinion would be wrong. No matter how much smoke & mirrors you throw up it still all boils down to nobody can PROVE how everything began... not you, me, nobody.

So the only real difference is do we or do we not from that platform jump to "it must be magical". You say absolutely.

A lot of universities have graduate programs in cosmology. Try telling them that.

Duh?

I say I am going to watch the scientific evidence continue to keep expanding and providing testable proof of things just as it has done forever.

Under what conditions do you need to test the fact that everything CONTINUES to exist, hmmm?

And you will probably say next that you are quite competent in math to know if a particular theory is true or not.

See I'm not excluding you nor your contention. I'm just not letting you say something is fact that obviously is not. The Fairy parables I use are just to point out I could transpose any number of things into your story and they are just as "not provable" as your original contention.

What part of causation do you not consider as a logical FACT, hmmm?

Well we have to look at the credibility in the arguments presented. I say that I cannot prove how everything began by testable means but can show a progression of provable science leading in a direction to someday know... and it's true I don't believe the answer is magic.

Apparently, you haven't been following proveable science accurately.

Science says -- something cannot come from nothing, the principle of conservation of mass and energy being the reason for this.

Cosmology is the fundamental inquiry into the beginnings of the universe -- from nothing to the everything we see today.

So tell me, what does that say about the beginning of the universe vis-a-vis, science, hmmm?

Or you don't know the answer to that simple question as well?

You say your faith tells you that it's magic. And you bolster your assertion with your best (and seriously your most telling line) which was... It's quite possible the earth could be flat.

Of course. What did you think a 'differential of area' meant, hmmm?

You can ask lagboltz for one of his mathematical websites. After all, he deigns to make his presence known in this debate. You might as well find some use for him.

I'm satisfied.

With what? Your ignorance?

 

[numinus]

Fabulous

Where do you keep getting them from?

Engineering non-sequitirs monthly?

Its called an EDUCATION. Something you have none of, whatsoever.

 

[numinus]

Ninety nine pages, and no one has yet proven that there is or is not a god.

Maybe on the hundredth page, that elusive proof will be posted.

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

The cosmological argument could be stated as follows:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

According to the argument, the existence of the Universe requires an explanation, and the creation of the Universe by a First Cause, generally assumed to be God, is that explanation.

In light of the Big Bang theory, a stylized version of argument has emerged (sometimes called the Kalam cosmological argument, the following form of which was set forth by William Lane Craig[5]):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

As I said on the other thread

I will for the moment allow the causation argument.

I can't wait to hear how you get from there to the god you so desperately want to exist.

I love laughter

 

[numinus]

As I said on the other thread

I will for the moment allow the causation argument.

I can't wait to hear how you get from there to the god you so desperately want to exist.

I love laughter

And what would a bonehead be inclined to call it, hmmm?

You said in the other thread 'creative force'. But we all know what a 'force' is. Had we all been boneheads like you, we would be inclined to call it that. Fortunately for us, we have actual brains filling our brain cavities.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

So you can't.

Ok, try this one

Where did your uncaused effect come from?

Titter

See if you can find an answer in 'Engineering evasive answers cos you don't have a real one montly'

 

[numinus]

So you can't.

I can't what?

'God' is the word that best describes, within the context of the human experience, the CAUSE OF EVERYTHING IN EVERYTHING.

If there is anything glaring about this exchange, it is YOUR inability to come up with a scientific word that best fits ontology.

Duh?

Ok, try this one

Where did your uncaused effect come from?

Titter

See if you can find an answer in 'Engineering evasive answers cos you don't have a real one montly'

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

4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

Duh?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I didn't ask you to do even more plagiarising.

I asked you where does the un- caused cause come from.

That one was a bit boring, just making reference to the old and discredited cosmological argument.

Try your own words.

They are much more fun for the reader.

And then try to explain how you get from un-caused causer to your christian god.

Or avoid the question as usual as evidence of your inability to answer.

Maybe they haven't covered that in 'engineering pseudo science' yet

 

[Lagboltz]

Engineers are concerned with what actually works. Nothing speculative about the practice of engineering. We take into consideration the sentiments of tree-huggers in formulating environmental impact assessments. We have to simplify the work so that even the iq of a politician can comprehend. And we do it in the least possible cost. God forbid we require lawyers to employ cost-benefit analysis in the legal practice.

Unlike lawyers or doctors, who you pay huge amounts of fees and still end up dead or in jail, we engineers actually put our professional integrity on the line in everything we do.

And if 'your experience' have anything to do with the practice of engineering, then you must be in the company of a lot of engineers who had their license revoked.

I know what engineers are and what they do, and what their strengths and limitations are.

Attempting to apply that knowledge in proving the existence of god is of course futile. Almost all of the engineers I managed could see the "trees" in great detail, but could not see the "forest". We are definitely seeing that here with numnuts.

I'm sorry but I showed that you failed miserably in using logic to prove anything about God. You used vacuous arguments and went into pointless digressions, seemingly to obfuscate your lack of ability to look beyond the trees.

The operation of logic is futile, eh? Just because you failed miserably in your proof using set algebra doesn't mean you need to give up on logic.[/QUOTE]