Prove that God doesn't exist.

[Lagboltz]

Congratulations Dawkins for making post # 1000.

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.

You are responding to PLC's post that "no one has yet proven that there is or is not a god". What you are referencing is an "argument", not a proof. That argument dates back to Plato and Aristotle. According to the site you cite, the "contingency" aspect of lines 1 and 2 leads to a false conclusion in line 4.

Finally, arguments concerning causation must not be made lightly. In physics causality involves preceding events, however this breaks down at the particle level due to Heisenberg 's uncertainty principle, and also under quantum field theory, where there is time reversal symmetry -- the laws of nature are the same if time moves backwards. The "arrow of time" that we perceive is due to enormous statistical improbability of, for example, a broken cup on the floor putting itself together and rising back to the table from which it fell.

The new understandings of physics in the last century have considerably outdated those early arguments.

 

[top gun]

numinus;80272]A lot of universities have graduate programs in cosmology. Try telling them that.

Duh?

Cosmology is not about one magic guy!

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.

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

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?

This is a whole lot of words that really say nothing to prove there must be this one "God" that created everything. Let's use your own statement... science says that something can't come from nothing. A God would be "something". Where did he come from?

What you're doing is the old comic book Charlie Brown saying... If you can't be right... be wrong VERY VERY LOUD!

With what? Your ignorance?

Dude I said I'm satisfied with your answer. You said it's quite possible the earth is flat. Nuff said....

 

[numinus]

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

Yikes! What an incredibly boneheaded thing to say!

For causation to be logical, there MUST be a FIRST CAUSE. Otherwise, causation itself suffers from the FALLACY OF INFINITE REGRESS.

Now, does it make any sense, whatsoever, to ask -- what caused the first cause?

The more reasonable question, imo, is -- what about the word FIRST, do you not understand, eh?

 

[numinus]

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

Apparently not. Engineers stick to the realm of APPLIED SCIENCE. And as far as applied science is concerned, it either works, or it doesn't. There is nothing speculative or agnostic about that.

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.

Have you stated the logical fallacy in the cosmological argument yet? Nope? Didn't think so.

Or were you refering to your stupid assertion that omnipotence, as naively defined, isn't a universal set? If O is a set such that f is a non-empty set not in O, then O cannot possibly be the omnipotence set, as defined, now, can it?

You see, it is very easy to demonstrate the fallacies attached to vague language using fopl.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Numnuts

You say there cannot be infinte regress and yet you dogmatically state the illogical idea of an un-caused effect from which you then infer that it is a benign force with the attributes that christian assign to god (ecept omisicience and ominpotence which you had to concede).

Forgive me for not accepting this as it is ever so sligtly ridiculous.

I can't wait for your response.

One day you might even address the question of how you get from prime mover to God.

And that will be just hilarious.

Have you ever considerd a carreer in comdey writing?

 

[numinus]

Numnuts

Bonehead

You say there cannot be infinte regress

I, and the rest of rational individuals say that. Duh?

and yet you dogmatically

You are free to dispute any of the logical assertions of the cosmological argument -- if you can.

Duh?

state the illogical idea of an un-caused effect

Hello? Its a cause that IS NOT AN EFFECT.

And it is illogical because.......

Duh?

from which you then infer that it is a benign force with the attributes that christian assign to god

You don't need to be a christian to discern the logic of the cosmological argument. Moslems have their own, related version -- the kalam cosmological argument.

Duh?

(ecept omisicience and ominpotence which you had to concede).

Me? Concede anything to a bonehead like you?

Tell you what, get the respective spelling straight and get back to me when you have.

Duh?

Forgive me for not accepting this as it is ever so sligtly ridiculous.

Fortunately for all of us, logic does not suffer the objections of boneheads.

Duh?

I can't wait for your response.

Well you can wait until hell freezes over and you still wouldn't be able to understand it.

Duh?

One day you might even address the question of how you get from prime mover to God.

Its universal causation for the first cause argument.

Its the prime mover for the first motion argument.

They are related but distinct. Is it too much to ask for you to get at least that straight? After all, it isn't rocket science.

Duh?

And that will be just hilarious.

We already know this. You find your ignorance amusing.

Duh?

Have you ever considerd a carreer in comdey writing?

No. But I see you have.

What a bonehead. Nothing but calcium between the ears.

 

[numinus]

Congratulations Dawkins for making post # 1000.

You mean there is a prize for boneheads who make post # 1000?

You are responding to PLC's post that "no one has yet proven that there is or is not a god".

Uhm, no.

What you are referencing is an "argument", not a proof.

Is there any proof that does not follow the format of an argument, hmmm?

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

In logic, an argument is a set of one or more declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises; an inductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the premises.

That argument dates back to Plato and Aristotle. According to the site you cite, the "contingency" aspect of lines 1 and 2 leads to a false conclusion in line 4.

And lines 1 and 2 lead to a false conclusion in line 4 because.....

Is it too much to ask for posters to give a reason for any and all assertions?

Finally, arguments concerning causation must not be made lightly. In physics causality involves preceding events, however this breaks down at the particle level due to Heisenberg 's uncertainty principle, and also under quantum field theory, where there is time reversal symmetry -- the laws of nature are the same if time moves backwards. The "arrow of time" that we perceive is due to enormous statistical improbability of, for example, a broken cup on the floor putting itself together and rising back to the table from which it fell.

I'm sorry but the lorentz transformation provides for a differential of time dilating to infinity. It DOES NOT provide for time going back.

I don't know what idiot taught you physics but the last time I checked, time going backwards or tacheon particles going beyond the speed of light are SPECULATIONS belonging to theoretical physics.

The new understandings of physics in the last century have considerably outdated those early arguments.

LOL

You should try applying the standards of the scientific method to your alleged 'new understanding'. That way you would know better than to peddle theroetical physics as fact rather than ask for proof from a logical argument.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I bet the church wishes it could get hold of Numnut's proof of the existence of erm erm well of 'there must be something'

Maybe they should give up reading the bible and read 'engineering fantasists' monthly'.

 

[numinus]

I bet the church wishes it could get hold of Numnut's proof of the existence of erm erm well of 'there must be something'

Maybe they should give up reading the bible and read 'engineering fantasists' monthly'.

I see that you cannot stand christians minding their own business.

But palestinian muslims waging a genocidal war against israel on allah's behalf -- that is so much better.

I thought I caught a wiff of goat-herder logic in your post. Quite frankly, it suits you perfectly.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Hmm, how many mistakes can a person make in one sentence?

There is another thread for this numnuts.

I see you are avoiding the issue again.

Are you too busy reading 'how to engineer a defence of eroneous and unsupportable beliefs by obfuscation monthly?

 

[Dr.Who]

Bonehead

Mt 5:43-48

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You cannot prove its unconstitutionality and so you pin your hopes on a numbers game -- by proposing an absurd piece of positive law that could only be valid based on a majority sentiment -- NO FACTS, NO LOGIC.

I don't have to prove un-Constitutionality, the Supreme Court decides those things, but the Constitution does say equal protection under the law.

If there is no first cause, it would be FATAL to EVERYTHING THAT WE KNOW.

Imagine a controlled laboratory experiment. How much of the result happened with no cause at all, hmmm?

Or, even if you repeat the experiment as much as you wish, what makes you think that the next time, something that has no cause would be introduced in the result, hmmm?

FATAL? Hello? If there was no first cause, why would we sudenly die? I didn't say that there was no first cause, you deliberately misquoted me to try to gain points. Cheap shot from someone with your educational background. A don't have a problem with a first cause, I have a problem with your assumption that a first cause is an anthropomorphic god. You can logically prove a first cause with your semantic contruct, but not an anthropomorphic god.

Of course it is wrong. Did you think you can define a word any which way you wish to support your nonsense?

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but anyone can define a word any way they want, whether the general population picks up the meaning and codifies it in the dictionary is another thing. You are not the final arbiter of the meaning of words, I have seen no authoritative source showing that your useage is any more correct than my own.

I didn't think it was possible to be so ignorant and dignified at the same time. Good luck with that.

Not working for you?

 

[numinus]

I don't have to prove un-Constitutionality, the Supreme Court decides those things,

The sc decides on questions put before them. They wouldn't waste their time arguing gay marriages if the question wasn't asked, now, would they?

Duh?

but the Constitution does say equal protection under the law.

And, most certainly, gays have equal protection. They have equal access to marriage if they so wish.

A heterosexual person can no more get married to another of the same gender than a homosexual person, now, can he?

FATAL? Hello? If there was no first cause, why would we sudenly die?

Why would I assume there is no first cause when that is the logical conclusion?

Duh?

I didn't say that there was no first cause, you deliberately misquoted me to try to gain points. Cheap shot from someone with your educational background. A don't have a problem with a first cause, I have a problem with your assumption that a first cause is an anthropomorphic god. You can logically prove a first cause with your semantic contruct, but not an anthropomorphic god.

And I am saying that anthropomorphism refers to some human quality, not human form.

God is anthropomorphic for the simple reason that he is capable of REASON, as humans are.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but anyone can define a word any way they want, whether the general population picks up the meaning and codifies it in the dictionary is another thing. You are not the final arbiter of the meaning of words, I have seen no authoritative source showing that your useage is any more correct than my own.

Then why do you use definitions as if they were generally accepted, hmmm?

The fact remains, you use your twisted definitions to come up with your twisted assertions.

Not working for you?

I wasn't the one pretending dignity while spouting ignorant nonsense, now, was I?

 

[PLC1]

And I am saying that anthropomorphism refers to some human quality, not human form.

God is anthropomorphic for the simple reason that he is capable of REASON, as humans are.

Note: The suffix -morph comes from the Greek for "form" or "shape."

To quote you:

Duh!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Please note that the quote attributed to me in PLC1's post #1019 was actually made by Numius in his post #1018. I never said that.

Originally Posted by Mare Tranquillity
And I am saying that anthropomorphism refers to some human quality, not human form.

God is anthropomorphic for the simple reason that he is capable of REASON, as humans are.

This is Nums line of reasoning, not mine.