Prove that God doesn't exist.

[PLC1]

Agnosticism is a high-faluting word for 'I don't know'. For somebody who admits 'he doesn't know', you talk too damn much.

You don't know, either, nor do I.

No one really knows whether there is a god, or what he/she/it/they may be like.

We have a Hobsen's choice:

Believe that this Earth and its complex and interrelated life forms simply formed and evolved on their own, or

Believe that there is a supernatural being who is responsible for it all.

Either choice is unbelievable, but one or the other must be true.

What I do know is that there is no conflict between the concept of god and the findings of science. There may be a conflict with some ancient writings, with some people's preconceived notions, or with certain dogmas, but not with the existence of god.

What I do know is that life on Earth evolved. What I believe, but can't prove, is that there is an intelligence greater than ours who is responsible for it. The one is science, provable, demonstrable, while the other is a matter of faith and philosophy.

But, there is no conflict between the two.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nonsense.

Lots of passages in the bible have been proven to be historically accurate.

Yes, a few historical facts, but what I was refering to was the overall position that the Bible is God's Word and that the Salvation and Hell and all of that are true. No proof of any of that.

I'm curious -- on what do you base your belief on, then?

Personal experience. That's why I don't claim to speak for God or claim special rights and privileges for myself that I would deny to others. Nor do I claim that my view is the correct one--it's just my viewpoint.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Agnosticism is a high-faluting word for 'I don't know'. For somebody who admits 'he doesn't know', you talk too damn much.

So, why should anyone put much stock on the opinions of someone who doesn't know, hmmm?

You talk a lot too, Nums, and YOU don't know any more than any of the rest of us. Maybe we shouldn't take any stock in what you say either.

It really is sad that your prejudice towards the belief of others should prompt you to say things that undermine your own beliefs. The truth of the matter is, almost everything you know has no direct, first-hand evidence except for someone else telling you it is so.

Are you any different just because your beliefs came out of an old book with no direct, first-hand evidence?

 

[numinus]

And that's the wonderful thing about being an American. You don't get forced into a religion by someone like you that doesn't know either!

Your nationality has nothing to do with how effective you use your rational faculties. As a matter of demographics, americans are less likely to use them as compared to say -- indians, singaporeans and japanese.

Oh, and no one needs to force anything to you because your own ignorance is doing that well enough.

Duh?

Plus we get to say out loud what we don't believe and why.

That's quite true for everyone. Unlike everyone, though, you're having a bit of trouble as to why you believe your nonsense in the first place.

Because my estimations are based on science... much very provable with more knowledge gained this way every single day.

You have a fable... and faith in that fable and nothing more.

By a preponderance of the evidence the science wins out huge!

By a preponderance of evidence, you say??????

And what evidence do you imagine, supports your idea that matter and energy spontaneously existed out of nothing -- consequently forming the universe we see today, hmmmm?

Evidence, indeed! You wouldn't know what evidence looks like if it sat on your face.

Ah, but I forget. You don't know jack****.

That is correct. I've never been hit by a speeding bus... but I know through science being hit by a speeding bus would be hurtful.

Not if it instantaneously damages your central nervous system -- then you wouldn't feel a god-damned thing. Duh?

As demonstrated, you don't know jack**** from what is or isn't.

Sprouting angle wings and flying off to heaven. There's no testing that is there?

No wonder your panties are up in a knot over religion. You're grasp of it is confined to the kindergarten version. Why a grown person wishes to subject the kindergarten version to logical rigor in the first place is, quite frankly, beyond me.

Duh?

As is the case with almost all learnable (teachable) knowledge. One doesn't have to create the experiment that proves a point... one only has to be able to recreate it. I can do that through geological studies and carbon dating and a host of other things.

Nonsense.

There are two kinds of knowledge, as far as epistemology is concerned. There is demonstrable and logical.

Most of what we know is a combination of both. The defect in your 'knowledge', if you can even call it that, is in your incompetent use of the rules of logic.

You have an old story.

And I suppose age has something to do with truth-value, eh? No wonder you are confused. You don't have the rational faculties to discern what is or isn't valid knowledge. You see some new nonsense by the current ***** and automatically think it is better just because its new.

I have no problem with you believing that old story. Just don't get upset when others don't.

Nobody is getting upset about what you do or don't believe. When you post your nonsense in the public domain, however, rational people feel duty bound to point it out as such.

 

[numinus]

You don't know, either, nor do I.

Nonsense.

I know the logical consequences of a demonstrated fact. The person I directed that statement at cannot seem to connect the logical relationship between demonstrated fact and its inescapable conclusion.

No one really knows whether there is a god, or what he/she/it/they may be like.

Knowledge of some form of existence isn't necessarily dependent on knowledge of what it is like.

Gravity for instance. I have spent a good deal time telling someone in this forum that, as of the moment, no one knows the true nature of gravity. And yet we know it exists, don't we?

We have a Hobsen's choice:

Believe that this Earth and its complex and interrelated life forms simply formed and evolved on their own, or

Believe that there is a supernatural being who is responsible for it all.

Either choice is unbelievable, but one or the other must be true.

Lots of things in theoretical science have been proposed that has no demonstrated manifestation in the natural world. You have 11-dimension string, the cosmological constant, all the theoretical particles concocted in quantum theory, quantum fluctuation, inflation, etc. etc.

Do we have your permission, then, to call them 'supernatural'?

What I do know is that there is no conflict between the concept of god and the findings of science. There may be a conflict with some ancient writings, with some people's preconceived notions, or with certain dogmas, but not with the existence of god.

Good. That's settled then.

Sadly, the pretend-agnostics can't seem to grasp the inevitable operation of logic. Why anyone would suspend belief of an entirely logical conclusion, I have no idea. Perhaps they fancy the word 'agnostic' would somehow lend some intellectual credibility to their nonsense.

What I do know is that life on Earth evolved. What I believe, but can't prove, is that there is an intelligence greater than ours who is responsible for it. The one is science, provable, demonstrable, while the other is a matter of faith and philosophy.

But, there is no conflict between the two.

The fact that evolution behaves according to some underlying purpose (survival of the fittest, adaptation of its surrounding, etc.) already suggests that evolution is guided by some rational principle, is it not?

The default is randomness. Nothing complex can form out of randomness, by its definition alone. Entropy made sure of that.

 

[numinus]

Yes, a few historical facts, but what I was refering to was the overall position that the Bible is God's Word and that the Salvation and Hell and all of that are true. No proof of any of that.

That's why the bible is called the bible and a scientific treatise is called a scientific treatise. The bible can no more accrue to a scientific truth than a scientific paper can accrue to a moral truth.

There is absolutely no sense in getting confused about the two.

Personal experience. That's why I don't claim to speak for God or claim special rights and privileges for myself that I would deny to others. Nor do I claim that my view is the correct one--it's just my viewpoint.

For someone who thinks his own view isn't the correct one, you certainly are quite fond of them.

 

[numinus]

You talk a lot too, Nums, and YOU don't know any more than any of the rest of us. Maybe we shouldn't take any stock in what you say either.

Nonsense.

I know the logical consequence of a demonstrated fact, and have no qualms stating them.

Are you any different just because your beliefs came out of an old book with no direct, first-hand evidence?

And when have I ever claimed something to be true just because it is written in the bible, eh?

Your inneundo is no more effective in this discussion as farting is effective in calculus.

Duh?

 

[PLC1]

Nonsense.

I know the logical consequences of a demonstrated fact. The person I directed that statement at cannot seem to connect the logical relationship between demonstrated fact and its inescapable conclusion.

No, it's not nonsense. Neither you nor I nor anyone else can logically prove that there is a god, regardless of what we conceive god to be like.

Knowledge of some form of existence isn't necessarily dependent on knowledge of what it is like.

That much is true.

Gravity for instance. I have spent a good deal time telling someone in this forum that, as of the moment, no one knows the true nature of gravity. And yet we know it exists, don't we?

Maybe gravity doesn't really exist. Maybe it is the power of god that keeps us from flying off into space.

See? I can come up with nonsense, too.

Lots of things in theoretical science have been proposed that has no demonstrated manifestation in the natural world. You have 11-dimension string, the cosmological constant, all the theoretical particles concocted in quantum theory, quantum fluctuation, inflation, etc. etc.

Do we have your permission, then, to call them 'supernatural'?

Sure, why not? It's as likely to be supernatural as not.

I'm not going to pretend to understand the 11 dimensional universe, string theory, or the cosmological constant. Unless you're a theoretical physicist, you shouldn't either.

Sadly, the pretend-agnostics can't seem to grasp the inevitable operation of logic. Why anyone would suspend belief of an entirely logical conclusion, I have no idea. Perhaps they fancy the word 'agnostic' would somehow lend some intellectual credibility to their nonsense.

OK, so prove logically that god exists.

The fact that evolution behaves according to some underlying purpose (survival of the fittest, adaptation of its surrounding, etc.) already suggests that evolution is guided by some rational principle, is it not?

The default is randomness. Nothing complex can form out of randomness, by its definition alone. Entropy made sure of that.

It suggests an underlying purpose. It does not prove an underlying purpose.

As I said before, my personal belief is that there is an underlying purpose, but that can't be proven. The theory of evolution can be proven objectively. That underlying purpose can not be proven.

 

[numinus]

No, it's not nonsense. Neither you nor I nor anyone else can logically prove that there is a god, regardless of what we conceive god to be like.

But the various proofs are already there for about a millenium -- the ontological arguments.

That much is true.

Maybe gravity doesn't really exist. Maybe it is the power of god that keeps us from flying off into space.

See? I can come up with nonsense, too.

Why would that be nonsense? If everything was created, then gravity was also created.

I mentioned the cosmological constant because you were touching on the subject of purpose.

I read somewhere that during the time einstein was deriving his general relativity, he had a cabin with so many cats. The cats went about as they pleased. So as not to be bothered, einstein installed a number of cat doors to the cabin -- big doors for big cats, medium doors for medium cats and small doors for small cats.

Even then, his peculiar way of thinking was becoming manifest -- that he did not want to offend cats with a non-personalized 'nothingness' -- that even nothingness must serve some logical purpose.

As it turned out, this nothingness would exert an incredible amount of influence in space-time geometry -- the cosmological constant. In his field equation, space itself was exerting an energy density against the tendency of gravity -- hence preventing space-time on crumpling on itself. What he later felt was his biggest blunder, turned out to be sublime genius after hubble observed that space-time was actually expanding at an accelerating rate.

Sure, why not? It's as likely to be supernatural as not.

How can it be as likely to be supernatural as not when none of the things I have mentioned has been observed in a scientifically rigorous setting, hmmm?

I'm not going to pretend to understand the 11 dimensional universe, string theory, or the cosmological constant. Unless you're a theoretical physicist, you shouldn't either.

But I do understand them -- enough to make a logical point.

OK, so prove logically that god exists.

Haven't you heard of ontology?

It suggests an underlying purpose. It does not prove an underlying purpose.

Correct.

What it does prove is that it isn't something random. It is following some known rational principle or law. Something that follows a rational principle or law, by definition, isn't random.

As I said before, my personal belief is that there is an underlying purpose, but that can't be proven. The theory of evolution can be proven objectively. That underlying purpose can not be proven.

But the underlying purpose is defined in evolution -- the survival of the species, is it not?

And this purpose, survival, is being done against the tendency of entropy.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That's why the bible is called the bible and a scientific treatise is called a scientific treatise. The bible can no more accrue to a scientific truth than a scientific paper can accrue to a moral truth.

There is no reason that a scientific paper could not "accrue" to a moral truth, your statement is inaccurate.

First you say the Bible is true due to a few scattered historical facts, now you are reversing yourself. There is nothing to support the accuracy of the Biblical story as being the "Word of God". Nothing, it's all about faith.

For someone who thinks her own view isn't the correct one, you certainly are quite fond of them.

I'm not egotistical enough to claim God's Truth for myself. I don't require others to believe as I do, nor do I use my beliefs to take rights or privileges from others that I claim for my own.

I'm a "her" not a "him", don't fall into the same trap that so many others have and start changing my gender as a way of attacking me because you don't have anything valid to say, it just makes you look silly.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nonsense. I know the logical consequence of a demonstrated fact, and have no qualms stating them.
And when have I ever claimed something to be true just because it is written in the bible, eh?

Your inneundo is no more effective in this discussion as farting is effective in calculus.

Post 1137: "Lots of passages in the bible have been proven to be historically accurate."


Your flatulence reference is just another example of how you have nothing of value to add so you resort to scatalogical invective. Not that scatalogical stuff isn't Christian, mind you, there are references made by God to feces and what He proposed doing with them.

 

[numinus]

There is no reason that a scientific paper could not "accrue" to a moral truth, your statement is inaccurate.

Nonsense.

The scientific method has nothing, whatsoever, to do with moral truth. Only phenomena with measures of space, time and mass are part of the scientific inquiry. If something doesn't have these measures, science has nothing to say about it.

Duh?

First you say the Bible is true due to a few scattered historical facts,

Yes. Proven true due to independent and external corroboration -- not simply because it is written in the bible.

now you are reversing yourself.

Nonsense.

The moral truth of the bible isn't dependent on a few historical facts independently corroborated by archeological evidence.

There is really no sense in confusing historical facts with moral truth.

There is nothing to support the accuracy of the Biblical story as being the "Word of God". Nothing, it's all about faith.

Do you even read the posts you are replying to?

I said it is 'inspired by god'.

Who are you to say that human experience of the common-sense, material world coupled with the application of human reasoning faculty is not some sort of divine inspiration, hmmm?

I'm not egotistical enough to claim God's Truth for myself.

Sigh.

Are you even familiar with empiricism?

There is objective truth. It becomes subjective simply because our sensory faculties (the faculties by which we observe everything) is subjective. And an objective truth remains so regardless of your perception of it.

Your nonsense comes from the absurd idea that your subjective perception of an objective truth is the truth being contemplated here -- hence you get this equally absurd idea of 'truth for myself'.

Did you think you could logically relativize objective truth? Try it with mathematical or logical truths and see just how quickly you make a fool of yourself.

I don't require others to believe as I do, nor do I use my beliefs to take rights or privileges from others that I claim for my own.

That's because your beliefs are not based on facts and logic. Someone who cannot make himself believe in facts and logic is foolish.

I'm a "her" not a "him", don't fall into the same trap that so many others have and start changing my gender as a way of attacking me because you don't have anything valid to say, it just makes you look silly.

Again, more relative nonsense. Did your identity change when you had your sex change. Are you not still yourself?

 

[numinus]

Post 1137: "Lots of passages in the bible have been proven to be historically accurate."

You know, the gray matter between your ears is there for thinking.

When have I said something is morally true because of some historical accuracy, hmmm?

All this merry-go-round may work with your dumb friends, even with yourself, but it certainly is nonsense in logical rigor.

Your flatulence reference is just another example of how you have nothing of value to add so you resort to scatalogical invective. Not that scatalogical stuff isn't Christian, mind you, there are references made by God to feces and what He proposed doing with them.

The god I believe in is a god of love -- hence has nothing to do with feces or some such nonsense.

Unless of course your idea of love requires you to be exposed to feces. That, unfortunately, is entirely your own concoction.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You know, the gray matter between your ears is there for thinking.

When have I said something is morally true because of some historical accuracy, hmmm?

You never stipulated "morally true", what you said was, "And when have I ever claimed something to be true just because it is written in the bible, eh?" You can't remember from one post to the next what you wrote. Poor Nums, must be tough being you.

All this merry-go-round may work with your dumb friends, even with yourself, but it certainly is nonsense in logical rigor.

Well you got part of it right, you have intellectual rigor mortis.

The god I believe in is a god of love -- hence has nothing to do with feces or some such nonsense.

Unless of course your idea of love requires you to be exposed to feces. That, unfortunately, is entirely your own concoction.

So, what you are saying is that you haven't actually read the Bible and don't know what's in it? I'm not surprised, most Christians just bleat the cant and don't even begin to think for themselves. Get a copy of the Bible and a Concordance, do a little research, find out what is really in the Bible--I think you'll be surprised.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yes. Proven true due to independent and external corroboration -- not simply because it is written in the bible.

A few historical facts don't carry the whole book, Nums, the moral truth of the book is partly true, but the genocide, rape, murder, kidnapping, etc. are not part of that moral truth and should be removed from the Bible.

Your nonsense comes from the absurd idea that your subjective perception of an objective truth is the truth being contemplated here -- hence you get this equally absurd idea of 'truth for myself'.

I suspect that all relationships with God are subjective and unique to each person. What's wrong with that? Nothing, until one tries to make everyone else abide by what you have subjectively experienced. Or if you try to make everyone behave according to the soi distant mores of a bygone era and the subjective rules written down by nomadic goat-herders.

Again, more relative nonsense. Did your identity change when you had your sex change. Are you not still yourself?

I corrected a birth defect that had prevented me from being myself for nearly 50 years.