Proof of God
- Thread starter Dustin Kesselberg
- Start date
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
This is called screechingStop your screeching franzy. It's wimpy. Face reality.
David Sloan Wilson: "Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86452
Or keep dreaming your narrow-minded, stubborn, discriminatory worldview and face people's mockery against you.
The anecdotes about your poor life honestly stir me to tears <sniff><sniff>. On the other hand they're totally irrelevant and putting them up against scientific evidence is outright insane.
Nonsense. Stop screeching and start thinking. If possible.
Herzblut
No, THIS IS CALLED SCREECHING!!!!!!!!!!
NO. THIS IS CALLED SCREECHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your actions proves that believe in a so-called god is meaningless.
Not that you in your narrow mind would the difference. It is an out and out lie to say person that are living a lie are happier.
My wife has drop the magical thinking and now is happier, life makes so much more sense to her now. Now she does feel like she did something wrong to a small minded so-called god. She knows that it didn't give her cancer, shingles, the lost of two babies in the womb and the list for her is almost endless for the times she has gone to the hospital for something life threatening. Now she knows that she didn't do anything wrong and that is just how life is.
Just look at your own history, he that will not be named was a christian.
Paul
Last edited:
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
He is most likely praying to his so-called gods about that not happening again........How dare you mention me in the same breath as Herz.
He would be most upset.
Paul
Why, thank you.
No, really, you are too kind.
Oh no, atheism is fine, really.
No, no, you don't have to worry about those characters, really.
...of the circle jerk.
Such a well thought out and reasoned reply I surely cannot argue with. Well done, BillyJoe.
For those who may be joining the thread at this point in time, I'm going to provide a basic summary before I bow out back to lurker mode, seeing as my words here are falling on deaf ears (or should that be blind eyes?) - BillyJoe has been taking people to task for saying, "There is no god," and Herzblut is making the claim that the god hypothesis is out of the realm of science, among others.
The history of my posts in this thread is as follows - I post these here so that you need not debate ad nauseum what has already been covered multiple times by myself, D'rok, volatile and others.
- The first post in this series, where I use humor to demonstrate why, "You can prove a negative," is an incorrect claim.
- These two posts delve further into why you cannot prove a negative.
- This post further examine why you cannot prove a negative, as well as introducing basic predicate logic and falsifiability. It also briefly discusses why falsifiability is important in science.
- This post further discusses falisifiability and burden of proof. It also introduces Occam's razor to explain why god is unnecessary.The atom-fairy is brought up again here in an inane piece of equivocation.
- This post here is where I really got quite fed up with BillyJoe's inability to understand simple concepts regarding burden of proof. Apologies for the rant.
- This post further discusses Occam's razor and what it is used for, as well as again discussing burden of proof.
- This post is where I get fed up once and for all with trying to reason with BillyJoe, and instead take his argument to its logical conclusion.
For those who read my posts and say, "I knew all that already!" - I hope I have saved you time you may otherwise have spent trying to help BillyJoe.
For those who read my posts and learn something new - my pleasure. At least they will have been of some use.
For those who do not read my posts and say, "Pass the butter, please," - The butter is closer to you. Fetch the salt if you would though, this soup tastes like rosemary.
And for Z - I sincery apologize and hope that you will forgive me for my grave error. If it makes you feel any better, I cannot conclusively prove that you yourself are not a dragon. As such, I will from here on in seriously consider that you may in fact be a dragon and will never express disbelief as to your possible dragon-riffic state.
Catch y'all,
Mobyseven
[setmode:lurker=1]
Z
Variable Constant
Thank you - apology accepted! 
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
Nope, as I get tired of pointing out this is the very opposite of the main underlying philosophy of science. For example Ernst Mach pointed out that it was irrelevant to the practice of science to believe or even care if their is a "world" outside of our sense. See his seminal "Analysis of Sensation". Note also Stephen Hawking:Dustin Kesselberg said:
Similarly Einstein said that to say something was real was as meaningful as to say it was "cock-a-doodle-do". You might do some research starting maybe with Comte, Mach, Russell, the Vienna Circle and the correspondence between Schick and Einstein.
The omnipotence paradox was never an attempt to disprove God, it was an example produced by Christian theologists to demonstrate the nature of God. Note that Aquinas both poses the paradox and answers it.
I see. The argument might have flaws but the premise and conclusions are valid. You would think that it would be worth double checking the syntax of a proof of the existence of God. Why should we bother to try to interpret this if you are not even sure it is correct?
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
Phew, I'm glad I came back to this thread at the end, and could use this post to clear it all up. Cheers, Mobyseven
Phew, I'm glad I came back to this thread at the end, and could use this post to clear it all up. Cheers, Mobyseven
Welcome to the...oops, hold on, is that a laughing face I see.
There's really not much more to add to what's been said.
Except that I won't insult everyone with a summary.
My father-in-law gave me a copy of Richard Dawkin's new book (well, not so new any more) "The God Delusion".
If I get any more ideas I'll be back.
I might be gone a while though.
regards,
BillyJoe
Except that I won't insult everyone with a summary.
My father-in-law gave me a copy of Richard Dawkin's new book (well, not so new any more) "The God Delusion".
If I get any more ideas I'll be back.
I might be gone a while though.
regards,
BillyJoe
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
Welcome to the...oops, hold on, is that a laughing face I see.
It was a laughing face, but it was only there because I use them inappropriately.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
My wife read Dawkin's book just two weeks ago, and she said that I have been telling her the same basic things for the last 36 years.
Paul
It was a laughing face, but it was only there because I use them inappropriately.
There are worse things to misuse.
[delurk]
Just finished reading the book for the second time. Here's a novel idea - how about you read the book before you tell us what is in it?
I honestly don't know enough about those subjects to give a satisfactory response, perhaps someone else might be able to. There may be properties in mathematics that make it seem as though a negative has been proved - whether they are true negated existential claims I cannot say because I do not know enough.
If anybody else can weigh in on this topic it would be appreciated.
[/delurk]
Just finished reading the book for the second time. Here's a novel idea - how about you read the book before you tell us what is in it?
I honestly don't know enough about those subjects to give a satisfactory response, perhaps someone else might be able to. There may be properties in mathematics that make it seem as though a negative has been proved - whether they are true negated existential claims I cannot say because I do not know enough.
If anybody else can weigh in on this topic it would be appreciated.
[/delurk]