Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 123
Thanks Tree33Thanks

Thread: Why?

  1. #41
    Veteran Member ptif219's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    64,297
    Thanks
    4157

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Yeah, it doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on the affirmative claim.

    You are the one claiming he does not exist so prove it

  2. #42
    Veteran Member ptif219's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    64,297
    Thanks
    4157

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Says the guy who is trying to make a theological question about politics. Either stay on topic or fuck off out of the discussion. One more attempt to derail, I will will report.
    You are so easy to get going

  3. #43
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,411
    Thanks
    17664

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    You are the one claiming he does not exist so prove it
    No, I'm not. I am claiming that there is insufficient objective evidence to assert that God exists. "God does not exist" is the null claim. The affirmative claim is "God exists". Until such evidence is presented to support the affirmative claim, the rational position is the Null claim. You trying to turn the argument on its ear doesn't make you right. My position is not conclusively that God does not exist. There is insufficient evidence to assert conclusively that God exists. Demonstrate otherwise.

    In the meantime, feel free to explain why this position is "perverse", or "hypocritical"?
    Thanks from Ronin Tetsuro

  4. #44
    Veteran Member ptif219's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    64,297
    Thanks
    4157

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    No, I'm not. I am claiming that there is insufficient objective evidence to assert that God exists. "God does not exist" is the null claim. The affirmative claim is "God exists". Until such evidence is presented to support the affirmative claim, the rational position is the Null claim. You trying to turn the argument on its ear doesn't make you right. My position is not conclusively that God does not exist. There is insufficient evidence to assert conclusively that God exists. Demonstrate otherwise.

    In the meantime, feel free to explain why this position is "perverse", or "hypocritical"?
    So you are saying he does not exist but have no proof

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...god-kurt-godel

  5. #45
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,411
    Thanks
    17664

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    So you are saying he does not exist but have no proof

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...god-kurt-godel
    Why not? You're saying he does exist, and have no objective evidence. Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence.

    As to Gödel's alleged "God formula", you realise that his "proof" relies on axioms that are questionable, correct? Since you linked to this story, I presume that you know the axioms of Gödel's proof, and understand the significance of the axioms, and what happens to the equation, if those axioms are not logically sound. Or did you just do a Google search for "Proof of God", and hoped that I would be unfamiliar with Gödel's work? I mean, you know that Gödel never asserted that God does exist, only that God can. I have never denied that God can exist. I have merely asked for objective evidence that God does exist.
    Last edited by Czernobog; 3rd February 2018 at 09:12 PM.

  6. #46
    Junior Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,445
    Thanks
    190

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    You are attempting to make a philosophical argument to justify an objective claim. If you want to insist that God exists as a philosophical construct, okay. I can allow for that. Except you guys want to insist that God exists as an objective entity. As soon as you move into that arena, we are no longer in the realm of philosophical discussions, and have moved into the realm of scientific research. Either there is objective, verifiable evidence for the existence of an objectively existent God, or there isn't. If there isn't, then there is no basis for asserting that God objectively exists.
    Short: Tell me why something exists. Or alternative questions: Why uses physics (=materialism) mathematics (=spirituality)? How proves physics the existence of mathematics within nature? The very plausible ideas about parallel universes for example are only pure mathematics. Wherein exist this universes? Nothing except spirit could connect us with such strange realities which may have totally different natural laws - or not natural laws at all.

    Last edited by zaangalewa; 3rd February 2018 at 10:29 PM.

  7. #47
    Junior Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,445
    Thanks
    190

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Why not? You're saying he does exist, and have no objective evidence. Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence.

    As to Gödel's alleged "God formula", you realise that his "proof" relies on axioms that are questionable, correct? Since you linked to this story, I presume that you know the axioms of Gödel's proof, and understand the significance of the axioms, and what happens to the equation, if those axioms are not logically sound. Or did you just do a Google search for "Proof of God", and hoped that I would be unfamiliar with Gödel's work? I mean, you know that Gödel never asserted that God does exist, only that God can. I have never denied that God can exist. I have merely asked for objective evidence that God does exist.
    We made jokes about his not existence, when I asked him some decades ago. Jokes like "Exists the creator of existence?". Jesus has by the way wonderful eyes and a very warm laughter.

    Last edited by zaangalewa; 3rd February 2018 at 10:54 PM.

  8. #48
    res
    res is offline
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,476
    Thanks
    1024

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    You prove my point. In order to be a democrat a Christian would have to put the political party above God which means they are not really a Christian
    It is painful how deeply the public education system has failed you. You definitely need education reform in the US.
    Thanks from NeoVsMatrix and Ronin Tetsuro

  9. #49
    Junior Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,445
    Thanks
    190

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    No, I'm not. I am claiming that there is insufficient objective evidence to assert that God exists. "God does not exist" is the null claim. The affirmative claim is "God exists".
    Or god exists and not exists the same time - what's possible, because god is almighty - but what we are not able to think, because in this case everything would be true - what's wrong. So either someone believes everything is true - what's senseless - or someone believes for example "god is not existing". Because nothing is verifiable epistemologically no one would ever have any problem with this form of self fulfilling belief. This is in epistemology compatible with the belief that truth is not existing or that only one truth is not existing = many truths are existing. But in this case stops now the way of philosophy and science. And there's the alternative to believe in god - what means also to believe in one truth and to try to find out what's right and wrong, which is a way full of problems and discussions. As far as I can see the way of rationality is only open for all mankind in case of the belief in the only one true god.

    Until such evidence is presented to support the affirmative claim, the rational position is the Null claim. You trying to turn the argument on its ear doesn't make you right. My position is not conclusively that God does not exist. There is insufficient evidence to assert conclusively that God exists. Demonstrate otherwise.

    In the meantime, feel free to explain why this position is "perverse", or "hypocritical"?
    You don't believe in god and Dawkins is your prophet, the man who makes natural science to a religion of the false god human empirical knowledge. It's by the way possible that all our ideas about physics are more wrong than true. Yesterday I heard for example some English speaking physicists in an US-American TV production explain something about time-travel. Specially they spoke also about the mathematical method "space-time" and explained very detailed how time is an illusion of another dimensions of space. I needed some time to find out what they made wrong. If you make a time travel then you are able to meet yourself. That's not possible in case of time would be a forth dimension of the space. No one meets himself in space. And we know by the way very well that a fourth dimension of space is not existing, because we would see in this case something coming into our space and leaving this space again. I never saw this magic.

    Last edited by zaangalewa; 4th February 2018 at 02:38 AM.

  10. #50
    Established Member NeoVsMatrix's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,465
    Thanks
    6301

    From
    NY
    Quote Originally Posted by zaangalewa View Post
    Or god exists and not exists the same time - what's possible, because god is almighty - but what we are not able to think, because in this case everything would be true - what's wrong. So either someone believes everything is true - what's senseless - or someone believes for example "god is not existing". Because nothing is verifiable epistemologically no one would ever have any problem with this form of self fulfilling belief. This is in epistemology compatible with the belief that truth is not existing or that only one truth is not existing = many truths are existing. But in this case stops now the way of philosophy and science. And there's the alternative to believe in god - what means also to believe in one truth and to try to find out what's right and wrong, which is a way full of problems and discussions. As far as I can see the way of rationality is only open for all mankind in case of the belief in the only one true god.



    You don't believe in god and Dawkins is your prophet, the man who makes natural science to a religion of the false god human empirical knowledge. It's by the way possible that all our ideas about physics are more wrong than true. Yesterday I heard for example some English speaking physicists in an US-American TV production explain something about time-travel. Specially they spoke also about the mathematical method "space-time" and explained very detailed how time is an illusion of another dimensions of space. I needed some time to find out what they made wrong. If you make a time travel then you are able to meet yourself. That's not possible in case of time would be a forth dimension of the space. No one meets himself in space. And we know by the way very well that a fourth dimension of space is not existing, because we would see in this case something coming into our space and leaving this space again. I never saw this magic.
    Whatever it was you heard... you obviously are not yet ready to listen to English speaking science folks.
    Your basic understanding of science seems to be very rudimentary, so if you honestly want to get at least a grasp of what you pretend to be talking about, I recommend you stick to your own language, both the general and special theory of relativity are difficult enough to undérstand, one should not start to try so in a foreign language one is not fluent in.

    And one should sure not pretend, the gibberish you provided above is - if anything - embarrassing and an insult to A. Einstein, one of the greatest minds who ever walked this planet.

Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Facebook Twitter RSS Feed