Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 3:43 PM
25 online now:
DrJones*, Larni, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Sarah Bellum, Tangle (6 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,179 Year: 12,215/19,786 Month: 1,996/2,641 Week: 505/708 Day: 64/135 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 381 of 1359 (827423)
01-23-2018 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Thugpreacha
01-23-2018 3:15 AM


Re: Rrhaining On This Parade
Phat responds to me:

quote:
One notable attribute of believers in God vs Santa is that most of the God believers are otherwise rational adults.

Are they?

Just because two million people do a dumb thing, it's still a dumb thing.

Being rational is a difficult thing to be. Most of our decisions aren't made in contradiction to our emotional desires, especially the ones that we have created with regard to our existence as human beings. It's when push comes to shove that the test of "rationality" is really made and it is very difficult to reject your own self.

quote:
My fascination is with the latter group. They are, after all, not delusional. Why is it that they defend this belief in which they have so vehemently invested?

Again, you're assuming facts not in evidence. Belief in something that has no evidence for existing and, in fact, quite a lot of evidence against (given their own definition) is something that could "rationally" be called "delusional."

Let's not pretend that this is an all-or-nothing thing; that being delusional means that every action made or thought expressed runs counter to reality. Delusional people regularly make "rational" decisions such as not crossing the street when the traffic is going. In fact, some people are quite successful despite their delusions (see the typical bigot.) Some people make quite a living feeding those delusions (again, see the typical bigot-monger.)

But as to why, you answered your own question: They're invested. They have emotionally invested themselves in this and thus will not give it up lightly. People do this all the time. It's why people think their loved ones can't have done the things they did, even when shown direct evidence that they did. So if you have an emotional investment in your "immortal soul," you're not going to give up the idea of not going to hell with any ease.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-23-2018 3:15 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 399 of 1359 (828773)
02-23-2018 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by ringo
02-23-2018 11:20 AM


ringo writes:

quote:
Atheists look for straw gods and can't find them.

Theists look for straw gods and find them.

What's the difference?


Simple:

Atheists don't come up with the straw god. Theists do.

After all, that's the entire point behind being an atheist: You don't have any belief in gods. Thus, the only definitions of these "gods" are coming from the theists. Just as it is not up to the atheist to prove there is no god, it it isn't up to them to come up with a definition of god in the first place. That's why atheism is the default position. Burden of proof, ringo. You know this.

If theists are upset that atheists have knocked down their straw gods, that isn't the atheists' problem.

The theists should have come up with a better definition.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by ringo, posted 02-23-2018 11:20 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 400 of 1359 (828776)
02-23-2018 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by Tangle
02-22-2018 2:35 PM


Tangle writes:

quote:
btw, no one - not even almight atheists - can disprove the existence of god.

Incorrect.

And you know this, Tangle. We've been over it plenty of times. You can easily prove a negative. People love to say you can't, but it simply isn't true.

Here, let me prove it to you (see...I'm about to prove the negative of "You can't prove a negative" by proving a negative. How meta!)

There is no largest prime number.

Assume there is. Let's call it p. Thus, we can generate an exhaustive list of all primes (Sieve of Eratosthenes will do):

2, 3, 5, ..., pn-2, pn-1, p

Construct q as follows:

q = 2 * 3 * 5 * ... * pn-2 * pn-1 * p + 1

Note, that q > p.

Question: Is q prime?

Well, if q is composite, it will necessarily be factorable. But every time we divide q by any of the primes on our list (which is exhaustive), we get a remainder of 1. Thus, we have a problem. Since q cannot be divided by any of the primes and since q > p, then one of the two scenarios must be true:

q is prime.

Or

Some number between p and q is prime.

But that contradicts our original assumption.

Therefore, our original assumption must be false. Instead, there is no largest prime.

See, it's trivial. People prove negatives all the time. In fact, that's the vast majority of scientific work: Most experiments fail. You come up with an hypothesis and come up with an experiment to try and show that it is consistent with reality. But your experiment likely fails, proving your hypothesis to be false. To be completely fair, it proves that your experiment is incapable of showing the effect proposed by the hypothesis, but the point remains: You've proven something to be false.

Science is brilliant at proving things false.

What it cannot do is prove something true. The best it can do is to prove something consistent. If you use 17th-century technology, Newtonian mechanics is consistent with the observations you're going to make. It's only when we started getting better technology and capable of making better observations that we found out that it's false.

And it is. Newtonian mechanics is false. At every level. The only reason we still use it is that for most scenarios, the error term between Newtonian mechanics and observed reality is so small as to be of no significant effect. You can't run your GPS on Newtonian mechanics, but that's the point.

So yeah, it's trivial to disprove the existence of god. All you need is a sufficient definition of "god."

Which, again, is something theists come up with. Atheists, not having any belief in god, don't define what "god" is. How could they? Instead, it's up to theists to come up with that definition.

If theists are upset that atheists have disproven god, that isn't a problem for the atheists. The theists should have come up with a better definition.

That's why the definition of god has become so nebulous for so many people: It's just a "presence." They are very careful not to proffer a definition that provides any way to test it. When your definition of god includes the claim that god created the universe about 6000 years ago with a worldwide flood killing all of humanity but 8 about 2250 BCE, then the fact that we can show the universe to be billions of years old and that there was no global flood 4000 years ago and that humanity didn't collapse to 8 individuals at that time does, indeed, disprove god.

If theists wish to change their definition, then they can do so. Of course, they run the risk of going afoul of the ad hoc fallacy, but the definition of god is their responsibility, not the atheists'. Burden of proof, and all that.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Tangle, posted 02-22-2018 2:35 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by Tangle, posted 02-24-2018 3:55 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 405 of 1359 (828825)
02-24-2018 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by Tangle
02-24-2018 3:55 AM


Tangle responds to me:

quote:
quote:
Science is brilliant at proving things false. […] So yeah, it's trivial to disprove the existence of god.

Ok, so let's see you disprove the existence of god. Scientifically.

You know what the process is, Tangle. Didn't you read the post before you responded?

You need to tell me what you mean by "god." See, if I come up with the definition, you'll accuse me of using a "straw god." Burden of proof, and all that.

You need to tell us what is meant by "god" and then we'll go to work seeing if there's a disproof for it. If your definition is so vague as to be untestable, one will then wonder how one can claim existence of such a thing that has no effect that is tangible or detectable.

You have to go first.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Tangle, posted 02-24-2018 3:55 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by Tangle, posted 02-25-2018 3:39 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 407 of 1359 (828843)
02-25-2018 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 406 by Tangle
02-25-2018 3:39 AM


Tangle responds to me:

quote:
Sure I know what the process is and yes I did read your post. To remind you, it's for those making the claim to back it up. “Burden of proof and all that.”

So why did you not provide your definition of "god"? There's no need to disprove undefined things for things without definition necessarily don't exist.

quote:
The plan here is to spend 50 pages farting around with dictionaries and pseudo-logic - not interested, sorry.

You're the one that wanted to see the disproof of god. There's nobody to blame but yourself for your inability to get the ball rolling by defining what you mean by "god." After all, I already gave one example of a disproof of god:

If the definition of "god" includes a universe that is only 6000 years old with a worldwide flood about 2250 BCE that killed all of humanity save for 8 individuals, then god clearly does not exist for the universe is billions of years old, there was no global flood in 2250, nor was the population of humanity reduced to 8 individuals.

If X, then Y.
~Y, therefore ~X.

It's like you've never heard of the "contrapositive."

"But that's not what I mean by 'god'!" Yes, I'm sure it isn't (though it is to at least one person on this board.) That's why we're waiting on you to provide your definition. That you aren't up to providing it because you think it's going to be tedious (my prediction, on the other hand, will be a bunch of ad hoc alterations to the definition and/or a definition so vague as to not actually define anything), well, that's your problem.

You're the one who wanted to see how it was done.

But you're the one who needs to get the ball rolling. What do you mean by "god"?

quote:
We all fully understand what a decent enough god would be, why don't you pick a defininition that you're happiest with then use science to disprove it and we'll see how you get on.

Already done. In fact, this makes twice now that I've presented it to you.

Is this going to be a variation on the theme of the questions people refuse to answer where I give you the same example over and over and you just ignore it as if that will make it go away while you try to distract and obfuscate in a desperate hope that we won't notice?

See, I gave a definition of "god." I then disproved it. Are we done here?

Or will there now be an ad hoc alteration of the definition coming?

quote:
quote:
You have to go first.

Nope. Your claim, your go, I'm all ears.

Nope. Your claim, your go. If you say one can't disprove god, then you need to define what is meant by "god." If I do it, you'll simply claim that's not what you meant by "god," so save us all the trouble and tell us what you mean.

Remember, the default state is that there is no god. It is up to those who claim there is one to show evidence of such. And if they can't even define what they mean by "god," how can it be said to exist?

Things without definition necessarily don't exist. Note, not that we don't currently know what the definition is but instead that there can be no definition. If it can't be defined, how can it exist?

So, if you're going to abandon your burden, then my job is truly easy:

Things with no definition do not exist.
"God" has no definition.
Therefore, "god" does not exist.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Tangle, posted 02-25-2018 3:39 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by Tangle, posted 02-25-2018 9:43 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 414 of 1359 (828880)
02-26-2018 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 408 by Tangle
02-25-2018 9:43 AM


Tangle responds to me:

quote:
It's your claim.

Only when there's a definition of "god."

Otherwise, as I said before and am having to repeat because you refuse to engage:

Things without definition necessarily don't exist.

Because you refuse to define what is meant by "god," then god clearly cannot exist.

If you find this unsatisfying, then you must submit to your burden of proof. You're the one who claimed that it is impossible to disprove god. I say that I can, but I need to know what you mean by "god." After all, you wouldn't accept anybody saying that evolution couldn't be disproven and then refusing to define what they meant by "evolution."

What makes you think you can get away with it when the subject is god?

quote:
So off you go, prove it.

Already did. You need to read the posts before you respond to them. It makes things much easier.

quote:
That's how it works.

Nope. That's precisely backwards. You're the one making the claim that god cannot be disproven. Therefore, you are the one with the burden of proof which requires you to define what you mean by "god."

If you refuse, then the disproof is trivial:

Things without definition do not exist.

quote:
And no, I'm not going to argue definitions with you, pick you hardest one you like.

Already did. Twice. You need to read the posts before you respond to them. It makes things much easier.

quote:
This is crap logic, everything in the universe existed before we defined it.

Once again, you need to read the posts before you respond to them. It makes things much easier.

As I explicitly pointed out, I am not talking about things with unknown definitions but rather things that have no definition. Not that you "don't" know but rather that you "can't."

If the object you are claiming exists cannot be defined in any way, no matter the scenario, then how can it be said to exist? Don't play dumb and pretend we're talking about mere ignorance. This is an existential question. Not that the definition hasn't made itself apparent but that the definition can never be apparent. Existence creates definition. Without definition, there is no existence.

If X, then Y.
~Y, therefore ~X.

It's like you've never heard of the "contrapositive."

quote:
But no matter, just get on with the job of proving god doesn't exist with science, not word play.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

For someone who complained about the tediousness and is now complaining about "wordplay," you seem to be doing everything you can to make this more tedious specifically through wordplay, specifically equivocation.

Define what you mean by "god."

If you refuse, then the task is trivial:

Things without definition do not exist.
"God" has no definition for you refuse to provide one.
Therefore, "god" does not exist.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by Tangle, posted 02-25-2018 9:43 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by Tangle, posted 02-26-2018 5:51 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 420 of 1359 (828907)
02-26-2018 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by Thugpreacha
02-26-2018 4:37 PM


Re: God and Football
I'll just leave this here:


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Thugpreacha, posted 02-26-2018 4:37 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 421 of 1359 (828908)
02-26-2018 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by Tangle
02-26-2018 5:51 AM


Tangle responds to me:

quote:
Look, you claimed to be able to disprove the existence of God using science.

And as soon as you provide a definition of "god," I'll be on the hook for backing up my claim.

But until then, I won't engage in "straw godding." Your attempt to goad me into doing so shows that you aren't actually entering into this with any integrity. I am not out to convince myself of the existence or non-existence of "god." I'm out to convince *you.* And to do that, I need to know what *you* mean by "god" so that any further discussion won't be dismissed as a "straw god."

Have you been following the health food thread? Phat was talking about "Willard Water" and I pointed out that the claims made are nonsense. One of the problems is that the claims they make are nonsensical. They talk about "altering the structure of water" and a "negative magnetic field." What on earth do those things mean? I can make a guess, and I did provide my own definitions of what a plain understanding of those terms might mean (Bond angle? South magnetic monopole? Electric charges that follow a left-hand rule for the magnetic field rather than a right-hand rule?) and show how such claims are bogus, but that was an exercise in speculation as to what they mean by the "structure of water" and "negative magnetic field."

Which means all they have to do is say, "That's not what we meant," and all of that work showing their claims to be bogus are irrelevant. Without knowing what they mean, no claim can be justified let alone disproven. And you wouldn't accept them saying, "No...*you* define 'structure of water' and 'negative magnetic field'!" I wasn't the one claiming that such a thing could be done. They were. Thus, they need to define what on earth they're talking about.

That's how science is done. The one making the claim needs to define the terms. You're the one claiming that god can't be disproven. Therefore, you are the one charged with defining what you mean by "god." If you can't even get started without resorting to fake debating tactics, I can only assume that you're full of crap.

For someone who was complaining about tediousness regarding this very thing, you sure are doing your very best to be as tedious as possible. Tell me what you mean by "god" and I'll show you how I think it could be disproven. I've already given two examples and have repeated both of them. You have yet to either accept that I did so or provide an alternative definition of "god" that you think is more appropriate.

Therefore, I have done precisely what it is you say can't be done: Disprove the existence of god.

If you don't like it, you will then be expected to know what a "god" is and provide a suitable definition.

And it's cute how you think "peer reviewed research" is the only method available. You are assuming the only way to disprove a phenomenon is an exhaustive search. When I derive the Second Law of Thermodynamics from scratch, I don't go to the "peer reviewed research." I don't have to. I can do the mathematical calculations directly for myself. I can then provide them to you for examination and you can determine if you agree with them or not. They're not that hard and barely require calculus. Oh, it'll take a bit more work from chemistry, but that isn't that difficult to do, either. There's a reason you don't see any "peer reviewed research" on what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is: It's something you can do for yourself.

So now it's time for you to do it for yourself and define what you mean by "god." Remember, I'm not trying to convince myself. I'm trying to convince *you.* Therefore, I need to know what *you* mean by "god." What I mean by it is irrelevant. An argument that would convince me might not convince you because there's a good chance that what you mean by "god" doesn't mean the same thing as what I mean by it.

Therefore, the only way this can get started is for *you* to provide *your* definition of "god." You don't have to prove that such a thing exists. I am the one claiming that I can disprove god, so that falls upon me. But in order to do that, we need to agree upon what is meant by "god." I've given one definition and then disproved its existence. I repeated it to you. Both times, you have ignored it.

Very telling that. You insist that I provide a definition of god and then ignore the one I give. Was it insufficient? If so, why? What would be a better definition?

If you can't even get started without resorting to fake debate tactics, I can only assume that you're full of crap.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Tangle, posted 02-26-2018 5:51 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by Tangle, posted 02-27-2018 2:45 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 422 of 1359 (828909)
02-26-2018 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by Thugpreacha
02-26-2018 10:39 AM


Re: Knock Knock Knocking Down Straw Gods
Phat writes:

quote:
I believe that since He is the uncaused first cause

If god can create itself without cause, why can't the universe and everything in it? Especially since you have given no indication that they can't. And we have plenty of evidence that they can. We don't have all the details worked out, no, but a lot of the things that people used to claim had to be done by god were found out to be perfectly mundane.

So why should we accept your claim that there's a barrier? "I don't know" does not mean "god did it."

quote:
I would define God as the Creator of ideas, definitions, concepts, matter, energy, and ultimately reality itself as we collectively experience and understand it to be.

Then you and I and anything with consciousness is a god for we do all that, too.

And since physics can create matter, energy, and ultimately reality itself, that means physics is god.

Is that what you mean? I want to make sure I understand your definition before continuing. Your definition of "god" includes humans and physics. Somehow, I don't think that's what you mean when you say, "god."

quote:
Logically, if God exists and always has existed, God would have transcended all human religious definitions and attempts at definition.

But if god "transcends all attempts a definition," then god has no definition. Not merely one we don't know but existentially. If there can be no definition of any kind no matter what, then god is a thing without definition.

And things without definition do not exist.

Of course, you just gave a definition, so you just contradicted yourself: God cannot both "transcend definition" and have a definition.

But even so, logically, such a being would be incapable of interacting with its creation precisely because it transcends it. By removing god from the very reality that was created, you prevent god from having any ability to interact with said reality.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If god touches us, then we necessarily touch god. It has to go both ways or there can be no interaction at all. That's the very point behind "interaction."


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Thugpreacha, posted 02-26-2018 10:39 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 424 of 1359 (828918)
02-27-2018 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by Tangle
02-27-2018 2:45 AM


Tangle avoids his burden of proof:

quote:
Nope, you claimed you could disprove the existence of god using science.

And I have.

Multiple times.

Are we done here?

If not, could you be more specific about what you mean by "god"?

quote:
The assumption therefore is that you know what a god is.

Is it? You're the one claiming that disproving god can't be done. Thus, you're the one who needs to define what you mean by god.

It's game over. Your claim is merely a spurious schoolyard taunt of, "Nuh-uh!" If it's not, I suggest you get on with your definition of god. After all, this is something that needs to convince *you.*

You're precisely like Faith: Running away whenever evidence against your argument comes slamming into your face and somehow pretending that nobody notices, lashing out at anyone and everyone who refuses to be cowed. As soon as you provide a definition of "god," I'll then be on the hook to show you how it can be disproven.

But until then, I won't engage in "straw godding." Your attempt to goad me into doing so shows that you aren't actually entering into this with any integrity. I am not out to convince myself of the existence or non-existence of "god." I'm out to convince *you.* And to do that, I need to know what *you* mean by "god" so that any further discussion won't be dismissed as a "straw god."

Have you been following the health food thread? Phat was talking about "Willard Water" and I pointed out that the claims made are nonsense. One of the problems is that the claims they make are nonsensical. They talk about "altering the structure of water" and a "negative magnetic field." What on earth do those things mean? I can make a guess, and I did provide my own definitions of what a plain understanding of those terms might mean (Bond angle? South magnetic monopole? Electric charges that follow a left-hand rule for the magnetic field rather than a right-hand rule?) and show how such claims are bogus, but that was an exercise in speculation as to what they mean by the "structure of water" and "negative magnetic field."

Which means all they have to do is say, "That's not what we meant," and all of that work showing their claims to be bogus are irrelevant. Without knowing what they mean, no claim can be justified let alone disproven. And you wouldn't accept them saying, "No...*you* define 'structure of water' and 'negative magnetic field'!" I wasn't the one claiming that such a thing could be done. They were. Thus, they need to define what on earth they're talking about.

That's how science is done. The one making the claim needs to define the terms. You're the one claiming that god can't be disproven. Therefore, you are the one charged with defining what you mean by "god." If you can't even get started without resorting to fake debating tactics, I can only assume that you're full of crap.

For someone who was complaining about tediousness regarding this very thing, you sure are doing your very best to be as tedious as possible. Tell me what you mean by "god" and I'll show you how I think it could be disproven. I've already given two examples and have repeated both of them. You have yet to either accept that I did so or provide an alternative definition of "god" that you think is more appropriate.

Therefore, I have done precisely what it is you say can't be done: Disprove the existence of god.

If you don't like it, you will then be expected to know what a "god" is and provide a suitable definition.

And it's cute how you think "peer reviewed research" is the only method available. You are assuming the only way to disprove a phenomenon is an exhaustive search. When I derive the Second Law of Thermodynamics from scratch, I don't go to the "peer reviewed research." I don't have to. I can do the mathematical calculations directly for myself. I can then provide them to you for examination and you can determine if you agree with them or not. They're not that hard and barely require calculus. Oh, it'll take a bit more work from chemistry, but that isn't that difficult to do, either. There's a reason you don't see any "peer reviewed research" on what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is: It's something you can do for yourself.

So now it's time for you to do it for yourself and define what you mean by "god." Remember, I'm not trying to convince myself. I'm trying to convince *you.* Therefore, I need to know what *you* mean by "god." What I mean by it is irrelevant. An argument that would convince me might not convince you because there's a good chance that what you mean by "god" doesn't mean the same thing as what I mean by it.

Therefore, the only way this can get started is for *you* to provide *your* definition of "god." You don't have to prove that such a thing exists. I am the one claiming that I can disprove god, so that falls upon me. But in order to do that, we need to agree upon what is meant by "god." I've given one definition and then disproved its existence. I repeated it to you. Both times, you have ignored it.

Very telling that. You insist that I provide a definition of god and then ignore the one I give. Was it insufficient? If so, why? What would be a better definition?

If you can't even get started without resorting to fake debate tactics, I can only assume that you're full of crap.

Spin the merry-go-round again, Tangle. You know you want to.

Spin it!


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by Tangle, posted 02-27-2018 2:45 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by Tangle, posted 02-27-2018 5:39 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 427 of 1359 (828957)
02-27-2018 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by Tangle
02-27-2018 5:39 AM


Tangle avoids the issue:

quote:
quote:
You're the one claiming that disproving god can't be done

I sure am. I certainly can't do it

I see. Because *you* aren't clever enough to do it, that means nobody else is. Got it. You're the universal standard by which all other people are to be judged. If you can't do it, it can't be done.

quote:
and despite a very large amount of reading I've done on the subject, I haven't seen anyone else do it either.

I see. Because *you* haven't found any information, that means nobody else has. Got it. You're the universal standard by which all other people are to be judged. If you haven't seen it, it isn't there to be seen.

quote:
But you know, I could be wrong, I'm just waiting for this proof.

Just tell us what you mean by "god" and we'll get started.

quote:
And here you are claiming that you can do it so it's all terribly exciting.

Yep. All I need is a commonly-agreed-upon definition of "god" and we'll get started. My definition won't be good enough because there will be plenty of people who believe in god who will insist that my definition isn't their definition. Thus, I refuse to engage in "straw godding" and await the person who claims that god can't be disproven to provide their definition of "god" so that we can get started.

quote:
The world is waiting.

And yet weirdly, you don't seem to want to produce the goods by giving us your definition of "god." Instead, you want to weasel about like a fool. "No...what do *you* mean by 'god'!" How disingenuous is that?

There is only one conclusion.

I did what you claimed could not be done.

Twice.

And you're just stamping your precious little foot.

Spin the merry-go-round again, Tangle. You know you want to.

Spin it!


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Tangle, posted 02-27-2018 5:39 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Tangle, posted 02-28-2018 3:56 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 434 of 1359 (829155)
03-03-2018 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by Faith
02-28-2018 11:06 AM


Faith writes:

quote:
Have you tried adding up the years from Adam to the Flood?

Yep. Genesis 1 (six literal days to the creation of Adam), Genesis 5 (Adam to Noah, 956 years), Genesis 8 (Noah 601 when the flood was over, 1557 years total).

And then I added up the years from the Flood to the founding of Solomon's Temple which took place about 950 BCE: Genesis 11 (Noah to Abraham, 292 years, 1849 total), Genesis 12 (Abraham 75 when he made the covenant, 1924 total), Galatians 3 (exodus 430 years after covenant, 2354 total), 1 Kings 6 (temple 480 years after exodus, 2834 total).

That places the flood happening about 2250 BCE (2834 - 1557 + 950 = 2227, but give some wiggle room for the approximate date of the temple).

That would be when maize was starting to be cultivated in Central America, Akkad becoming the largest city in the world, farmsteads being established in the Shetland Islands, and right in the middle of the Sixth Dynasty in Egypt.

It would also place it about 400 years after the Great Pyramids in Egypt were built (2650 BCE).

And strangely, none of these cultures seem to have noticed that everybody died in a great flood and the Pyramids show absolutely no sign of water damage.

Ergo, a "god" that requires a worldwide flood to have happened about 2250 BCE where the entire population of humanity was killed save for 8 individuals is in direct contradiction to reality.

Thus, said god does not exist.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Faith, posted 02-28-2018 11:06 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 435 of 1359 (829156)
03-03-2018 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by Tangle
02-28-2018 3:56 AM


Tangle runs away:

quote:
Ok, it's clear you can't even begin to defend your claim. But anytime you'd like to set out your scientific case for the non-existence of god get back to us.
'bye for now.

(*chuckle*)

Nice case of projection you've got going on there. It's clear you can't defend your claim that god can't be disproven. But any time you'd like to define what you mean by god, we can start examining if it can be disproven scientifically.

After all, I've given you a definition of "god" and disproved it could exist. You haven't complained about it, so I have done precisely what you claim couldn't be done.

I even did it twice.

But spin the merry-go-round again, Tangle. You know you want to.

SPIN IT!


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by Tangle, posted 02-28-2018 3:56 AM Tangle has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 436 of 1359 (829158)
03-03-2018 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by dwise1
02-28-2018 6:03 AM


dwise1 writes:

quote:
Truly there is no scientific proof that any of the gods do not exist nor can there be.

Incorrect.

I have already done so for at least one definition of "god."

I even posted it twice.

If you do not agree with this definition of "god," then it would behoove you to define what you mean by "god" so that we might test your claim that the existence of god cannot be disproven.

What is your definition of "god"?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by dwise1, posted 02-28-2018 6:03 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 69 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 437 of 1359 (829160)
03-03-2018 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by Tangle
02-28-2018 1:30 PM


Tangle responds to Faith:

quote:
quote:
Have you tried adding up the years from Adam to the Flood?

No I haven't Faith, it's not really my thing.

But lots of strange people have and consequently been proven wrong.


You do realize you just contradicted yourself, yes?

You claimed that god cannot be disproven.

Well, Faith's definition of "god" requires there to have been a global flood that happened about 2250 BCE. Where does that number come from? From "adding up the years from Adam to the Flood" (and then continuing on with other chronologies in the Bible that can give us the date of creation and thus the date of the flood).

We can easily examine (and do it "scientifically") the evidence to see if there was a global flood at that time that killed everybody except for 8 people in a single boat and find it isn't true.

You even agree that this has been done...or did you mean something else when you said, "been proven wrong"?

So congratulations, Tangle. You now agree with me that you can disprove the existence of god. One wonders why you didn't pick up on that the multiple times I directly stated so in this thread. Of course, this leads one to question if you still stand by your original claim: God cannot be disproven?

Uh-oh...we're back to the definition you refuse to give: In order for "god" to be disproven, we need an agreed-upon definition of "god."

What is your definition of "god"? You're the one that said god can't be disproven, but we were clearly able to do so once we had a definition of "god" to go on. You did it yourself.

Is there a reason why you deny that which you were able to do?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Tangle, posted 02-28-2018 1:30 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Tangle, posted 03-04-2018 2:27 AM Rrhain has responded

    
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019