Proof of God

@neologist,

Neo...do yourself a favor.

Acknowledge you were wrong when you asserted that it was illogical to suppose a negative can be proven.

Fact is, a negative assertion can be proven the same way a positive assertion can be.

It won't hurt to acknowledge you were wrong...and the Earth will not stop spinning on its axis. (You can prove that negative by making the acknowledgement...and seeing what happens.)

1 Reply

@neologist,

Notwithstanding Franks inevitable semantics arguement that will surely follow...Heisenbergs uncertainty principle proves that an omnisceint being cannot exist. For if it did, this universe would not.
Also, the fact that you have free will precludes the exisitance of that same omnisceint being.

Also, among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I just agreed, Frank.

But, it applies differently in areas of theology.

You simply can't prove God does not exist. Nor can you use that assertion that prove God does exist.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

I'm not sure where you get your straw from, but you have a decent supplier it would seem.

Smiley,
bein' playful

0 Replies

@giujohn,

God is not omniscient by the usual definition of the word because it implies necessity, that God has no choice in the matter.

Why go to the movie if you've already seen it?

1 Reply

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

Notwithstanding Franks inevitable semantics arguement that will surely follow...Heisenbergs uncertainty principle proves that an omnisceint being cannot exist. For if it did, this universe would not.
Also, the fact that you have free will precludes the exisitance of that same omnisceint being.

Oh...so Heisenberg said an omnisceint being cannot exist. (What a blatant appeal to authority.)

Well that should settle it, because you are soon going to prove that Heisenberg was never ever wrong about anything in his life, right?

And then you are going to prove that the only kind of god that can possibly exist...is an omniscient one?

And this pathetic attempt at arguing his case was filled with spelling errors, incredibly including: arguement, omnisceint (twice), and exisitance.)

Gimme a break will ya!

Go talk about movies or television programs, John. Stick to what you are good at.

Quote:

Also, among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero.

Funny, I just read a paper written by Steven D. Hales, a logician and a university professor of Philosophy who wrote:

Quote:

" But there is one big, fat problem with all this (saying that one cannot prove a negative). Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. "

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

You do not know what you are talking about, John.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

I just agreed, Frank.

But, it applies differently in areas of theology.

You simply can't prove God does not exist. Nor can you use that assertion that prove God does exist.

One most assuredly CANNOT prove that a GOD does not exist. And one cannot logically use that to prove that a GOD does exist.

The fact that one cannot prove some negative assertions...does not show that negative assertions cannot be proved...as you asserted. Keep in mind that many positive assertions cannot be proven either.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Would you agree there are certain negatives that cannot be proved, some which may be proved, and that they have distinct qualities?

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Would you agree there are certain negatives that cannot be proved, some which may be proved, and that they have distinct qualities?

Essentially, YES. I would agree that there are certain negative (and positive) assertions that cannot be proved...and that there are some of both that can be proved.

The reason some of the negative and positive assertions cannot be proved...is that they do have distinct qualities.

What does this have to do with your statement:

Quote:

“Neither of you Einsteins seem to comprehend the logical impossibility of proving a negative”

…which was one hundred percent, absolutely, totally incorrect?

Just be a man here, Neo…and acknowledge that you were completely wrong in what you said.

You will look much the better for it.

Doing what you are doing here makes you look like a loser.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

God is not omniscient by the usual definition of the word

If there exisists a being that is NOT omnipotent why are you worshiping it? Whats all the fuss about?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Well that should settle it, because you are soon going to prove that Heisenberg was never ever wrong about anything in his life, right?

The mathmetics regarding HUP are incontrovertible. HUP had been EMPERICALLY PROVED in numerous labratories and has NEVER been proved wrong. The reason for that is that it is a PRINCIPLE, a law of the nature of the universe and cant be changed. It wasnt "invented" by Heisenberg so him being wrong on something is moot.

Are we back on my spelling frunk? Give me a break.

I wrote:

Quote:

Also, among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero.

You wrote:

" But there is one big, fat problem with all this (saying that one cannot prove a negative). Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. "

Quote:

You do not know what you are talking about, John.

Uh frunk...I agreed w/ Mr. Hale...are you having a problem with dementia again?

1 Reply

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

Quote:
Well that should settle it, because you are soon going to prove that Heisenberg was never ever wrong about anything in his life, right?

The mathmetics regarding HUP are incontrovertible. HUP had been EMPERICALLY PROVED in numerous labratories and has NEVER been proved wrong. The reason for that is that it is a PRINCIPLE, a law of the nature of the universe and cant be changed. It wasnt "invented" by Heisenberg so him being wrong on something is moot.

Are we back on my spelling frunk? Give me a break.

I'll wait until you prove that Heisenberg was never wrong about anything...otherwise I will laugh at the notion that he (and you) have settled the question.

And yes, your spelling and composition suck. You show no respect for your own work...so why should anyone else pay it any respect?

Quote:

I wrote:

Quote:
Also, among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero.

You wrote:

" But there is one big, fat problem with all this (saying that one cannot prove a negative). Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. "

Quote:
You do not know what you are talking about, John.

Uh frunk...I agreed w/ Mr. Hale...are you having a problem with dementia again?

Ummm...John...you were not "agreeing with him"...you were stealing his wording. You didn't attribute it to him...in fact you never mentioned him. I was showing that you did...and provided a link to the professor said. You know...the stuff you copied and tried to pass off as a comment of your own.

The "You do not know what you are talking about, John." applied to your entire post...not just to the part you plagiarized.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

And yes, your spelling and composition suck. You show no respect for your own work...so why should anyone else pay it any respect?

Oh and BTW Frunk, if you are going to start the rock throwing about a few spelling errors remember the old adage about glass abodes.

Quote:

One certainly could. And if you ? any ethics...you would at least attempt to do that, rather than calling it a "firm belief."

Seem to be missing an adverb here Frunk.

Quote:

Ummm...John...you were not "agreeing with him"...you were stealing his wording.

You gonna lock me up Sheriff?

0 Replies

@Patches,

Patches wrote:

Another one of your lies. I would send a child to a good doctor and pray.

Well, you earlier refused to answer the question about faith healing, so I considered it reasonable to presume that you were one and was trying to avoid the stigma. If you're not one, I'll drop it. I'm not particularly interested in what delusions rattle around between your ears as long as they don't lead you to harm anyone else.

Oh, and threatening a non-believer with eternal hellfire and damnation?

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/coffeescreen.gif

0 Replies

Here's something that I think has been overlooked so far (I may have missed it on an earlier page). If you have proof of a god, then you have knowledge that it exists, and therefore it is impossible to have faith in it. It's absurd to claim to have faith that 2+2=4 or that distilled water boils at 100 °C @ 1 atm (sea level). The evidence for either is overwhelming, so it is knowledge. If you have doubts about either one, there's a way to test it out. However, faith is essential to the Abrahamic religions. So if you have proof, you have destroyed faith.

Hebrews 11:6: "Without faith it is impossible to please [God], for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

Therefore, by claiming to have proof, someone would be setting him/herself up as the Antichrist. Prove your god and you'll burn in hell for it.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/fest42.gif

1 Reply

@FBM,

You are equating faith with credulity.
Patch already has enough credulity to last a while
Let me get to this later
I'm tired

1 Reply

@neologist,

I don't see how I'm equating or conflating the two. Faith is faith whether you're otherwise a credulous person or not.

1 Reply

Elijah Ascends to Heaven

2 KINGS 2:1. And when it came to pass, when the LORD was about to take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind,...

http://wanderingdanny.com/east-africa/p/b3180682-whirlwind.jpg

Elijah would have traveled in a spiritual whirlwind (tunnel) on his way to heaven.

2 KINGS 2:11. ...Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

0 Replies

So now the thread has degraded to outright preaching.

1 Reply

@FBM,

There are tunnels leading to the darkness of hell as well. One could have your name on it.

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know