When Will Evolutionists Confess Their...

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#1079 Jul 5, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ho he, what? Evidence? By a creationist? Where? Unique! NEVER seen before! Where, where! Must see!(trumpet barking) Should have missed the most remarkable moment of last few centuries, creationists coming up with evidence!
Oh, Gödel. Sigh (disappointed). That one.
It is not evidence, it is reasoning. It is ontological proof, based on a set of axioms. An axiom or postulate define and delimit the realm of ANALYSIS; the relative truth of an axiom is TAKEN FOR GRANTED within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other relative truths.
The axioms of Gödel's ontological proof for god are:
1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
3: The property of being God-like is positive
4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
5: Necessary existence is a positive property.
Axioms are allowed (you have to start your reasoning SOMEWHERE after all) if they are evidently true or based on empirical evidence.
You can prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster also by Gödel's ontological proof. The only assumption to accomplish that is axiom 3: "the property of being Flying Spaghetti Monster-like is positive". In other words, the proof tells us It tells us nothing of the nature of that concept or how we should act differently based on that nature. You could replace "positive" by pretty much any set of properties which fit the axioms, assert that "necessary existence" is part of that set, and then conclude that some entity necessarily exists that exhibits all these properties. Even so, "positive" in the moral sense seems to violate several axioms, at least intuitively.
Even so, "positive" in the moral sense seems to violate several axioms, at least intuitively.
For instance, to respect one's properties is positive. But let's take an example. During the great Irish famine in the 19th century, a slight one million people died of starvation in less than a decade and another million or so emigrated while the English landowners exported vast amounts of food on a daily basis from the harbours of Galway, Cobh and Dún Loaghaire. The aid the starving people received was of an immoral low impact.
Now I would find it of moral standing if some guys robbed a grain bin of those landowners to feed their children and families.
Moral virtue is highly contextual and depending on the circumstances.
I won't go into the other axioms but several of them are disputable and even contradicting each other when applied to any property, like "morality".
Shortly, I didn't ask for reasoning, but EMPIRICAL evidence.
Bah, disappointed again.
He doesn't understand the difference between this argument and fact. Just as he doesn't understand the difference between opinion and fact.

Nice post. I like the potato famine analogy.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1080 Jul 5, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> Do you understand the meaning of the words 'REPUTABLE MATHEMATICIAN '? Why would one confuse those two words with 'imbecile'??
Do you understand that even a reputable mathematician can make terribly flawed arguments? He based his argument on false axioms. Garbage In Garbage Out.

In the same way every creationist odds argument that I have ever seen can be debunked. You don't have to show that the math is wrong, you only have to show that the premises or axioms are bogus. Godel had obviously bogus axioms.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1081 Jul 5, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> Do you know of any REPUTABLE mathematician who disagrees with Godel on this work? Cant you see your intelligent friends have all ran away ?
And did you read that linked article. It does not look like any REPUTABLE mathematicians support Godel.

Now just for fun let's pretend that Godel had a valid argument, we all know of curse that he did not, That does not mean that the God he "proved" is your God. In fact the God of the Bible can be disproved by that sort of argument. Your God fails the problem of evil. If he is all powerful (a logical impossibility) and all knowing then he is to blame for everything wrong with the world along with everything right with the world. He is literally both Satan and Jesus.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#1082 Jul 5, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> Do you understand the meaning of the words 'REPUTABLE MATHEMATICIAN '? Why would one confuse those two words with 'imbecile'??
IRRELEVANT.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#1083 Jul 5, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> Stupid blind fools !! Hell bound imbeciles !! Ya ll get your pay check soon. And ya ll love it real bad. Ya ll fill the black hole that is hell with screams for eons. Wait, just a little bit longer. Wait !!!
And here we see how psychologically disturbed, sick and hateful are the followers of Jesus.

Enjoy your sick, Torturer God for all eternity. You and he are well-suited to one another! LOL

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1084 Jul 5, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>What makes you think that Goedel wrote a proof of the existence of God?
That is a new one on me.
Yes, he actually did.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1085 Jul 5, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> Do you know of any REPUTABLE mathematician who disagrees with Godel on this work? Cant you see your intelligent friends have all ran away ?
Actually, I don't know of any mathematicians that agree with Goedel on this particular issue.

His early work in logic was impeccable, but in his later years he was certifiably insane--to the point of starving himself to death. Many modern mathematicians disagree with his philosophical stance of Platonism in mathematics and certainly don't buy his arguments in theology. And, by the way, this is NOT a mathematical argument at all.

So while Goedel was definitely a genius and produced some of the deeper results in logic for the first half of the 20th century, his later life was not so logical or even happy. And his philosophical notions, including his theology have not won the minds of more recent mathematicians.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1086 Jul 5, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I recognize you are a zealot that no logical, reasonable or factual argument will cure you of, but it always fascinates me how much science and math, deniers of science use to support their religious views.
Goedel gave a mathematical representation of a philosophical argument (ontological). The math may be very well done, but the axioms behind the math are not sacrosanct and are questionable. The concepts of necessity and positivity are vague. They are subjective. How can they be observed and describe objectively? I doubt you will notice these pertinent points because you consider this is another immutable proof of your belief and your belief says that any proof of it is immutable.
It would take some study for me to even begin to question (or understand in some cases) the math, but you are using that as a smoke screen to cover the weakness of your own argument as noted by your challenge to mathematicians. I doubt you understand the math or would know what a or who is a reputable mathematician. Or even if one so lofty is required.
You are just another street corner preacher ranting that we are all doomed.
Goedel's version of the ontological proof is definitely NOT a mathematical proof. It is ultimately based on modal logic, which is the least verifiable aspect of modern logic and the part that is most hotly disputed. We could also mention Platenga's arguments at the same time. The problem is that the proof form itself is invalid: there is no such thing as 'necessary existence': it is always dependent on the existence of the universe and hence is derivative from that existence, not superior to it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1087 Jul 5, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> Do you understand the meaning of the words 'REPUTABLE MATHEMATICIAN '? Why would one confuse those two words with 'imbecile'??
I now a great number of reputable mathematicians and have read the opinions of many more. Sorry, Goedel's arguments don't convince them--even the theists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1088 Jul 5, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, he actually did.
Yes, I know. I am not a creatard and looked it up before TurkanaBoy linked the same article that I had already linked.. When religion gets involved even normally sensible people lost it Godel has a series of crappy axioms based his "proof" upon them. For all practical purposes his argument was simply an argument from ignorance.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1089 Jul 5, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I know. I am not a creatard and looked it up before TurkanaBoy linked the same article that I had already linked.. When religion gets involved even normally sensible people lost it Godel has a series of crappy axioms based his "proof" upon them. For all practical purposes his argument was simply an argument from ignorance.
I think most people today see that particular argument as the evidence of a cracked mind. Given the details of Goedel's later life, it is actually rather sad.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#1090 Jul 5, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I know. I am not a creatard and looked it up before TurkanaBoy linked the same article that I had already linked.. When religion gets involved even normally sensible people lost it Godel has a series of crappy axioms based his "proof" upon them. For all practical purposes his argument was simply an argument from ignorance.
you lying jack wagon!

you had no clue. you should have looked at them both then you could have seen they werfe different links.

your link was to "kurt gödel"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del

tboys link was to gödel's ontological proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_o...

i do think lying is your first language. you lie on every thread.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#1091 Jul 5, 2014
Rabbit On Crack wrote:
Man made tests on dug up fossils. Man made tests tailored to what they want to see. Man made tests tailored to produce what they want them to be.
<quoted text>
Rasshole! This evidence shows you are a rasshole.
<quoted text>
This evidence shows you are a jealous rasshole.
Money is given freely to religion from the people out of their pocket.*given freely
Yes, given freely by gullible naive fundies who want to give money to people who will tell them they're heading for paradise after they die.

While the people who take it from them know it's a promise they can't guarantee, but it doesn't matter because they're heading for paradise while they're alive. Because now they have all their money.
Rabbit On Crack wrote:
Money taken from the same people is given to science from the government.*taken
Um, NOT quite the case, Lago. Money may be taken by the Government to pay for public services, such as public school education. In which they may teach evolution.

HOWEVER.

Evolutionary research will be paid for by large organisations, who use their knowledge to search for oil, expensive fossils, new antibiotics, etc, etc - these organisations do NOT waste money on baseless research that turns up no results for 150 + years. They expect to see RETURNS on their investment. And so will only grant research grants as long as they get something back for it. If evolution didn't work they would have stopped sending money down that pit LONG ago.

The fact that they DON'T should tell you something.

There's a REASON why oil companies don't give Young Earthers thousands of dollars to find oil deposits.

And it's got SWEET FA to do with atheism.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#1092 Jul 5, 2014
Rabbit On Crack wrote:
<quoted text>
We are nothing but mere ants in His universe and on His earth. God gave this all to us including life.
Your evidence is nothing more than Man made tests on the past. Man made tests tailored to what they want to see. Man made tests tailored to produce what results they want them to be.
If that WAS the case, science would never work.

Which is why you're not talking to us using your computer right now.

By the way: Can you present some objectively verifiable evidence that this "God" entity of yours even exists?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#1093 Jul 5, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
So all Atheists are liars. All Christians are liars. All Muslims are liars. All Jews are liars. And so on and so forth. So why not just say all people are liars to save time?
Which means all creationists are liars.

The thing to remember is, creationists lie more than anybody.

Just ask our Ken.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#1094 Jul 5, 2014
Rabbit On Crack wrote:
<quoted text>
Your evidence is nothing but Man made tests. Man made tests tailored to what they want to see. Man made tests tailored to produce the results they want them to be.
Man is erroneous all the time. Man is not perfect. Man’s tests are not perfect. Man made tests tailored to what they want to see. Man made tests tailored to produce the results they want them to be.
If man is erroneous all the time then science wouldn't work.

But somehow we have managed to develop antibiotics. Somehow we have managed to extend life to double what it was centuries ago. Somehow we have managed to set foot on the moon. Somehow we have managed to communicate with each other across the globe in a matter of micro-seconds.

And yet apparently all science is some great worldwide atheistic conspiracy.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#1095 Jul 5, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> You all conveniently did not see this post. Huh ! Turkanaboy shouted his voice hoarse asking for evidence then subtly turns away when supplied with one.Stupid blind fools !! Hell bound imbeciles !! Ya ll get your pay check soon. And ya ll love it real bad. Ya ll fill the black hole that is hell with screams for eons. Wait, just a little bit longer. Wait !!!
Yes, your fundamentalist revenge fantasy is most endearing.

We will all burn in hell for DARING to disagree with YOU!

But um... who are you again?

Feel free to stop lying to us all and answer my goddamm questions.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#1096 Jul 5, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
<quoted text> Do you understand the meaning of the words 'REPUTABLE MATHEMATICIAN '? Why would one confuse those two words with 'imbecile'??
What does math have to do with reality?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#1097 Jul 5, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Goedel's version of the ontological proof is definitely NOT a mathematical proof. It is ultimately based on modal logic, which is the least verifiable aspect of modern logic and the part that is most hotly disputed. We could also mention Platenga's arguments at the same time. The problem is that the proof form itself is invalid: there is no such thing as 'necessary existence': it is always dependent on the existence of the universe and hence is derivative from that existence, not superior to it.
Platinga, as in Alvin Platinga, the ID promoter and general whackjob?

I'm sure the fact he's a philosopher is just a coincidence.

“Don't Like Bumping Your Butt?”

Since: Jul 14

Stop Hopping Down The Trail!

#1098 Jul 5, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Which means all creationists are liars.
The thing to remember is, creationists lie more than anybody.
Just ask our Ken.
According to that whacky wabbit all people are lairs. I wonder if he included his little furry butt in there too.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 26 min Wow 164,778
proof of gods existence .....or lack there of 1 hr Dogen 112
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr thetruth 19,147
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 10 hr kelly008 178,621
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Mon dirtclod 141,472
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Mon MikeF 490
When is Quote Mining Justified? May 31 Zog Has-fallen 28
More from around the web