A Proof That God Exists

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1162 Apr 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Aristotle's view did not rely on logic - it relied on physical attributes of the universe, which he had wrong.
But he *thought* it relied on logic. That is the problem: people *think* their ideas are based on logic when they are not. They are based on *assumptions* which may or may not be correct.
Your use of this example is not an indictment of logic. Your error indicates you might refrain from commenting on the use of logic, since you don't understand it.
I didn't say it was an indictment of logic. I said it was an indictment of what people *think* is logical. Often people think something is logical when it is an unproven assumption that can be wrong.
Stick to infinite-length physical objects, or dividing 10' poles into infinite positive lengths.
At least that's entertaining.
Since you clearly don't understand various aspects of infinity, you are best staying quiet.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1163 Apr 26, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Down the proverbial hatch!
I had a wee bit of Grand Marnier ;)
Fired up a blunt, And enjoyed a superb breakfast!
While I have never indulged in M myself (allergic to smoke), I do understand from my acquaintances who do, that it makes one have a good appetite.

Which is why it's a very, very good drug for people on chemo--which often suppresses the appetite. Which is bad, as people on chemo need all the strength (food) they can keep down.

Bon apatite!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1164 Apr 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, causality works fine in practice. It just doesn't work for your theories.
Just as education works fine in theory, but fails in your experience?

Okay.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1165 Apr 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Aristotle's view did not rely on logic - it relied on physical attributes of the universe, which he had wrong.
Your use of this example is not an indictment of logic. Your error indicates you might refrain from commenting on the use of logic, since you don't understand it.
Stick to infinite-length physical objects, or dividing 10' poles into infinite positive lengths.
At least that's entertaining.
More failed educational experience by you?

Okay.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1166 Apr 26, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
You should have told him that before he died.
Many of the experiments showing he was wrong were done after he died. That can happen in science.

Sorry, but Einstein was simply wrong about QM. His intuition about how the real world works is now known to have been wrong when it comes to QM.

For example, the EPR paradox has actually been tested in experiments and the results were the opposite of what Einstein thought they would be.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1167 Apr 26, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not him that kills us, it's humans, haven't you been listing, know because you're ignorant.
But your ugly god is IN CHARGE, according to your ugly bible.

If that is TRUE?

Then there is no free will-- everyone is just a meat-puppet, with your god pulling the strings.

Making your god the ultimate murderer....

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1168 Apr 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
You guys who claim that quantum events occur uncaused are misleading the reader.
I could explain why that claim is not accurate, but since you already believe it, you don't understand anything about quantum physics, or you are just lying.
And YOU writing in plain ENGLISH is misleading to everyone--

-- it implies you have a WORKING brain, when clearly, you do not.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1169 Apr 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please supply a definition of the word 'cause' that allows quantum events to be caused.
Alternatively, please explain, using whatever material from QM that you wish, to explain why the statement that QM is an acausal theory is inaccurate.
I understood more about quantum physics when I was 13 years old than you ever will.
I strongly suspect your dog (or cat) understands more about quantum theory than Buck ever will....

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1170 Apr 26, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
And my thinking is the one very ancient! Even before Aristotle the Bible already claimed that the universe had a beginning. The cosmologists preferred the modern Aristotelian theory that the universe was rather eternal without a biginnin and without an end. In 1922 a Catholic theist priest fixed their mistake by proving the Bible was right all the time by theorizing that the BB gave origin to the universe and the Cosmologists changed their minds to adopt the theory of the Catholic priest. How can someone be proud of scientific theories?
Many religions said the world has a beginning. And LeMaitre did NOT prove his ideas are correct. They are definitely a good model for later stages of the expansion of the universe, but they did not include quantum aspects so are *known* to be incomplete.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1171 Apr 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
<quoted text>
Compounded wrongness.
<quoted text>
Assumes that time is around for causality to be relevant. Wrong yet again.
<quoted text>
Sorry, but you are simply wrong yet again. There is no logical problem with an infinite sequence of past events.
It is safe to assume that Buck is wrong with every post, and then, it's easier to check for that random chance where he is accidentally not-wrong.

:)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1172 Apr 26, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
----
I would not say straightforwardly that they are lying because I don't have an atheistic tongue but they are misguided by their own preconceived notions.
Funny, I would say the same thing about people who claim everything must be caused. They are misguided by their own preconceived notions.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1173 Apr 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
Since you clearly don't understand various aspects of infinity, you are best staying quiet.
This?

This statement of yours?

I am >>so<< going to submit it for Understatement of the Year award.

:D

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1174 Apr 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I strongly suspect your dog (or cat) understands more about quantum theory than Buck ever will....
http://claesjohnsonmathscience.files.wordpres...

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1175 Apr 26, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the theist troll coward who can't prove his god and tried to take potshots at atheists.
Do yourself a favour and see if you can hold a proper conversation here and actually answer the people you accuse here..
No, Lincoln is right. Responding to even the lamest of very off-topic jokes (and that one certainly qualifies) as though it were a serious comment is pretty clueless.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1176 Apr 26, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Logic tells me that every thing is caused by something else and that nothing can cause itself.
Logic or intuition? Many people confuse the two.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1177 Apr 26, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
Your paranoia about talking serpents and lizards only shows how much you understand of metaphorical language or poetic similes. Sad!
Is this an acknowledgment that many of the early Bible stories are allegories and not literally true?
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#1178 Apr 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
But your ugly god is IN CHARGE, according to your ugly bible.
If that is TRUE?
Then there is no free will-- everyone is just a meat-puppet, with your god pulling the strings.
Making your god the ultimate murderer....
That was written to someone else, but I wanted to say hi to you, since I have been busy and off the internet for so long.
You refer to the horrid God of the big three religions, I assume. It seems to be horrid in all three, but theoretically, ethically, philosophically worse in the basic dogmas of Christianity. Fr most Christians at least their God is the evil being, and they do not think it commands them to do murders in order to go to heaven, though I suspect there are exceptions who still use that excuse. But ethically, if it forgives murderers, it is not putting out a very good deterrent (sp) is it? At least it does not promise rewards.

On a related subject. I am realizing that I am against the death penalty in most cases, even some of the big ones now. I think the best thing to do with some of these folks - not to name names and inflame those who hate them and want them to sufffer and die - is to put them in a special facility, where psychologists and trained medical doctors and psychiatrists can study them, test them, talk to them - and not hurt them - and try out various types of possible nonhurtful therapies to see if they can be changed in attitudes, character, personality, or whatever. Getting some folks off of the worst of their religion and on to the best of it - which is there in small doses even in the big three - would be required too, I suspect. But hormones and chemical imbalances of various kinds are also possible.
I have lousy glasses on so forgive the typos - hard to read my own comment!
You know I agree with you on most matters - espeically what you oppose. I still insist that agnostic atheist is the sensible philosophical view - not believing but not claiming to know. There is one definition of a god that I still like to propose to see what the reaction - that it is a name for all that exists. Obviously it would then exist. It would include all that is - even beyond our own concepts of existence, and thus would not be a mere little thing like a teapot in space, which might not be, or an important thing like a cat, which excludes dogs, equally or more important. I'd rather take my chnces with a border colie thatn anything else as a mere creature turned into a dog. I would expect to be created and maintained in very good health with great runing spead and a playful sense of humor, though I suppose I might have to put up with being herded into a pen with like beings at times. I may try to get back Sat. if you reply

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#1179 Apr 26, 2013
&fe ature=player_detailpage
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#1180 Apr 26, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Lincoln is right. Responding to even the lamest of very off-topic jokes (and that one certainly qualifies) as though it were a serious comment is pretty clueless.
hello to you again also. glad to see you still here. I still do not approve of skeptic, partly because he seems to insist he knows, which does not seem very skeptical. also because his comments are off-color rather than off-topic, and I can take that sort of thing only when bleeped out from Jon S or Colbert. I recommend them recently. They have to be very clever and wise to get across their semi-contrarian views on current matters.

I also recommend Chris Hayes, before Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. He dared to report on the chemical fire and how many people were killed and what the degree of negligence was. He did not dare to put together the capitalist negligence, with the Bush Admin (Cheney's son in law blocked good regulation of chemical plants) negligence, and come up with any comparison of which element in our society is the real terrorist enemy of our country. I say it is Ted Cruz, and Cheney-types (Bush is a bit too dumb to despise quite so thouroughly).

Whatever one's views on religion, I still put ethics first, and would prefer a radical believer who is for kindness rather than hatred or complacency, to a hatefuilled atheist or even agnostic.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1181 Apr 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But he *thought* it relied on logic. That is the problem: people *think* their ideas are based on logic when they are not. They are based on *assumptions* which may or may not be correct.
<quoted text>
I didn't say it was an indictment of logic. I said it was an indictment of what people *think* is logical. Often people think something is logical when it is an unproven assumption that can be wrong.
<quoted text>
Since you clearly don't understand various aspects of infinity, you are best staying quiet.
So true.

A logical progression always begins with at least one premise. To invalidate that progression's conclusion, one either shows the logic to be flawed or the premise to be questionable. That done, one can support an alternative conclusion with more solid premises and better logic. But attacking a logical progression by making unsupported counter-assertions, as is often seen here, leaves the original progression intact.

So many people claim that logic supports a point of view but fail to show that logic. One of the defining qualities of logic is that it can be expressed and delineated. Yet when challenged to "show their work," so to speak, few can produce said logic.

Odd, that, don't you think?

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 7 min Aerobatty 243,102
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 28 min Brian_G 19,744
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr NoahLovesU 9,227
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr ChristineM 2,283
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 1 hr NoahLovesU 6,172
Should atheists have the burden of proof? 7 hr superwilly 18
John 3:16 16 hr superwilly 30
More from around the web