Thread: What the-?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Those are the same things, son.

Showing your ignorance doesn't make you right. (...and son? Try not to be so condescending, if you're really old enough to call me son, then you should be ashamed at your ignorance, on the other hand if you are not old enough to call me son, then don't bother.)


OK here's a child's example of how proving a negative and disproving a positive work:

Claim: There's an invisible elephant in the room that can't be perceived in any way. This elephant also made the room from nothing (Sound familiar?)

OK, to prove the negative (there is definitely no elephant) I can say, "I can see there's obviously no Elephant in the room." But what of other rooms in a multi-verse, have I checked them? Maybe my eyes can't see this elephant for whatever reason. Maybe I'll have to wait forever and the elephant will appear spontaneously somewhere down the line. Yadda yadda yadda point is, I can't conclusively say there's no elephant in the room.

To disprove the positive (there is no reason to believe that the elephant exists) I can say, "Well, there is the evidence that the elephant didn't make the room (point at evidence for a contractor making the room). This will make me doubt any other claim about said elephant. Also I can see no evidence that supports an elephant making and inhabiting this room, therefore there is probably not an invisible elephant in the room."

Do you see the difference?

If it's a yes, then your comments earlier don't make sense, if it's a no, then your comments after this won't make sense.

Will you people please learn to use the multi-quote button instead of making a separate post for each quote you respond to?

Hint

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I guess this is supposed to be some kind of (not so) clever joke...

Awwww, did something as simple as Einstein's theory of relativity go over your head?

Since when does the theory of relativity disprove the existence of god?

lmao

I think he's making the point that God would have killed Einstein if he had found out that Einstein was intending to blow the cover off of the mechanisms of his greatest creation. I mean, I'd be pretty pissed if someone would just go ahead and analyze the greatest piece of art I ever made. God would be pissed too. Einstein published his theory safely, thus God does not exist.

For the sake of his dignity, I hope that that was not what he meant.

I want somebody to tell me how the relativity equations don't prove the nonexistence of God. I see people asking how they do, but I am asking you to tell me how they don't. You need to start by explaining what the equations mean and explain a summary of the proof. If you can't do that, then you can't argue and the proof that God does not exist still stands.

For the sake of his dignity, I hope that that was not what he meant.

He was making the point that we know how the world works, we don't need god just advance physics and mathematics. Put it this way, god doesn't hold us to the ground, matter bending spacetime does.

only three people in the world understand and calling it proof of God's nonexistence.

What three people?
Seriously, this better be a joke. Lots of people understand Einstein, look at every university degree in physics and Einstein theory of general relativity is on it.

Originally Posted by wendylove

What three people?
Seriously, this better be a joke. Lots of people understand Einstein, look at every university degree in physics and Einstein theory of general relativity is on it.

Who said anything about three people?

Last edited by Universal Mind : Today at 05:08 PM.

Who said anything about three people?

Well, atleast you change your post to make it correct. Seriously, you redeemed yourself. Since everyone would assume I am incorrect and that you didn't mention about only three people understand Einstein work. However, you edited your post.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I want somebody to tell me how the relativity equations don't prove the nonexistence of God. I see people asking how they do, but I am asking you to tell me how they don't. You need to start by explaining what the equations mean and explain a summary of the proof. If you can't do that, then you can't argue and the proof that God does not exist still stands.

To be honest, I don't think you understand the theory well enough to back that claim up, which is why you refuse to explain yourself. And I also believe that you are banking on the fact that others do not suffiently understand the equation either, meaning you think you can claim whatever you want (be it true of false) and assert that its true because we can't explain the equation good enough to debunk the assertion.

But you forget that the burden of proof in on the person making the claim, and you claim that this equation disproves the existence of god. So far, I haven't actually made the claim that the equation doesn't disprove god, I merely asked how it did (which is asking a question, not stating a claim).

And even if someone did claim that the equation doesn't disprove the existence of God, obviously they did this after you made the initial claim, meaning that, in either case, you need to substantiate your claim for such a claim to be considered true. This is the exact same flaw atheism is based off of, and this is one more example of why its a flaw.

So if you want to play that game, so be it. On the contrary, the theory of relativity actually proves that a creator exists. And until you can prove it otherwise, then this proof of God's existence stands.

Originally Posted by wendylove

He was making the point that we know how the world works, we don't need god just advance physics and mathematics. Put it this way, god doesn't hold us to the ground, matter bending spacetime does.

All science has been able to do so far is explain how/why certain phenomena are natural occurances. But, it hasn't been able to tackle the question of the ultimate nature of "nature", which is why science is far from debunking the notion of a creator, assuming science is even able debunk that which is beyound its means to begin with.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Well, atleast you change your post to make it correct. Seriously, you redeemed yourself. Since everyone would assume I am incorrect and that you didn't mention about only three people understand Einstein work.

Stop making stuff up.

Originally Posted by ethen

the burden of proof in on the person making the claim

Are you sure about that?

Let me guess, this is the part where you tell me to prove that claim in a "clever" attempt to dodge your own responcibility, yet in so doing, unintentionally proving my point for me, by asserting it's truth against me, and thus putting yourself right back in the hot seat without even knowing it.

Am I close?

which is why science is far from debunking the notion of a creator, assuming science is even able debunk that which is beyound its means to begin with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Everything
When we know the theory of everything, if god is not in that theory then we can assume it doesn't exsist. Like if we searched a room at every possible location and found no missing boy, it is safer to say that boy is not in the room. Now change search with theory and room with everything and boy with god, once we have the theory of everything it safe to say that god does not exsist.

Saying that I think your right brain can't understand it, do you agree Universal Mind. Note it is a joke.

Proof of God will never exist, and thats the way it is supposed to be.

Example: Christ claimed to be able to move mountains with his faith, even if you had faith the size of a mustard seed (most people are familiar with this passage)

Well, what was stopping him from moving mountains? Surely people would not doubt He was the Son of God if he moved a fucking mountian.

There is a reason God doesn't pop out of the sky and say "Y Helloh thar! I am God!" You aren't going to understand God unless you excersize faith, and you will never find God unless you search.

If the religious think they can prove God (creationism "science") then they missed the point of what they are trying to prove. If atheism only looks for evidence, then they have no faith, and thus will never find God. God gives us hints all around us, but never undisputed proof. It's just not the point of God, arguing about it is exhausting.

Originally Posted by wendylove

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Everything
When we know the theory of everything, if god is not in that theory then we can assume it doesn't exsist. Like if we searched a room at every possible location and found no missing boy, it is safer to say that boy is not in the room. Now change search with theory and room with everything and boy with god, once we have the theory of everything it safe to say that god does not exsist.

All the T.O.E. claims to do is link all know natural phenomena together. But, it doesn't make a claim regarding the ultimate origins of nature itself. The TOE simply doesn't go that far. Or in other words, it attempts to create an all-emcompassing "web" of science explaining everything in that web, but not the web itself. And in addition to this, the TOE is strictly physical, meaning anything supernatural would be outside of this physical web anways, no matter how complete and "seemless" the web may seem to be.

All the theory of everything can do, as best, is show there is a web. It can't, however, explain why that web "is".

Originally Posted by ethen

Let me guess, this is the part where you tell me to prove that claim in a "clever" attempt to dodge your own responcibility, yet in so doing, unintentionally proving my point for me, by asserting it's truth against me, and thus putting yourself right back in the hot seat without even knowing it.

Am I close?

No.

I already showed the formal proof that God does not exist. I haven't seen anybody disprove the theory of relativity yet.

Not to any more of an extent than what I have done using the same theory, but asserting the opposite claim.

All the T.O.E. claims to do is link all know natural phenomena together. But, it doesn't make a claim regarding the ultimate origins of nature itself. The TOE simply doesn't go that far. Or in other words, it attempts to create an all-emcompassing "web" of science explaining everything in that web, but not the web itself. And in addition to this, the TOE is strictly physical, meaning anything supernatural would be outside of this physical web anways, no matter how complete and "seemless" the web may seem to be.

This is totally wrong. If the TOE was discovered it would explain how it caim to be. Like how gravity explains how gravity caim to be i.e. gravity comes from matter. Your second question seems abit silly, say we have a TOE and that explain everything why were here e.t.c. Now someone comes along and says where is god, you could claim he is supernatural, however that like claiming god holds us to the ground even though we know that gravity holds us to the ground. If we know everything i.e. the TOE then it would be pointless saying their is a god as we know everything and can explain everything without him.

Originally Posted by ethen

Not to any more of an extent than what I have done using the same theory, but asserting the opposite claim.

So if I were to claim that God exists, the burden of proof would be on me to prove it and not on the nonbelievers to disprove it?

So you are saying that the TOE can explain the ultimate origins of the universe?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So if I were to claim that God exists, the burden of proof would be on me to prove it and not on the nonbelievers to disprove it?

If such a claim was a scientific one, then yes. You cannot scientifically prove that something doesn't exist (I can explain further if you would like). All you can do is prove that something does exist, and in some cases, doing that disproves a contradictory claim as a result. But nothing has yet been proven that contradict the notion of a creator, and theorectically nothing can because proof is strictly physical, and there is a theorectical possibility that a creator could be supernatural in nature.

So you are saying that the TOE can explain the ultimate origins of the universe?

Yes it can.
http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/time.htm
If Hawkings imaginary time theory is true then we know the origins of the universe. Note: Imaginary meaning complex number, not imaginary meaning made up.

And when we know what happens at a singularity we would know how the universe was started.

Originally Posted by jaasum

Proof of God will never exist, and thats the way it is supposed to be.

I don't know about "supposed to be" but, that's certainly the way it is and probably always will be.

Well, what was stopping him from moving mountains? Surely people would not doubt He was the Son of God if he moved a fucking mountian.

Good question. What IS stopping him? He was God's lil' squirt, after all. Out of one side of the "believers'" mouths, they claim how God wants every one to believe. Then, out of the other side, the believers claim (by demonstrating - as you just did - how easily he could prove his own existence) that he doesn't have a need to prove his existence. That just doesn't makes sense. And this is why:

There is a reason God doesn't pop out of the sky and say "Y Helloh thar! I am God!" You aren't going to understand God unless you excersize faith, and you will never find God unless you search.

How is "believing" and "having faith" going to make you "understand God"? Understanding comes from being exposed to facts and being able to study said facts. Faith is NOT facts - and therefor - faith doesn't make some one understand, only believe. Faith may allow some one to believe but, believing is NOT the same thing as understanding or even knowing.

If atheism only looks for evidence, then they have no faith, and thus will never find God. God gives us hints all around us, but never undisputed proof.

But, you see, that's the beauty of science. Science doesn't care if you believe or not. Faith does not effect the outcome of science. Likewise, science does not effect one's ability to have faith. What science does is give that potential faith something to focus on, rather than just shooting for the moon and hoping something hits its target. Science tells us WHAT to have faith in because it provides for knowing what is and isn't real.

The body of facts that exist tell us that there are no unicorns. That's science. Science may be wrong but that doesn't mean we should default to the belief that unicorns do exist. Quite the contrary, we should default to knowing that unicorns do not exist unless science somehow proves that they do. You see, science allows for a change in perspective as new evidence is presented: faith does not. Religion is based in dogma, not an ever-evolving web of information. Dogma does not allow for new evidence to be absorbed into the body of knowledge because new knowledge shakes the foundations and renders outdated faith null and void.

I don't say any of this to try to prove anything either way. I only think it's important to understand that the religious front is on far shakier ground than its non-religious counterpart.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Yes it can.
http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/time.htm
If Hawkings imaginary time theory is true then we know the origins of the universe. Note: Imaginary meaning complex number, not imaginary meaning made up.

And when we know what happens at a singularity we would know how the universe was started.

IF that theory is true, then perhaps it can explain the universe. However, the same could be said about creationism IF that were true also. "If" is not proof until verified as such, and Im pretty sure this hasn't happend yet.

Nevertheless, even if natural laws are ultimately shown to be "auto-originating", there are still only three options regarding the ultimate origins of the universe. 1.) the universe came of out of nothingness, 2.) the universe was created by something beyond itself, or 3.) it is infinite.

This theory falls under #1 in the sense that the universe created itself, therfore implying that there was only nothingness prior to this event. But the universe popping out of nothingness only seems to compliment the idea that the universe came from something supernatural, and does #2 and arguably # 3 as well.