Can you prove the existence of God? I do not belive it possible to disprove the existence of God. But can you prove the existence of God? Below is a listing of proofs (somewhat humorus I admit).

Here are a few of my favorites:

CALVINIST ARGUMENT, a.k.a. TERTULLIAN'S ARGUMENT
(1) If God exists, then he will let me watch you be tortured forever.
(2) I rather like that idea.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FERMAT
(1) My proof is so big it doesn't fit into the margins.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

But I would like to here some serious proof and some not so serious proofs.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

FERMAT seems to have gotten it right...

FERMAT couldn't possibly ever concieve of his proof.

I claim it is possible to disprove the existence of "God" as well.

...
...
... I do not belive it possible to disprove the existence of God. ...
...
...

For human claims of 'God', they can all be disproven. For the generic idea of a 'God' it cannot be disproven as it has no falsifiable detail; although, it also has no higher probability of existing than say a dunguness three hundred dimensional tape worm of love.

...but to share it. i should have the time to explain my self and the way how i got to this relution. contact me.
(sorry for my english...always)
god! is a word man to make to understand about knowing nothing and to have fear
fear man get with one only knowledge. to know that one day he will die. and after? this is the main character of mankinds fear.....

god means having fear

...but to share it. i should have the time to explain my self and the way how i got to this relution. contact me.
(sorry for my english...always)
god! is a word man to make to understand about knowing nothing and to have fear
fear man get with one only knowledge. to know that one day he will die. and after? this is the main character of mankinds fear.....

Hear Hear!

I think that many people have their own reasons as to why they believe in God, and I'd like to share mine with the community. When asked the question "Why do you believe in God", my answer is "Because I saw Him". Let me explain.

In March of 2004, my father-in-law was diagnosed with colon cancer. He was given 3 months to live, but he fought, and made it to over a year. On April 29th, 2005 he lost that battle (which was also 4 months before our wedding, but that's another story). It was the next day that I saw God.

My father-in-law was full of life. He was a short, stocky guy who always had a big smile on his face. During the last few weeks of his life, cancer caused him to physically be a shell of his former self. He was literally skin and bones, and the further the disease progressed, the less he looked like himself. And, while he tried, his smile was gone.

The night that he passed, he just looked "asleep". He died at home, so the family stayed the night at my mother-in-law's. The next morning, my wife woke me up with a grin on her face; that was the last thing I thought I would see that day. She asked me to follow her to her parents room, where her dad was. I walked in, and I was floored by what I saw. My father-in-law was smiling. He looked like himself again. Happy. Peaceful. The cancer was gone, and I saw God.

I know that the atheists and agnostics reading this will talk about rigor mortis, and how it's all in my head. How they will diagnose me with being "delusional" during a time of great stress. A diagnoses that comes from thousands of miles away behind a keyboard owned by someone who wasn't even there to experience it firsthand. I did; but of course, according to them, I'm wrong.

There was a time when that would bother me, but no longer. I was there. I saw it. I felt God's presence. I've always been a believer, but that was all the "proof" that I needed.

hahhahaahhahhaahahahahaha:D
these are the worst resons that god exsists i have seen!
i won't convert to christianty yet
:D:D

...
...
...
The night that he passed, he just looked "asleep". He died at home, so the family stayed the night at my mother-in-law's. The next morning, my wife woke me up with a grin on her face; that was the last thing I thought I would see that day. She asked me to follow her to her parents room, where her dad was. I walked in, and I was floored by what I saw. My father-in-law was smiling. He looked like himself again. Happy. Peaceful. The cancer was gone, and I saw God.
...
...
...


It isn't clear but it sounds like you might be implying he was alive and that you took him to a doctor who found the cancer was gone.

people are going sick and are getting good. some people lives some years more some others not. some people die earlier and other tortur they self with oldness years, and die after..... thats the circle of life. thats whats about it. that life.....
i dont know if i see the same way how u see things, but...... this is just my opinion.
of course yours is fully to respect..... if u feel good in that way. sometimes its makes strong and to get over it....of some things.
i have a different way and i think different. im a greek with arcways of thinking. thats makes me a knower. but everys opinion is individual to accept:D

It isn't clear but it sounds like you might be implying he was alive and that you took him to a doctor who found the cancer was gone.

No, that wasn't the implication.

I think that many people have their own reasons as to why they believe in God, and I'd like to share mine with the community. When asked the question "Why do you believe in God", my answer is "Because I saw Him". Let me explain.

In March of 2004, my father-in-law was diagnosed with colon cancer. He was given 3 months to live, but he fought, and made it to over a year. On April 29th, 2005 he lost that battle (which was also 4 months before our wedding, but that's another story). It was the next day that I saw God.

My father-in-law was full of life. He was a short, stocky guy who always had a big smile on his face. During the last few weeks of his life, cancer caused him to physically be a shell of his former self. He was literally skin and bones, and the further the disease progressed, the less he looked like himself. And, while he tried, his smile was gone.

The night that he passed, he just looked "asleep". He died at home, so the family stayed the night at my mother-in-law's. The next morning, my wife woke me up with a grin on her face; that was the last thing I thought I would see that day. She asked me to follow her to her parents room, where her dad was. I walked in, and I was floored by what I saw. My father-in-law was smiling. He looked like himself again. Happy. Peaceful. The cancer was gone, and I saw God.

I know that the atheists and agnostics reading this will talk about rigor mortis, and how it's all in my head. How they will diagnose me with being "delusional" during a time of great stress. A diagnoses that comes from thousands of miles away behind a keyboard owned by someone who wasn't even there to experience it firsthand. I did; but of course, according to them, I'm wrong.

There was a time when that would bother me, but no longer. I was there. I saw it. I felt God's presence. I've always been a believer, but that was all the "proof" that I needed.


While I sympathize with your distressing experience, I must point out that personal experience is no proof of god.'s existence. You were under a lot of stress so you interpreted what you saw in a manner which would reduce your pain.

Why do you feel god chose to reveal himself to you in that way, when millions of people die every day accompanied by no such revelations ?

For me the existence of God is pointed to by the fact that the moon eclispes the sun so perfectly during a total solar eclipse. I don't believe this is coincidence.

why not?

While I sympathize with your distressing experience, I must point out that personal experience is no proof of god.'s existence. You were under a lot of stress so you interpreted what you saw in a manner which would reduce your pain.

Why do you feel god chose to reveal himself to you in that way, when millions of people die every day accompanied by no such revelations ?

That's the same response I was going to give. Many people who go through stressful situations of loved-ones who are very sick, can go through this.

My grandmother past away on july 25th of last year, she went through something of the sort. Her last night with us, she said she seen her husband, her son, and her daughter all of which had died. A hospice group had given us a booklet on what to expect as she goes through the stages of death. The booklet, which was well written, stated that this is caused by re-occuring memories of people she had been close to in life. Her brain was firing off memories basically, it was called "Life Flashing Before Eyes."

A story of a man who denied the existence of Allah:...
This is nothing more than a sophisticated shell game, where you move the definitions wherever science reveals contradictory information. It's the God of the gaps, and it isn't even Islamic.

For me the existence of God is pointed to by the fact that the moon eclispes the sun so perfectly during a total solar eclipse. I don't believe this is coincidence.

Uhm.. it has not always been that way.
And the moon also does not always perfectly eclipse the sun.

The moon moves away from the earth at 3.8 cm/year, which incidentally slows down the rotation of the earth.

No, that wasn't the implication.

How do you know that the cancer was gone then?

How do you know that the cancer was gone then?

Because he was.

I see. By 'gone' you mean 'dead' as opposed to complete and utter absence.

A story of a man who denied the existence of Allah:
It is related that a man who denied the existence of the Creator came once to one of the caliphs and told him: "The scholars of your time say that there is a creator for this universe, and I am prepared to prove to them that this universe has no creator."
The caliph sent for one of the top scholars telling him of the man's claim and ordering him to come. The scholar was purposely late; then he came. The caliph welcomed him and seated him in the center of the session. Present at this meeting were many scholars and important people. So the man said: "Why were you late in your arrival?" The scholar said: "What if I tell you that a very strange matter occurred to me, and because of it I was late? My house is behind the river of Dijlah (Tigris). I came to cross the river, but I did not find anything other than an old boat with broken planks. When my gaze fell onto it, the planks moved, came together, and reassembled so that the boat became seaworthy. All this happened without the work of a carpenter or a worker. I sat in it, crossed the river, and came to this place.”

The man said: "O people, listen to what your scholar says. Have you heard anything more absurd than this? How can a boat exist without a carpenter to build it? This is an explicit lie."
The scholar said: "O blasphemer, if the mind does not accept the existence of a boat without a builder or carpenter, then how do you say that this entire universe exists without a creator?" The man became silent. He was refuted. The caliph punished him because of his bad beliefs.

CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST


Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him.

My Muslim brothers may question me, "Zakir, why are you congratulating an atheist?" The reason that I am congratulating an atheist is because he agrees with the first part of the Shahada i.e. the Islamic Creed, ‘La ilaaha’ - meaning ‘there is no God’. So half my job is already done; now the only part left is ‘il lallah’ i.e. ‘BUT ALLAH’ which I shall do Insha Allah. With others (who are not atheists) I have to first remove from their minds the wrong concept of God they may have and then put the correct concept of one true God.


LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD


My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.

If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.

Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.

(You may refer to my article, ‘Concept of God in Islam’, for more details)


QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE


The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.

Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a revelation of God.

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.

SCIENTIFIC FACTS MENTIONED IN THE QUR’AN: for details on this subject please refer to my book, ‘THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE – COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE?


THEORY OF PROBABILITY


In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.

A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.

Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.

At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.

The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.

Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.



The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.


CREATOR IS THE AUTHOR OF THE QUR’AN


The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the ‘CREATOR’, the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In the English language He is ‘God’, or more appropriate in the Arabic language, ‘ALLAH’.


QUR’AN IS A BOOK OF SIGNS AND NOT SCIENCE


Let me remind you that the Qur’an is not a book of Science, ‘S-C-I-E-N-C-E’ but a book of Signs ‘S-I-G-N-S’ i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur’an contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. ‘signs’, out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur’an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur’an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge.

But for an educated man who is an atheist, scientific knowledge is the ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a times takes ‘U’ turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur’an is the word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur’an was revealed 1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible with it.


SCIENCE IS ELIMINATING MODELS OF GOD BUT NOT GOD


Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a small ‘g’ that is fake god) but God (with a capital ‘G’).

Surah Fussilat:

"Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?"

[Al-Quran 41:53]





1.


All you have done is repeat tired old arguments that have been refuted time and again. Try reading some Western philosophy.

Perception entails conception and what is not percieved is nothing - in concept. But a general understanding or awareness through logic can still be obtained about something. The knowledge that I and the universe are one for example, and that what I percieve can give the illusion of existing in a limited space and time.

The man said: "O people, listen to what your scholar says. Have you heard anything more absurd than this? How can a boat exist without a carpenter to build it? This is an explicit lie."
The scholar said: "O blasphemer, if the mind does not accept the existence of a boat without a builder or carpenter, then how do you say that this entire universe exists without a creator?" So then the man said:
Using YOUR OWN LOGIC God must also have a creator. Who is God's creator?
And the Scholar said (to everyone's shock) F*CK man you figured it out and yes you are right! Yeah yeah, we all know there is no God and it's all a bunch of bullshit - but if we let the little people know this then they may stop doing things for our fat lazy arses - and I think we can all agree we can't have that!

So they both had a beer and agreed to instead end the story like this: "The scholar said: "O blasphemer, if the mind does not accept the existence of a boat without a builder or carpenter, then how do you say that this entire universe exists without a creator?" anyone stupid enough to believe this bullshit about a magical fairy horse flying in the sky are too stupid to recognize the absurdity in their own story. And, to this day, people are still so stupid as to still use this ending thinking it's makes any damn bit of logical sense.


The End,

Michael

PS: I'm not sure if that was an accepted Hadith or not, but if it is it just goes a long way in proving to me just how simplistic Islamic philosophical reasoning is. It's at least 1000 years behind even the ANCIENT GREEK Philosophers. Really, it's so idiotic as to be pathetic.

An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of GodDoes it get any more simple? Just pathetic?

An Atheist LACKS a belief in Gods and Goddesses and other fairy floss bullshit. Just as yourself tresbian: Do you believe in Xenu the intergalactic Warlord that millions of Scientologists worship?

What that's your mind said: NO!!

NO??!!?!?

Gee you must be Atheistic in regards to that particular smell of bullshit.

So, in case you were to simple and missed it, YOU are ATHEIST.
WE are both ATHEIST for all but your one bit of fairy floss that your mommy or daddy or whomever told you to believe in.


Michael


You know, I can see it just goes down hill from here. I'd like to note: SAM, being Muslims, I almost wonder if you cringe at the simplistic (almost childlike) absurdity with which tresbien "proooooooved" God AND the Qur'an are both TRUE. Haaahahahahaa..... now you have an idea where YOU are coming from. The only difference is when backed into a logical corner you either refuse to think or try as hard as possible to define every single word in the sentence to where the debate is to absurd as to have no meaning. What does what mean? What did those words mean that you used to define what and what-a-about those words and those ones and those ones and and and ... anything but to think about the question. Oooo by God I'm stuck time to just ignore the question all together and answer some other question. NEXT time you find yourself in THAT situation just refer back to tresbien's deep and thought provoking LOGICAL POOF of ALLAH and The Qur'an - they're God Damn air tight mathematical proofs!! Hahahahahahaaaa hahahahah aaaaahahahahahaaa hahahaaaa

At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flatAAAHHHHhhhaaaaaHaaaa Haaaaa... yeah, just like discovering zero the Muslims also where the first to discover the Earth was round (this was during the magical Golden Age when all was perfect) and then they also managed to spark the European Renaissance - teaching European about painting styles they didn't know, maths they didn't invent, instruments they never plays, take the Opera or Ballet for example, only here because of Islam.....

:m: one more mate
MII

It seems you're lending your...considerable efforts to the degragation of the discussion.
Alas this is the course of most discussion between opponents, so I doubt you're surprised at the tail-spin. Discussions are often full of logic skewered with BS accusations and riddled through with contempt. Contempt for reason that is. Consistently it is reason and listening ears which are in short supply. Which is why the discussion does not progress. It's not simply due to the opposing nature of the individuals. It's the lack of consideration. Logic, is useless in the face of contemept and obstinance. Reason thus has no through way.

Why did God make a moon with impact craters?

Why did God make a moon with impact craters?

There is beauty in those impact craters! Without the craters, there would be no "man in the moon". Now what would life be like without the Man in the Moon?

The presence of Impact Crators on the moon is evidence of truma as are the fisures that traces thought some region aswell as the massive upwellings of lava. As the Presence of water and craters on the moon and the presence of water and craters on Earth it may imply that Donald Patten is correct about his theory that the Global Deluge was that of a temporary rogue capture which dealt the Earth moon system a serious blow. His theory is detailed and fascinating. What he described would have been a far worse desaster than imagined in The Day After Tomorrow.

There is beauty in those impact craters! Without the craters, there would be no "man in the moon". Now what would life be like without the Man in the Moon?

He's an esthetically pleasing God, that's for sure!

Indeed he is!

It seems you're lending your...considerable efforts to the degragation of the discussion.
Alas this is the course of most discussion between opponents, so I doubt you're surprised at the tail-spin. Discussions are often full of logic skewered with BS accusations and riddled through with contempt. Contempt for reason that is. Consistently it is reason and listening ears which are in short supply. Which is why the discussion does not progress. It's not simply due to the opposing nature of the individuals. It's the lack of consideration. Logic, is useless in the face of contemept and obstinance. Reason thus has no through way.OK, lets test your hypothesis.

When considering the evidence for God is it (a) more than (b) less than or (c) the same as, the evidence for Xenu the Intergalactic Warlord presently worshiped by millions of Scientologist around the world?

So again, the options were:

(a) There is more evidence for God than for Xenu.
(b) There is less evidence for God than for Xenu.
(c) There is equal evidence for God as there is for Xenu.

Anyway, my pointing out the rather simplistic logical fallacies in a hack-copy-paste job may have been contemptuous but it doesn't take much to role the mouse over someone else's words and press Ctrl-C .... Ctrl-V ... Submit Reply now does it? If I was being contemptuous it was to someone else wasn't it?

Michael

Perception entails conception and what is not percieved is nothing - in concept. But a general understanding or awareness through logic can still be obtained about something. The knowledge that I and the universe are one for example, and that what I percieve can give the illusion of existing in a limited space and time.

What on earth are you talking about. It sounds like something from The Beginner's Guide to Mysticism ?

What is not perceived is nothing ? So there are no trees in the middle of a forest because they have not been seen but as soon as someone enters the forest trees come into existence . Is that what you are saying ?

For me the existence of God is pointed to by the fact that the moon eclispes the sun so perfectly during a total solar eclipse. I don't believe this is coincidence.

So, no total eclipses, no god. That is very sound reasoning.

It seems you're lending your...considerable efforts to the degragation of the discussion.
Alas this is the course of most discussion between opponents, so I doubt you're surprised at the tail-spin. Discussions are often full of logic skewered with BS accusations and riddled through with contempt. Contempt for reason that is. Consistently it is reason and listening ears which are in short supply. Which is why the discussion does not progress. It's not simply due to the opposing nature of the individuals. It's the lack of consideration. Logic, is useless in the face of contemept and obstinance. Reason thus has no through way.

You've got one bit right. " Logic is useless in the face of contempt and obstinance". That's why people like you won't accept the truth of evolutionary theory; you are stubborn because you are afraid to let go of your Biblical " truths ", which cannot be supported by logical arguments.

Why did God make a moon with impact craters?

To fool scientists. Didn't you know the old guy has a great sense of humour ?

Uhm.. it has not always been that way.
And the moon also does not always perfectly eclipse the sun.

The moon moves away from the earth at 3.8 cm/year, which incidentally slows down the rotation of the earth.

So , what's your beef ? The moon is simply doing what it was designed to do.
" And verily I say unto you that the moon shall be made to remove the sun from the firmament and a great darkness will fall upon the earth"

Eugenics 12. 4

So , what's your beef ? The moon is simply doing what it was designed to do.
" And verily I say unto you that the moon shall be made to remove the sun from the firmament and a great darkness will fall upon the earth"

Eugenics 12. 4

:confused: ..right. Designed ??

:confused: ..right. Designed ??

Of course designed. Don't you read the good book. It's people like you who get religion a bad name.

I didn't quote Eugenics in full. It continues: And all shall fall down in fear and trembling before the might of the Lord who, as a token of his love, will continue to frighten the shit out of them that they may repent and be spared everlasting punishment in the lake of fire.

Of course designed. Don't you read the good book. It's people like you who get religion a bad name.

I didn't quote Eugenics in full. It continues: And all shall fall down in fear and trembling before the might of the Lord who, as a token of his love, will continue to frighten the shit out of them that they may repent and be spared everlasting punishment in the lake of fire.

It's people like me that get religion a bad name ?? What are you on ?
I am not religious one bit..

It's people like me that get religion a bad name ?? What are you on ?
I am not religious one bit..

It's not to late to repent and be spared the pains of hell ! I'm on a high because Adstar has led me to Jesus.

I am also learning Christian logic and would ask you to interpret what I say in light of that logic which passes all understanding. Somewhere inside you there's a Christian struggling to get out.

It's not to late to repent and be spared the pains of hell ! I'm on a high because Adstar has led me to Jesus.

I am also learning Christian logic and would ask you to interpret what I say in light of that logic which passes all understanding. Somewhere inside you there's a Christian struggling to get out.

You must be joking.. right ?

THEORY OF PROBABILITY
At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth.Wrong - it was known to be spherical some thousand years earlier.

The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light.Again - known for a great deal of time prior to the writing of the Qur'an.

Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water.If only every living thing was made of water - you'd be onto a winner here.
We humans are only 70% water. The only thing made of water is... water (in its various forms) - and if every living thing was made of water - we'd melt in the sun!!! :)

Bedouin: "They are indicative to me that Allah made them."One can not account for the irrationality of people.


Once Khalifa Haroon Rasheed asked Imam Malik: "What is the evidence (daleel) pointing to the existence of Allah (subhanahu wa ta`ala)?" Imam Malik replied: "Difference in languages, difference in pitches of voice, difference in singing are proof that Allah (subhanahu wa ta`ala) exists!"Or evolution of both language and physicality?

Imam Abu Hanifa said, "I feel sorry about your state! You cannot imagine one ship running without some one looking after its affairs. Yet you think that for this whole world, which runs exactly and precisely, there is no one who looks after it, and no one owns it." Argument from incredulity.

It is the Khaliq (Creator) who we call Allah (subhanahu wa ta`ala) Who is the Inventor and the Creator."So the creator is the creator? wow. Gosh. Never thought of that.

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was referring to an egg which is closed from all sides but Allah (subhanahu wa ta`ala) The Khaliq (Creator) puts life in it and a chick pops out.Yes, we've probably all heard of this riddle - but I would suggest one gets to grip with BIOLOGY.


These are all nice stories and sayings... but they don't actually say much other than a rather subjective take on the matter. No evidence is shown, no proof given, and the irrational and illogical arguments abound.


Nice try though.

OK, lets test your hypothesis.

When considering the evidence for God is it (a) more than (b) less than or (c) the same as, the evidence for Xenu the Intergalactic Warlord presently worshiped by millions of Scientologist around the world?

So again, the options were:

(a) There is more evidence for God than for Xenu.
(b) There is less evidence for God than for Xenu.
(c) There is equal evidence for God as there is for Xenu.

Anyway, my pointing out the rather simplistic logical fallacies in a hack-copy-paste job may have been contemptuous but it doesn't take much to role the mouse over someone else's words and press Ctrl-C .... Ctrl-V ... Submit Reply now does it? If I was being contemptuous it was to someone else wasn't it?

Michael

I can not claim to have a common knowledge base for comparison of Xenu vs God. It is typicaly apparent God isn't alotted the total amount of credence for a fair consideration.

However if your sparing partner was engaging in C&P discusion construction to prove a point rather than to offer knowledge then I would have to agree with you. I doubt however he identified his methods. I'd say you're assuming this from the information he provided. Yet this is difficult to confirm.

[QUOTE=Saquist;1740733]I can not claim to have a common knowledge base for comparison of Xenu vs God. It is typicaly apparent God isn't alotted the total amount of credence for a fair consideration.

God has had more than his fair share of publicity down the centuries. Some of us have moved on but you are stuck in the past with nothing to back you up but a book of doubtful provenance. The Age of Reason never happened for you; you continue to live in the age of superstition.

However if your sparing partner was engaging in C&P discusion construction to prove a point rather than to offer knowledge then I would have to agree with you. I doubt however he identified his methods. I'd say you're assuming this from the information he provided. Yet this is difficult to confirm.

My experience of debating with you is that you never offer knowledge. What you offer is opinion. Plato knew the difference between opinion ( doxa ) and knowlegde ( episteme ) but don't let that bother you. You have the Bible.

I'm afraid your attack on my ideology does not constitute a rationale argument. This is fairly typical, Myles. I was speaking to someone else What exactly you're addressing in my post is dubious at best. Ultimately it appears to be some sort of attention getting tactic.

If you feel engaging never reveals any knowledge the question is invariably why do you seek engagement?

Any man may easily do harm, but not every man can do good to another.~ Plato

This quote has a two fold meaning here. In regards to you and in regards to my previous statement. It is your intent to do harm, it's easy but doing good to another is a action which is sorely lacking. Similarly man in general behaves such as you often do. Instigating, aggression and persecuting are traits that anyone and everyone is capable of.

However finding a true meeting of the minds makes for a unique and desireable person. We are not born that way. We must be taught. That is my point...the question is what was yours?

I can not claim to have a common knowledge base for comparison of Xenu vs God.OK let me ask another way: Is there ANY evidence for the existance of Xenu that you know of? Do people beleive in the existance of Xenu? Why do you suppose so?

Is there ANY evidence of God that you know of? Do people beleive in the existance of God? Do you suppose some of those reasons are the same sort of reasons that persuade people to beleive in Xenu?

Michael

Okay
I don't know who Xenu is, I don't know how many people believe in his existance but since it's scientology I suppose quite a number of people do believe in him. Why...well why do people believe in most things...they've been convinced somehow.

I can answer question on God more effectively though.
Yes there is evidence that God does exist. It is the only evidence which could possibily be observerable which is a document of communication (Bible).

Do I believe in the existance of God? No. I know God exist. Through several factors which includes the bible as an historica record and through what science has been able to study and identify about the world around us, I'm able to concluded quite effectively that there is a God. The biblicaly extenal alone are able to determine there is a Creator, The bible merely identifies who and offers credence to the claim of his identity.

Do People Believe in God. Yes. Many types of gods and all varieties.

Do I suppose of those reason are the same sort of reasons that persuade people to believe in Xenu? Many of those reasons will be exactly the same. Most of them have nothing to do with the search for the truth but rather have very existential reasonings. A desire to whorship that which is greater, comfort & hope, Fear, Tradition, etc...

Given that the "God" people would be trying to disprove is, in itself, a fallacy, it's pointless to try. The "God" that so many people do believe in is, compared to what it is supposed to represent, a midget actor on a vast stage. It is easy enough to prove that this or that God doesn't exist. After all, the holy books are generally wrong about how they depict nature. Whatever those "God" characters are, they aren't God.

What makes disproving God so difficult is that, in the face of reality, the believers make a fallacious leap, depending on a general principle of God that necessarily defies the boundaries of their chosen God. So while they might feel smug that nobody can disprove the existence of God, they ought not, since the God that cannot be disproved is infinitely greater than the "God" they believe in.

The God that cannot be disproven is a human invention. It is a word we've invented to represent a condition that resides at the outer boundary of our imagination. God exists because the condition it tends to represent exists. In other words, God exists because we have decided it should be so. The various, petty gods of the various, petty religions, however, are easily shown to not exist.

Your "evidence" aka The Bible is not evidence at all. It is not anymore evidence of God than the mumblings of Ron L Hubbard are evidence for Xenu.

So the answer is: (c) there is equal evidence of God as there is for Xenu.

I think an honest theist would agree and some actually do. What happens to most theists is they don't like to accept this FACT. So they fain at not knowing the answer or they conjure some other answer in their mind that has nothing at all to do with real hard evidence.

Secondly, I agree that many of those reasons for people's beleif in Xenu are exactly the same as people's beleif in God. Indeed Most of them have nothing to do with the search for the truth but rather have very existential reasonings. A desire to whorship that which is greater, comfort & hope, Fear, Tradition, etc...

I can not concur with out outstanding comparative data on Ron L Hubbard. Otherwise I can only assume you're making a week compartive analogy, a speculative argument constructed to fit the facts. Even then I'd have to do the research myself. I've found the Sci Forum biassed when it comes to research of a religious nature. I desire objective reasonings...or in the very least a hearing of both sides. Thus is I can discover the relevent to your observances at least it would have been substaniated with like research and confirmed.

These may be your conclusion Michael but the evidence hasn't been made manifested.

The bible has grounds on the subject of historical background, scientific accuracy, propheticaly accurate, medically sound, and lineage. Yes it has been debated on many issues but not toppled. This is why the religion forum of the sci forum is more active than most other likely anyother.

You're claiming that the "mumblings of Ron L. Hubbard have equal consideration? I can provide examples of these five points for the bibles authenticity. Will Roon L. Hubbbard meet or exceed the same number of examples point for point?

I do not know...truely. I have an expectation but I am also expectant of new information I was not privy to previously.

This is why religion is so haphazard. There is no search invovled. If you should interogate a person of a particular religion they often could not validate their beliefs other by a sense of exaggerated self. To ask these individuals to interogate their own beliefs to withstand external prosecution would result in fleeing the questioning or a complete collapse of their basis of belief.

However I can not arbitrarily assume they are wrong because of their reasons. An investigation is necessary. Society, even in science reveals a psychological predilection toward conditioning..even NASA has the failed to heed valid data pertinent to lives certainly these people "common people" are also capable of the same dismissal of grounded logic.

If we are the creation of a higher being of the universe, then aren't we the proof, as is everything around us.

In other words, if I made a small colony of artificially intelligent robots and went on an eternal holiday, are the robots proof that I existed?

If not, what can prove that I made them? (without showing up)

I know someday we all will have an answer, whether it be science or the being showing up. Just a matter of time...


But, we cannot be expected to accept a myth without evidence from the being, directly. It really frustrates me that the Christians expect hope and belief blindly. It's like we're damned for having a mind, which by the way, is how we were forged in the first place...but, yet the burden is on us to decide "correctly" (that there is a God) or perish. Rubbish.

Bottom line, there is no proof, but us.

Saquist,

You view is very interesting to me.

However, I cannot accept the Bible as evidence of God. It is a record of man's history, man's belief, and man's supposed experiences with God. It is in part archeological, but other part mythological. If anything, it is proof that man wants or has wanted spirituality.

For it to be accepted as proof of God, you must prove that God wrote it, or that Jesus was God in the flesh. But, both of those are difficult because you have to define and prove God first, so that you can prove the Bible is proof of God.

God must be proven before you can prove anything is the work of God. That is hard to do without the test subject present.

I cannot prove apples grow on trees without an apple.

Scientificly speaking you're correct. The subject is not available for question. Even more, the subjects nature is completely undetectable.

This is the reasoning I've used to accept the Bible as SOME sort evidence. It has too much information within it to simply ignore. If there is a Creator and it is a log of those brief encounters then throwing the bible to the wayside would be a travesty of justice. A record of communication tells us something. We just have to figure out what. Certainly entering it into evidence can't harm the search for the truth, leaving it out may exclude vital information.

BUt it is as you say the true evidence of a creator is what he created....But that is an inherent God vs Evolution debate. An there have been many clashes of that nature on SF

Time for some serious proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof

Gödel's ontological proof
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gödel's ontological proof is a formalization of Saint Anselm's ontological argument for God's existence by the mathematician Kurt Gödel.

St. Anselm's ontological argument, in its most succinct form, is as follows: "God, by definition, is that than which a greater cannot be thought. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist." A more elaborate version was given by Gottfried Leibniz; this is the version that Gödel studied and attempted to clarify with his ontological argument.

Although Gödel was religious[citation needed], he never published his proof because he feared that it would be mistaken as establishing God's existence beyond doubt. Instead, he only saw it as a logical investigation and a clean formulation of Leibniz' argument with all assumptions spelled out. He repeatedly showed the argument to friends around 1970; it was published in 1987, nine years after his death.

Contents [hide]
1 The Proof
2 Modal logic
3 Axioms
4 Derivation
5 Critique of definitions and axioms
6 See also
7 References
8 External links



[edit] The Proof
Symbolically:




[edit] Modal logic
The proof uses modal logic, which distinguishes between necessary truths and contingent truths.

A truth is necessary if its negation entails a contradiction, such as 2 + 2 = 4; by contrast, a contingent truth just happens to be the case, for instance "more than half of the earth is covered by water". In the most common interpretation of modal logic, one considers "all possible worlds". If a statement is true in all possible worlds, then it is a necessary truth. If a statement happens to be true in our world, but is not true in all other worlds, then it is a contingent truth. A statement that is true in some world (not necessarily our own) is called a possible truth.

A property assigns to each object, in every possible world, a truth value (either true or false). Note that not all worlds have the same objects: some objects exist in some worlds and not in others. A property has only to assign truth values to those objects that exist in a particular world. As an example, consider the property

P(x) = x is pink
and consider the object

s = my shirt
In our world, P(s) is true because my shirt happens to be pink; in some other world, P(s) is false, while in still some other world, P(s) wouldn't make sense because my shirt doesn't exist there.

We say that the property P entails the property Q, if any object in any world that has the property P in that world also has the property Q in that same world. For example, the property

P(x) = x is taller than 2 meters
entails the property

Q(x) = x is taller than 1 meter.

[edit] Axioms
We first assume the following axiom:

Axiom 1: It is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel defines a positive property rather vaguely: "Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)." (Gödel 1995)
We then assume that the following three conditions hold for all positive properties (which can be summarized by saying "the positive properties form an ultrafilter"):

Axiom 2: If P is positive and P entails Q, then Q is positive.
Axiom 3: If P1, P2, P3, ..., Pn are positive properties, then the property (P1 AND P2 AND P3 ... AND Pn) is positive as well.
Axiom 4: If P is a property, then either P or its negation is positive, but not both.
Finally, we assume:

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property (Pos(NE)). This mirrors the key assumption in Anselm's argument.
Now we define a new property G: if x is an object in some possible world, then G(x) is true if and only if P(x) is true in that same world for all positive properties P. G is called the "God-like" property. An object x that has the God-like property is called God.


[edit] Derivation
From axioms 1 through 4, Gödel argued that in some possible world there exists God. He used a sort of modal plenitude principle to argue this from the logical consistency of Godlikeness. Note that this property is itself positive, since it is the conjunction of the (infinitely many) positive properties.

Then, Gödel defined essences: if x is an object in some world, then the property P is said to be an essence of x if P(x) is true in that world and if P entails all other properties that x has in that world. We also say that x necessarily exists if for every essence P the following is true: in every possible world, there is an element y with P(y).

Since necessary existence is positive, it must follow from Godlikeness. Moreover, Godlikeness is an essence of God, since it entails all positive properties, and any nonpositive property is the negation of some positive property, so God cannot have any nonpositive properties. Since any Godlike object is necessarily existent, it follows that any Godlike object in one world is a Godlike object in all worlds, by the definition of necessary existence. Given the existence of a Godlike object in one world, proven above, we may conclude that there is a Godlike object in every possible world, as required.

From these hypotheses, it is also possible to prove that there is only one God in each world: by identity of indiscernibles, no two distinct objects can have precisely the same properties, and so there can only be one object in each world that possesses property G. Gödel did not attempt to do so however, as he purposely limited his proof to the issue of existence, rather than uniqueness. This was more to preserve the logical precision of the argument than due to a penchant for polytheism. This uniqueness proof will only work if one supposes that the positiveness of a property is independent of the object to which it is applied, a claim which some have considered to be suspect.


[edit] Critique of definitions and axioms
There are several reasons Gödel's axioms may not be realistic, including the following:

It may be impossible to properly satisfy axiom 3, which assumes that a conjunction of positive properties is also a positive property; for the proof to work, the axiom must be taken to apply to arbitrary, not necessarily finite, collections of properties. Moreover, some positive properties may be incompatible with others. For example mercy may be incompatible with justice. In that case the conjunction would be an impossible property and G(x) would be false of every x. Ted Drange has made this objection to the coherence of attributing all positive properties to God - see this article for Drange's list of incompatible properties and some counter arguments. For these reasons, this axiom was replaced in some reworkings of the proof (including Anderson's, below) by the assumption that G(x) is positive (Pos(G(x)).
The set of all properties of any object a as a candidate for the set of all positive properties is always consistent with axioms 1–4 concerning positive properties, because the true statements P(a) form a class of statements closed under deduction. Any one property could be claimed to be positive, so long as it is not self-contradictory, with the right choice of a. Specifically, any property that can be possessed without contradiction is positive in some model of axioms 1–4, and any property that can be avoided without contradiction is non-positive in some model of axioms 1–4. Positivity of a property is as implicitly defined as anything can get. Why, then, should any one property (such as the one addressed in axiom 5) be assumed to be positive, given that no such statement is ever a tautology (although it can be a contradiction if the property is unsatisfiable)? Note that, with the right choice of axiom 5, all sorts of things could be proven (see also the objection below), an error common in some form to all ontological arguments. This problem with axiom 5 is a logically inescapable point, and is similar to the demonstration that, in the deontic logic of Ernst Mally, a statement is morally necessary if and only if it is true.
It was argued by Jordan Sobel that Gödel's axioms are too strong: they imply that all possible worlds are identical. He proved this result by considering the property "is such that X is true", where X is any true modal statement about the world. If g is a Godlike object, and X is in fact true, then g must possess this property, and hence must possess it necessarily. But then X is a necessary truth. A similar argument shows that all falsehoods are necessary falsehoods. C. Anthony Anderson gave a slightly different axiomatic system which attempts to avoid this problem.
In Anderson's system, Axioms 1, 2, and 5 above are unchanged; however the other axioms are replaced with:

Axiom 3': G(x) is positive.
Axiom 4': If a property is positive, its negation is not positive.
These axioms leave open the possibility that a Godlike object will possess some non-positive properties, provided that these properties are contingent rather than necessary.

I'm afraid your attack on my ideology does not constitute a rationale argument. This is fairly typical, Myles. I was speaking to someone else What exactly you're addressing in my post is dubious at best. Ultimately it appears to be some sort of attention getting tactic.

If you feel engaging never reveals any knowledge the question is invariably why do you seek engagement?

Any man may easily do harm, but not every man can do good to another.~ Plato

This quote has a two fold meaning here. In regards to you and in regards to my previous statement. It is your intent to do harm, it's easy but doing good to another is a action which is sorely lacking. Similarly man in general behaves such as you often do. Instigating, aggression and persecuting are traits that anyone and everyone is capable of.

However finding a true meeting of the minds makes for a unique and desireable person. We are not born that way. We must be taught. That is my point...the question is what was yours?

From my experience of talking to you on here, you wouldn't know a rational argument if you tripped over one. You have previously spoken of angels and , on another thread, your response to someone who disagreed with you was "WE ARE TALKING OF THINGS BEYOND HUMAN UNDERSTANDING" Now that's what I call a rational argument.

As you quote Plato, how many of HIS gods do you worship ?

Time for some serious proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof

Gödel's ontological proof
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gödel's ontological proof is a formalization of Saint Anselm's ontological argument for God's existence by the mathematician Kurt Gödel.

St. Anselm's ontological argument, in its most succinct form, is as follows: "God, by definition, is that than which a greater cannot be thought. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist." A more elaborate version was given by Gottfried Leibniz; this is the version that Gödel studied and attempted to clarify with his ontological argument.

Although Gödel was religious[citation needed], he never published his proof because he feared that it would be mistaken as establishing God's existence beyond doubt. Instead, he only saw it as a logical investigation and a clean formulation of Leibniz' argument with all assumptions spelled out. He repeatedly showed the argument to friends around 1970; it was published in 1987, nine years after his death.

Contents [hide]
1 The Proof
2 Modal logic
3 Axioms
4 Derivation
5 Critique of definitions and axioms
6 See also
7 References
8 External links



[edit] The Proof
Symbolically:




[edit] Modal logic
The proof uses modal logic, which distinguishes between necessary truths and contingent truths.

A truth is necessary if its negation entails a contradiction, such as 2 + 2 = 4; by contrast, a contingent truth just happens to be the case, for instance "more than half of the earth is covered by water". In the most common interpretation of modal logic, one considers "all possible worlds". If a statement is true in all possible worlds, then it is a necessary truth. If a statement happens to be true in our world, but is not true in all other worlds, then it is a contingent truth. A statement that is true in some world (not necessarily our own) is called a possible truth.

A property assigns to each object, in every possible world, a truth value (either true or false). Note that not all worlds have the same objects: some objects exist in some worlds and not in others. A property has only to assign truth values to those objects that exist in a particular world. As an example, consider the property

P(x) = x is pink
and consider the object

s = my shirt
In our world, P(s) is true because my shirt happens to be pink; in some other world, P(s) is false, while in still some other world, P(s) wouldn't make sense because my shirt doesn't exist there.

We say that the property P entails the property Q, if any object in any world that has the property P in that world also has the property Q in that same world. For example, the property

P(x) = x is taller than 2 meters
entails the property

Q(x) = x is taller than 1 meter.

[edit] Axioms
We first assume the following axiom:

Axiom 1: It is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel defines a positive property rather vaguely: "Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)." (Gödel 1995)
We then assume that the following three conditions hold for all positive properties (which can be summarized by saying "the positive properties form an ultrafilter"):

Axiom 2: If P is positive and P entails Q, then Q is positive.
Axiom 3: If P1, P2, P3, ..., Pn are positive properties, then the property (P1 AND P2 AND P3 ... AND Pn) is positive as well.
Axiom 4: If P is a property, then either P or its negation is positive, but not both.
Finally, we assume:

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property (Pos(NE)). This mirrors the key assumption in Anselm's argument.
Now we define a new property G: if x is an object in some possible world, then G(x) is true if and only if P(x) is true in that same world for all positive properties P. G is called the "God-like" property. An object x that has the God-like property is called God.


[edit] Derivation
From axioms 1 through 4, Gödel argued that in some possible world there exists God. He used a sort of modal plenitude principle to argue this from the logical consistency of Godlikeness. Note that this property is itself positive, since it is the conjunction of the (infinitely many) positive properties.

Then, Gödel defined essences: if x is an object in some world, then the property P is said to be an essence of x if P(x) is true in that world and if P entails all other properties that x has in that world. We also say that x necessarily exists if for every essence P the following is true: in every possible world, there is an element y with P(y).

Since necessary existence is positive, it must follow from Godlikeness. Moreover, Godlikeness is an essence of God, since it entails all positive properties, and any nonpositive property is the negation of some positive property, so God cannot have any nonpositive properties. Since any Godlike object is necessarily existent, it follows that any Godlike object in one world is a Godlike object in all worlds, by the definition of necessary existence. Given the existence of a Godlike object in one world, proven above, we may conclude that there is a Godlike object in every possible world, as required.

From these hypotheses, it is also possible to prove that there is only one God in each world: by identity of indiscernibles, no two distinct objects can have precisely the same properties, and so there can only be one object in each world that possesses property G. Gödel did not attempt to do so however, as he purposely limited his proof to the issue of existence, rather than uniqueness. This was more to preserve the logical precision of the argument than due to a penchant for polytheism. This uniqueness proof will only work if one supposes that the positiveness of a property is independent of the object to which it is applied, a claim which some have considered to be suspect.


[edit] Critique of definitions and axioms
There are several reasons Gödel's axioms may not be realistic, including the following:

It may be impossible to properly satisfy axiom 3, which assumes that a conjunction of positive properties is also a positive property; for the proof to work, the axiom must be taken to apply to arbitrary, not necessarily finite, collections of properties. Moreover, some positive properties may be incompatible with others. For example mercy may be incompatible with justice. In that case the conjunction would be an impossible property and G(x) would be false of every x. Ted Drange has made this objection to the coherence of attributing all positive properties to God - see this article for Drange's list of incompatible properties and some counter arguments. For these reasons, this axiom was replaced in some reworkings of the proof (including Anderson's, below) by the assumption that G(x) is positive (Pos(G(x)).
The set of all properties of any object a as a candidate for the set of all positive properties is always consistent with axioms 1–4 concerning positive properties, because the true statements P(a) form a class of statements closed under deduction. Any one property could be claimed to be positive, so long as it is not self-contradictory, with the right choice of a. Specifically, any property that can be possessed without contradiction is positive in some model of axioms 1–4, and any property that can be avoided without contradiction is non-positive in some model of axioms 1–4. Positivity of a property is as implicitly defined as anything can get. Why, then, should any one property (such as the one addressed in axiom 5) be assumed to be positive, given that no such statement is ever a tautology (although it can be a contradiction if the property is unsatisfiable)? Note that, with the right choice of axiom 5, all sorts of things could be proven (see also the objection below), an error common in some form to all ontological arguments. This problem with axiom 5 is a logically inescapable point, and is similar to the demonstration that, in the deontic logic of Ernst Mally, a statement is morally necessary if and only if it is true.
It was argued by Jordan Sobel that Gödel's axioms are too strong: they imply that all possible worlds are identical. He proved this result by considering the property "is such that X is true", where X is any true modal statement about the world. If g is a Godlike object, and X is in fact true, then g must possess this property, and hence must possess it necessarily. But then X is a necessary truth. A similar argument shows that all falsehoods are necessary falsehoods. C. Anthony Anderson gave a slightly different axiomatic system which attempts to avoid this problem.
In Anderson's system, Axioms 1, 2, and 5 above are unchanged; however the other axioms are replaced with:

Axiom 3': G(x) is positive.
Axiom 4': If a property is positive, its negation is not positive.
These axioms leave open the possibility that a Godlike object will possess some non-positive properties, provided that these properties are contingent rather than necessary.


For goodness sake, do you ever look for philosophical arguments which do not support your beliefs. Do you examine what you believe ?

Anselms argument is as you say and it was used by others. Kant dealt it the death blow by pointing out that "existence" is not an attribute. If you want o know more see his Critique of Pure Reason

Okay
I don't know who Xenu is, I don't know how many people believe in his existance but since it's scientology I suppose quite a number of people do believe in him. Why...well why do people believe in most things...they've been convinced somehow.

I can answer question on God more effectively though.
Yes there is evidence that God does exist. It is the only evidence which could possibily be observerable which is a document of communication (Bible).

Do I believe in the existance of God? No. I know God exist. Through several factors which includes the bible as an historica record and through what science has been able to study and identify about the world around us, I'm able to concluded quite effectively that there is a God. The biblicaly extenal alone are able to determine there is a Creator, The bible merely identifies who and offers credence to the claim of his identity.

Do People Believe in God. Yes. Many types of gods and all varieties.

Do I suppose of those reason are the same sort of reasons that persuade people to believe in Xenu? Many of those reasons will be exactly the same. Most of them have nothing to do with the search for the truth but rather have very existential reasonings. A desire to whorship that which is greater, comfort & hope, Fear, Tradition, etc...

As you are something of a Platonist, may I remind you of what I told you recently, that Plato distinguished between belief/opinian ( doxa ) and knowledge ( episteme ). You believe god exists; you do not know. Pick up a book on epistemology and see for yourself.

On a previous thread you claimed that the bible was historically accurate and misquoted Mark in an attempt to make your point. I searched the Greek , the Latin and the King James' version of the NT and they were all in agreement that your version was wrong. Rather than accept defeat gracefully, you hid behind some version of the Bible which supported what you said. Unfortunately, you were unable or unwilling to cite your source so that it could be checked.

You lack credibility but I am not surprised to find you repeating the same old stuff on here. You have nothing else to offer.

Given that the "God" people would be trying to disprove is, in itself, a fallacy, it's pointless to try. The "God" that so many people do believe in is, compared to what it is supposed to represent, a midget actor on a vast stage. It is easy enough to prove that this or that God doesn't exist. After all, the holy books are generally wrong about how they depict nature. Whatever those "God" characters are, they aren't God.

What makes disproving God so difficult is that, in the face of reality, the believers make a fallacious leap, depending on a general principle of God that necessarily defies the boundaries of their chosen God. So while they might feel smug that nobody can disprove the existence of God, they ought not, since the God that cannot be disproved is infinitely greater than the "God" they believe in.

The God that cannot be disproven is a human invention. It is a word we've invented to represent a condition that resides at the outer boundary of our imagination. God exists because the condition it tends to represent exists. In other words, God exists because we have decided it should be so. The various, petty gods of the various, petty religions, however, are easily shown to not exist.

If I may add a couple of points. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something and the burden of proof lies with those who claim that something does exist.

It's not a question of if God exists, look around do you really wholeheartedly think that reality is a fluke? I see organisation everywhere and that comes with guidance, a higher hand so to speak. Move up that chain and eventually you will reach the God head.
Movement begets movement, the first mover is God. Movement is therefore proof of God.

It's not a question of if God exists, look around do you really wholeheartedly think that reality is a fluke? I see organisation everywhere and that comes with guidance, a higher hand so to speak. Move up that chain and eventually you will reach the God head.
Movement begets movement, the first mover is God. Movement is therefore proof of God.

I think you are talking about bowel movement. Your argument is naive in the extreme. It is as old as the hills and been soundly refuted. Try reading a bit of philosophy and using reason. In time you may come to see why your argument doesn't hold water. On the other hand you may not.

From my experience of talking to you on here, you wouldn't know a rational argument if you tripped over one. You have previously spoken of angels and , on another thread, your response to someone who disagreed with you was "WE ARE TALKING OF THINGS BEYOND HUMAN UNDERSTANDING" Now that's what I call a rational argument.

As you quote Plato, how many of HIS gods do you worship ?

Your definition of rationale prejudicially polarizes the topic with hostility. You fixate your attention on my post at every opportunity to the point of obsessive compulsiveness. You aggresively seek to slander at every chance you are given and you've not displayed even a moment of sensibleness since I've known you.

If rational is the frequent use of anti-reasoning and obstinance, in the face of logic and open minded deductive reasoning, If rational is instigating conflict and enlarging social schisms across two parties which are aready causticly divided, If rational is the depraved desire for dissonance and contempt for that which you can not comprehend, Miles.....Then I want no part of what your actions have defined as rationale'.

Intolerance, hate, contentiousness, deranged fits and a pitch-fork N torch mob mentality. In my estimatation your actions on the forum closesly resemble the psychotic rationale of a Hitler, Kim Jong II, the Klu Klux Klan, Black Panthers, etc... That's how I see you.

Prejudicial and Intolerant. A Bully....in-every-sense-of -the-word.
You are what the rest of us must hurdle to find harmony.

Your definition of rationale prejudicially polarizes the topic with hostility. You fixate your attention on my post at every opportunity to the point of obsessive compulsiveness. You aggresively seek to slander at every chance you are given and you've not displayed even a moment of sensibleness since I've known you.

If rational is the frequent use of anti-reasoning and obstinance, in the face of logic and open minded deductive reasoning, If rational is instigating conflict and enlarging social schisms across two parties which are aready causticly divided, If rational is the depraved desire for dissonance and contempt for that which you can not comprehend, Miles.....Then I want no part of what your actions have defined as rationale'.

Intolerance, hate, contentiousness, deranged fits and a pitch-fork N torch mob mentality. In my estimatation your actions on the forum closesly resemble the psychotic rationale of a Hitler, Kim Jong II, the Klu Klux Klan, Black Panthers, etc... That's how I see you.

Prejudicial and Intolerant. A Bully....in-every-sense-of -the-word.
You are what the rest of us must hurdle to find harmony.

I'm sure that's an elegant response for anyone who knows what the hell you are talking about. Best stick to misquoting the scriptures to support your views. You have used no logical arguments that I am aware of.

More hostility...
Shall I be your outlet?

More hostility...
Shall I be your outlet?

If that is how you see it, I would prefer you to tell me the version of the Bible which you claim mentions history in Matthew.

Time for some serious proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof

Gödel's ontological proof
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gödel's ontological proof is a formalization of Saint Anselm's ontological argument for God's existence by the mathematician Kurt Gödel.

St. Anselm's ontological argument, in its most succinct form, is as follows: "God, by definition, is that than which a greater cannot be thought. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist." A more elaborate version was given by Gottfried Leibniz; this is the version that Gödel studied and attempted to clarify with his ontological argument.

Although Gödel was religious[citation needed], he never published his proof because he feared that it would be mistaken as establishing God's existence beyond doubt. Instead, he only saw it as a logical investigation and a clean formulation of Leibniz' argument with all assumptions spelled out. He repeatedly showed the argument to friends around 1970; it was published in 1987, nine years after his death.

Contents [hide]
1 The Proof
2 Modal logic
3 Axioms
4 Derivation
5 Critique of definitions and axioms
6 See also
7 References
8 External links



[edit] The Proof
Symbolically:




[edit] Modal logic
The proof uses modal logic, which distinguishes between necessary truths and contingent truths.

A truth is necessary if its negation entails a contradiction, such as 2 + 2 = 4; by contrast, a contingent truth just happens to be the case, for instance "more than half of the earth is covered by water". In the most common interpretation of modal logic, one considers "all possible worlds". If a statement is true in all possible worlds, then it is a necessary truth. If a statement happens to be true in our world, but is not true in all other worlds, then it is a contingent truth. A statement that is true in some world (not necessarily our own) is called a possible truth.

A property assigns to each object, in every possible world, a truth value (either true or false). Note that not all worlds have the same objects: some objects exist in some worlds and not in others. A property has only to assign truth values to those objects that exist in a particular world. As an example, consider the property

P(x) = x is pink
and consider the object

s = my shirt
In our world, P(s) is true because my shirt happens to be pink; in some other world, P(s) is false, while in still some other world, P(s) wouldn't make sense because my shirt doesn't exist there.

We say that the property P entails the property Q, if any object in any world that has the property P in that world also has the property Q in that same world. For example, the property

P(x) = x is taller than 2 meters
entails the property

Q(x) = x is taller than 1 meter.

[edit] Axioms
We first assume the following axiom:

Axiom 1: It is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel defines a positive property rather vaguely: "Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)." (Gödel 1995)
We then assume that the following three conditions hold for all positive properties (which can be summarized by saying "the positive properties form an ultrafilter"):

Axiom 2: If P is positive and P entails Q, then Q is positive.
Axiom 3: If P1, P2, P3, ..., Pn are positive properties, then the property (P1 AND P2 AND P3 ... AND Pn) is positive as well.
Axiom 4: If P is a property, then either P or its negation is positive, but not both.
Finally, we assume:

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property (Pos(NE)). This mirrors the key assumption in Anselm's argument.
Now we define a new property G: if x is an object in some possible world, then G(x) is true if and only if P(x) is true in that same world for all positive properties P. G is called the "God-like" property. An object x that has the God-like property is called God.


[edit] Derivation
From axioms 1 through 4, Gödel argued that in some possible world there exists God. He used a sort of modal plenitude principle to argue this from the logical consistency of Godlikeness. Note that this property is itself positive, since it is the conjunction of the (infinitely many) positive properties.

Then, Gödel defined essences: if x is an object in some world, then the property P is said to be an essence of x if P(x) is true in that world and if P entails all other properties that x has in that world. We also say that x necessarily exists if for every essence P the following is true: in every possible world, there is an element y with P(y).

Since necessary existence is positive, it must follow from Godlikeness. Moreover, Godlikeness is an essence of God, since it entails all positive properties, and any nonpositive property is the negation of some positive property, so God cannot have any nonpositive properties. Since any Godlike object is necessarily existent, it follows that any Godlike object in one world is a Godlike object in all worlds, by the definition of necessary existence. Given the existence of a Godlike object in one world, proven above, we may conclude that there is a Godlike object in every possible world, as required.

From these hypotheses, it is also possible to prove that there is only one God in each world: by identity of indiscernibles, no two distinct objects can have precisely the same properties, and so there can only be one object in each world that possesses property G. Gödel did not attempt to do so however, as he purposely limited his proof to the issue of existence, rather than uniqueness. This was more to preserve the logical precision of the argument than due to a penchant for polytheism. This uniqueness proof will only work if one supposes that the positiveness of a property is independent of the object to which it is applied, a claim which some have considered to be suspect.


[edit] Critique of definitions and axioms
There are several reasons Gödel's axioms may not be realistic, including the following:

It may be impossible to properly satisfy axiom 3, which assumes that a conjunction of positive properties is also a positive property; for the proof to work, the axiom must be taken to apply to arbitrary, not necessarily finite, collections of properties. Moreover, some positive properties may be incompatible with others. For example mercy may be incompatible with justice. In that case the conjunction would be an impossible property and G(x) would be false of every x. Ted Drange has made this objection to the coherence of attributing all positive properties to God - see this article for Drange's list of incompatible properties and some counter arguments. For these reasons, this axiom was replaced in some reworkings of the proof (including Anderson's, below) by the assumption that G(x) is positive (Pos(G(x)).
The set of all properties of any object a as a candidate for the set of all positive properties is always consistent with axioms 1–4 concerning positive properties, because the true statements P(a) form a class of statements closed under deduction. Any one property could be claimed to be positive, so long as it is not self-contradictory, with the right choice of a. Specifically, any property that can be possessed without contradiction is positive in some model of axioms 1–4, and any property that can be avoided without contradiction is non-positive in some model of axioms 1–4. Positivity of a property is as implicitly defined as anything can get. Why, then, should any one property (such as the one addressed in axiom 5) be assumed to be positive, given that no such statement is ever a tautology (although it can be a contradiction if the property is unsatisfiable)? Note that, with the right choice of axiom 5, all sorts of things could be proven (see also the objection below), an error common in some form to all ontological arguments. This problem with axiom 5 is a logically inescapable point, and is similar to the demonstration that, in the deontic logic of Ernst Mally, a statement is morally necessary if and only if it is true.
It was argued by Jordan Sobel that Gödel's axioms are too strong: they imply that all possible worlds are identical. He proved this result by considering the property "is such that X is true", where X is any true modal statement about the world. If g is a Godlike object, and X is in fact true, then g must possess this property, and hence must possess it necessarily. But then X is a necessary truth. A similar argument shows that all falsehoods are necessary falsehoods. C. Anthony Anderson gave a slightly different axiomatic system which attempts to avoid this problem.
In Anderson's system, Axioms 1, 2, and 5 above are unchanged; however the other axioms are replaced with:

Axiom 3': G(x) is positive.
Axiom 4': If a property is positive, its negation is not positive.
These axioms leave open the possibility that a Godlike object will possess some non-positive properties, provided that these properties are contingent rather than necessary.


Rest assured joepisotle I certainly did not ignore this but it will take some time to comprehend to enormity of this premise. My thanks in advanced although I'm not sure for what right now....

If that is how you see it, I would prefer you to tell me the version of the Bible which you claim mentions history in Matthew.

This would be a regression to a previous thread and off topic derailment of this thread.

Additional: Why would I acquiesce to your hostility? Your current status is adversarial and has been from the outset.

This would be a regression to a previous thread and off topic derailment of this thread.

Additional: Why would I acquiesce to your hostility? Your current status is adversarial and has been from the outset.

"My current status is adversarial." Well. well, so your understanding of a debate is that neither party should argue against the viewpoint of the other. That has to be another first, along with your personal Bible.

As to regressiom to another thread, you would happily repeat what you said there if it suited your argument which, of course,. it does not. You are choosing to ignore the fact that you failed to answer my questions and those of others when it was pointed out that you had invented an opening to Matthew which could not be found.

As for the rest., I find it offensive to be compared to psychotics such as Hitler, inter alia. If that's the best you can come up with, it does no more than show what an arrogant, ignorant person you are. You are about as open minded as a sponge.

I've just read your thread and find some of it quite interesting, the age old question on the existence of deities, gods etc.
originally to me they are an invention of man and man alone.
We know that genesis is a collection of Babylonian fairytales which were written by the Jews when they were held captive by Babylon under the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (which can be dated to 100 years after Ashurbanipal who lived around 650 bc).
We know that the Jewish religion wrote the bible.
It wasn't till the enforcement of Christianity (under sentence of death) took place that the ethics of the translated Hebrew book was embedded as social and spiritual law . For 100's of years this was hardly questioned through fear of heresy.
In the 1800's people started to question the existence of god openly-
this is written by Heinrich Heine and admired by Nietzsche

our hearts are thrilled with compassion, for it is old Jehovah himself who is making ready die. We have known him so well, from his cradle in Egypt, where he was bought up among the divine crocodiles and calves, the onions and the ibises and sacred cats.
We saw him bid farewell to those companions of his childhood, the obelisks and sphinx's of the Nile, to become a little god-king in Palestine to a poor nation of Shepard’s.
later we saw him contact with the Assyro-Babylonian Civilization;at that stage he gave up his far too human passions and refrained from spitting wrath and vengeance; at any rate, he no longer thundered for the least trifle.
we saw him move to Rome, the capital where he abjured everything in the way of national prejudice and proclaimed the celestial equality of all peoples; with these fine phrases he set up in opposition to old Jupiter and, thanks to intriguing, he got into power and from the heights of the capital, ruled the city and the world, URBEM ET ORBEM.
We have seen him purify himself; spiritualize himself still more become paternal, compassionate, the benefactor of the human race, a philanthropist.
But nothing could save him!
Don't you hear the bell? Down on your knees! The sacrament is being carried to a dying God.

This passage form the mid 1800's traces the birth life and death of god.
Nietzsche view on the death of god was "the death of god is not merely a terrible fact, it is something willed by him. If god is dead, it is we who have killed him. We are the assassins of God".
Man brought him into existence controlled his actions through his existence and has taken him out of existence I.E. if you don't believe in god then to you he won't exist.

If by some chance life on earth is a freak occurrence one off and (until proven factually otherwise) there is no gods, aliens mystical forces. Then it means that we are the first and instead of being divided my myth and fairytale we should start and realising our own existence and ensure our physical survival as a race.

You can trace the life of god from birth to death so we know of his existence in history. there is no need for his existence now only our own.

nice thread

I heartily endorse your sentiments about our existence but I am pessimistic about a positive. outcome. If religion disappeared tomorrow, I believe it would be replaced by some other form of tribalism.

If religion disappeared tomorrow, I believe it would be replaced by some other form of tribalism.

In some parts of the world tribalism still exists in a form, unchanged and practised in the same way it always has been.In the modern world you can see forms of Neo-tribalistic practises (if thats a word) all over the place. football fan's.
teenagers hanging out dressing the same, listening same music, use same slang.
isn't the american election just the 4 yearly gathering of 2 modern tribes
the twelve tribes of israel that begat the tribe of christianity which begat loads of sub-tribes.
I cannot for my part see any difference between tribalism and religion.
In my opinion a comparative example could be-

At tribal ceremoniesI eat mushrooms(lsd),dance around making whooping noises,slaughter a goat,eat the goat and hope all is ok tomorrow

At church I drink the blood of christ(alcohol),clap my hands and sing, praise the dying of the lamb of god, eat part of the body of christ and hope all is ok tomorrow

this is obviously just a comparrison to 1 religious form of god worship but it depends on your definition of tribalism:bugeye:

In some parts of the world tribalism still exists in a form, unchanged and practised in the same way it always has been.In the modern world you can see forms of Neo-tribalistic practises (if thats a word) all over the place. football fan's.
teenagers hanging out dressing the same, listening same music, use same slang.
isn't the american election just the 4 yearly gathering of 2 modern tribes
the twelve tribes of israel that begat the tribe of christianity which begat loads of sub-tribes.
I cannot for my part see any difference between tribalism and religion.
In my opinion a comparative example could be-

At tribal ceremoniesI eat mushrooms(lsd),dance around making whooping noises,slaughter a goat,eat the goat and hope all is ok tomorrow

At church I drink the blood of christ(alcohol),clap my hands and sing, praise the dying of the lamb of god, eat part of the body of christ and hope all is ok tomorrow

this is obviously just a comparrison to 1 religious form of god worship but it depends on your definition of tribalism:bugeye:


I agree; there is no difference in substance, only in form.

Ref myles. no difference in substance only form

I think the word form is the undecided factor we can prove the existence of god from its beginings to its end (in my opinion) we know god exists people talk if it everyday type it into google you will find it, to me god only exists in the form of belief if you are talking about a physical god then that belief died centuries ago.
The term god shaped parts of mankind for nearly 2 millenia whether it does now I doubt and his existence in any form bar belief I cannot logicaly comprehend .
thats just my logic though.

Ref myles. no difference in substance only form

I think the word form is the undecided factor we can prove the existence of god from its beginings to its end (in my opinion) we know god exists people talk if it everyday type it into google you will find it, to me god only exists in the form of belief if you are talking about a physical god then that belief died centuries ago.
The term god shaped parts of mankind for nearly 2 millenia whether it does now I doubt and his existence in any form bar belief I cannot logicaly comprehend .
thats just my logic though.

Without wanting to appear boastful can I say that I am familiar with every argument which seeks to prove god's existence. I have yet to come upon one that cannopt easily be refuted.

As far as google is concerned, try searching unicorn, fairy, hobgoblin among others and you will find an explanation.

:shrug:there's no refutal in its existence.
its only existence is in the form of belief, this form has been substancial enough to drive mankind on for 1700+ years on pretty much belief alone, the fact that the term god has shaped society so much has to be classed as existence .
To say plainly it doesnt exist isn't true, to say it doesn't exist physicaly is true.
I don't believe in god but I am aware of belief in him having existed.
Scooby doo exists but he isn't real

:shrug:there's no refutal in its existence.
its only existence is in the form of belief, this form has been substancial enough to drive mankind on for 1700+ years on pretty much belief alone, the fact that the term god has shaped society so much has to be classed as existence .
To say plainly it doesnt exist isn't true, to say it doesn't exist physicaly is true.
I don't believe in god but I am aware of belief in him having existed.

Belief and knowledge are not the same. You can believe anything but a clain to knowledge must be supported by evidence acceptable to others

Belief and knowledge are not the same. You can believe anything but a claim to knowledge must be supported by evidence acceptable to others
Agreed.
Existence and reality are also not the same thing
If someone believes in superman, scooby doo, and god but knows there not real then intelligence tells you that they all exist but are not real. :bravo:

"

As for the rest., I find it offensive to be compared to psychotics such as Hitler, inter alia. If that's the best you can come up with, it does no more than show what an arrogant, ignorant person you are. You are about as open minded as a sponge.



It took you three hours and three post to make reply. Of course you don't find it offensive. One would set forth the premise if you don't want your rationale scrutinized then it would be logical to consider scrutinizing other's rationale as undersirable. You blazed the trail and I followed it.
Anything else you'd like to get off your chest?

It took you three hours and three post to make reply. Of course you don't find it offensive. One would set forth the premise if you don't want your rationale scrutinized then it would be logical to consider scrutinizing other's rationale as undersirable. You blazed the trail and I followed it.
Anything else you'd like to get off your chest?

I find it extremely offensive and , if you cannot see why, then I cannot help you. You say I blazed a trail which you followed. Find an example of where I addressed you in the language of the gutter. You are not scrutinizing as you claim; you are simply indulging in highly offensive language as opposed to addressing the issue. just as you did on a previous occasion when your language was at least more moderate.

It did not take three hours to make a response, as you suggest. Within a matter of minutes I reported you.

If you do not wish to have your arguments criticized then don't post them. Why should you be immune to criticism ?

Oh I see why one would take offense....It wasn't a flattering comparison at all, Miles. But it was just a comparison between two very similar behaviors. Your post, 3 hours later, was an effort to bolster you case. That's transparent.

It is not offensive when others express an opinion about my behavior unless I hold their opinion in high regard or it is from an authority figure. I don not require external affirmation to build self esteem, neither can it be assailed by petulant insults. I realize that is not true for everyone.

Oh I see why one would take offense....It wasn't a flattering comparison at all, Miles. But it was just a comparison between two very similar behaviors. Your post, 3 hours later, was an effort to bolster you case. That's transparent.

It is not offensive when others express an opinion about my behavior unless I hold their opinion in high regard or it is from an authority figure. I don not require external affirmation to build self esteem, neither can it be assailed by petulant insults. I realize that is not true for everyone.

What a twisted way you have of looking at things. You interpret a delay in replying to you as an attempt to bolster my case. How did you work that out ? I have already told you that I reported your offensiver, so I let some time pass to see what, if anything would happen.

On no occasion have I referred to you in anything like the terms in which you addressed me. Prove me wrong !

PS Do not make any inferences about my not getting back to you. I'm going to bed.

What a twisted way you have of looking at things. You interpret a delay in replying to you as an attempt to bolster my case. How did you work that out ? I have already told you that I reported your offensiver, so I let some time pass to see what, if anything would happen.

On no occasion have I referred to you in anything like the terms in which you addressed me. Prove me wrong !

Probably because you were on line at the time.

As you are something of a Platonist, may I remind you of what I told you recently, that Plato distinguished between belief/opinian ( doxa ) and knowledge ( episteme ). You believe god exists; you do not know.

Oh, Myles, you went to College, and so you know that your argument is either disingenuous, or, charitablly speaking, incomplete.

We don't KNOW anything. Not since Hume's critique on reason, not to mention the skeptical works of the German Philosophers (too boring for me to read through, but decent philosophers have told me what was said).

Anyway, if Philosophy has decided we cannot KNOW anything, then it makes the word more or less useless.

Oh, yes, Science has confronted the Skeptical Philosophies and now we pretend to know whatever has been shoved through double blind experiments. Since all Science costs money, and people don't want to pay much for Certain Knowledge, Science insists that we KNOW next to nothing, until somebody PAYS for a Research Grant.

But is it really fair to have to PAY for Knowledge about things that our own Sensory Experience and Anecdotal Evidence gives us a very strong likelihood for.

For instance, the Legal System allows for its own genre of Established Proofs and Legal Certainties without resorting to Scientific Certainty. Why not cut Religion the same break. Do we REALLY have to do Double Blind Studies of Spirituality when the Legal Community can still get away with Eye Witness Testimony?

Let us weigh the stakes involved.

The Scientific Method has no rules of engagement decorum, diplomacy or ethics, or fact gathering. It can not decipher truth from lie. It''s true purpose is the discover the working processes that govern our enviroment, to allow facts to that end to rise refined by analysis. It's biggest handicap: The Scientific Method is stumped by lack of evidence and testimony. It is ill equipped to tackle these two entries. The ultimate stakes...the truth as we know it.

However as Volont wrote most legal systems are set up to accept all relevant data and evidence. There are standards of approach for that evidence, prosecution, defense, procedure, testimony and even the lack of evidence. There are rules of decorum.
The stakes invovled are of the ultimate level possible...freedom and life.

The Judical System IS the ultimate crucible in which all irrelevancies are burned away for One purpose. At the end of the day, whether it be reprehensible or not, Science answers to the Judicial System's superior authority.

As you are something of a Platonist, may I remind you of what I told you recently, that Plato distinguished between belief/opinian ( doxa ) and knowledge ( episteme ). You believe god exists; you do not know. Pick up a book on epistemology and see for yourself.
.

You lack credibility but I am not surprised to find you repeating the same old stuff on here. You have nothing else to offer.

:bugeye::bravo::roflmao:

Let us weigh the stakes involved.

The Scientific Method has no rules of engagement decorum, diplomacy or ethics, or fact gathering. It can not decipher truth from lie. It''s true purpose is the discover the working processes that govern our enviroment, to allow facts to that end to rise refined by analysis. It's biggest handicap: The Scientific Method is stumped by lack of evidence and testimony. It is ill equipped to tackle these two entries. The ultimate stakes...the truth as we know it.

However as Volont wrote most legal systems are set up to accept all relevant data and evidence. There are standards of approach for that evidence, prosecution, defense, procedure, testimony and even the lack of evidence. There are rules of decorum.
The stakes invovled are of the ultimate level possible...freedom and life.

The Judical System IS the ultimate crucible in which all irrelevancies are burned away for One purpose. At the end of the day, whether it be reprehensible or not, Science answers to the Judicial System's superior authority.

Whose Judicial System?

America is simply about a contest to bamboozle and hoodwink people too stupid to get out of Jury Duty.

Adverserial Justice is essentially a competition between two sets of liars... or at least exaggerators. The Truth is lost as everybody tries to wrap the BEST POSSIBLE STORY around whatever few facts can be brought forward. Indeed, the System needs to be Reformed. Whenever two lawyers tell completely different stories, one needs to go to jail after it is all over. Somebody had to have been lying, and shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

Everybody should go back to Magisterial Justice. No prosecution lawyers and defense lawyers. Just One Judge. It would be alot cheaper for one thing. If one is to have Jurors, then let them be Professional and Educated for the Job... not the worst idiots of society as they now are -- Yeah, O.J. didn't do it, but maybe a few COMPETANT Jurors would have seen otherwise.

Let us weigh the stakes involved.

The Scientific Method has no rules of engagement decorum, diplomacy or ethics, or fact gathering. It can not decipher truth from lie. It''s true purpose is the discover the working processes that govern our enviroment, to allow facts to that end to rise refined by analysis. It's biggest handicap: The Scientific Method is stumped by lack of evidence and testimony. It is ill equipped to tackle these two entries. The ultimate stakes...the truth as we know it.

However as Volont wrote most legal systems are set up to accept all relevant data and evidence. There are standards of approach for that evidence, prosecution, defense, procedure, testimony and even the lack of evidence. There are rules of decorum.
The stakes invovled are of the ultimate level possible...freedom and life.

The Judical System IS the ultimate crucible in which all irrelevancies are burned away for One purpose. At the end of the day, whether it be reprehensible or not, Science answers to the Judicial System's superior authority.

So you regard the scientific method as stumped. Why ? You recently referred to the scientific method as a system of trial and error, or something of the kind. You were given a proper definition which you are choosing to ignore. Do you regard ID as scientific ?

Whose Judicial System?

America is simply about a contest to bamboozle and hoodwink people too stupid to get out of Jury Duty.

Adverserial Justice is essentially a competition between two sets of liars... or at least exaggerators. The Truth is lost as everybody tries to wrap the BEST POSSIBLE STORY around whatever few facts can be brought forward. Indeed, the System needs to be Reformed. .

Most Justice Systems, including the American and the British Justice System are designed to prevent the seizure of life and freedom from the innocent. Their secondary goal is to prosecutor offenders to the fullest extent of the soical law. They are based on the rules of fair hearing and equal treatment.

While there has been cases of unruled behavior in court rooms it is not as common as the TV melodramas would have you believe. As a system designed to decipher truth from fiction it better equipped to give answer to harder questions and in the case of mistakes it has an ordered process of appeal and correction. That corrective process is something which science sorely lacks.

Science is based in entertaining the facts. The problem is putting together any theory based on those facts must run a disorderly gaunlet of opposers who likely have opposite theories. The Society of Science is something like Wall Street. A cluster of yelling