VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:21:25 06/16/02 Sun
Author: Patrick
Author Host/IP: dialupD39.logn.uswest.net / 63.230.11.40
Subject: Re: Logical Proof of God?
In reply to: Michael 's message, "Re: Logical Proof of God?" on 04:51:48 06/16/02 Sun

"im not naysaying i am telling you the context of the wording you used in your original post is biased toward a conscious plan for the universe that does not allow any other perspective but yours...."

You are naysaying because you can't backup your claims.

If 2+2=4, then it cannot equal five. How can there be an alternative (lol)? Either God had a hand in the universe's creation of he didn't. What is the other perspective/alternative?? If the proof is proving God's existence, how in the world or why in the word would or even could it allow for God's non-existence? It is inconsistent and it defies reason. Of course it has to be biased one way or the other (that God exists or he does not). If it allowed for both alternatives then it would automatically be inconsistent and we would have cause to reject it, but it isn't subjectively biased. It is objectively biased. So, you make the claim that there could be the alternative that God doesn't exist. So, I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim by proving my proof wrong. Let's have at it then.

"you did say a electron chooses to be a electron and not say a positron"

B.S. Reread it again. Here's what I said, "..."the universe" - it follows quantum rules which make it appear, at least, that subatomic particles have choices)...". You will note here that I never said they have choices, only that it appears like they do. So, you are unfounded in your accusation. Prove me wrong?

"where as i say a electron may become a positron by enviormental reasons by chance..."

So do I, but it's not haphazard. It must follow the rules of formation inherit from the universe.

"if you want to get technical i can go through my extensive personal library and find facts opposite of your opinion but that is a waste of both of our time..."

No its not. You have a chance to be more objective that way. You're supposed to come with evidence to the contrary remember? If you think this is a waste of your time then go away.

"i really enjoy that just because i do not have a complete english language education and dont write what you may consider proper but im not a idiot i have a IQ in excess of 120 and i read at a doctorate level in excess of 600 words a minute and im probaly better educated in many ways than you are...."

Why appeal to personal authority? It's a logical fallacy, and it doesn't make you right. For the record, I never said you were an idiot. I said "don't be one". I apologize if I've offended you in this matter. Let's also not play the childish game of "I'm more educated than you are".

"i have been literate from age 4 and did extremely well in school until at 17 i joined the army military intelligence, after which i became a emt then a paramedic, i also have several years of college in computer science with a math back ground,"

So, you should kind of know what I'm talking about then when I mention "logical systems". I have college computer science and math background too, but why does this make either of us right or wrong? Your appeal to personal authority won't work.

"plus 20 years of amature astronomy and 25 years of traditional martial arts with alot of religious studies thrown in for good measure..."

All the power to ya.
:)

"i also am very open minded with the desire to learn the truth about the universe{the real truth not a truth based on assumptions of religious dogma}"

Real truth eh? Yeah right.

My proof isn't based on religious dogma. It is objective. You keep saying they are assumptions, but so far I haven't seen a shread of evidence from you for its rejection or proof that they are assumptions. That the universe began to exist is NOT an assumption. You've taken astronomy, how come you reject the notion? With your other educational background, how come you reject the other science background I provide in the proof? If you are so open minded, why have you rejected it out of hand from the very beginnings? In my opinion, you aren't being very open minded. It seems you have completely closed yourself off to the mere possibility that the universe began to exist or that it has a unique state of information. How come??? If you were truly objective you would try to find a legitimate logical reason for its rejection. Furthermore, part of being objective is that you try and think of any ways in which it might be altered for its acception if the present form doesn't work. I've seen neither from you. You do not have a logical basis for its rejection, neither do you propose any possible solution. From such a basis, I find it hard to believe that you don't suffer yourself from that which you accuse me of, namely, being biased and basing your conclusions on assumption. At best, it is a double standard.

I'm still waiting for your objective logical reason for a rejection.

"you may make some valid persuasive arguments based on legitimate facts"

Oh, I see. So its not all assumptions anymore. Which statements do you accept then and for what basis?

"but your choice of syntax shows a religious bias that i find not only unacceptable but even insulting to be presented as scientific fact when its not..."

Oh my hell! How does my use of English show religious bias!? What basis do you base this unsubstantiated claim on!? How does syntax make one religiously biased!? Your statement is ridiculous and laughable. Where's the objective logical reasoning on this one? How come your very own statement doesn't reek of bias? Prey do tell, how can one even make the assumptious claim that use of syntax shows religious bias? How come when I use cosmology (i.e. the universe began to exist), information theory, and math (Godel), it supposedly insults science???

You keep heresaying and naysaying, and yet, you cannot come up with a single reason why my use of cosmology, information theory, and math ISN'T science. Stop making accusations then and let's have it!!! What objective logical basis do you have for such a claim??? How does my use of science insult science? It defies reason.

Have I erred? Did you not just say that my use of syntax renders any scientific statement I may use as unscientific? Does my syntax really insult science, or just you???

By analogy, here's what you just said: 1) The sun is bright. 2) My choice of syntax renders this statement an insult. 3) By my use of syntax, and since it causes insult, therefore, it isn't a scientific statement. 4) Therefore, we have cause of its rejection. That is, the sun is dark.

LOL!!! Like I said before, stop naysaying. You are being ridiculous. Prove the analogy wrong. Prove that I haven't based any statement on the foundation and encorporation of science!!! I must add a loud and resounding statement: PROVE IT!!! I repeat, stop making accusations, and come up with some real logic for a rejection. Anything that you may thing I'm guilty of you have created a double standard for yourself.

"to make clear what ... means, john has trouble understanding when i change trains of thought in my posts so he asked me to put breaks in when i did so i put ... to show im saying a new thing..."

Sorry, but I still don't understand. You don't use "..." to break up your thoughts in the same sentence. It makes it inconsistently hard to follow.

"you named your post logical proof of god yet you do not show proof"

You don't have to "show" proof in order for something to be proof. Tell me then. How am I supposed to show you the beginning of the universe? With that said, am I supposed to show you God? Is he supposed to sit in your lap and hold your hand and tell you "I exist!!! (thundering and lightning). You don't want logical proof. You just want a sign. Perhaps you reject the very notion of God to sustain your current life style? Just wondering.

"but you make statements that are based on religious assumptions with no evidence that can proven to be fact..."

Lol. Prove it then. Your saying it so doesn't make it so. Prove that one simple statement, ANY, is based on a religious assumption. What are the religious assumptions? The matter of existence is NOT a religious assumption. At best, it is philosophy. Name one religion that bases one of their basic tenants on anything I have said (you cannot say that my conclusion is a religious assumption - the religious conclusion is based on mere faith, while my conclusion is based on logic - your job is show that it isn't logical by using the tool of logic - so far you have failed).

"people think in many different ways with different parts of the brain which logically means that everyone thinks uniquely just because you say 2+2=4 doe not mean its a true statement what if we are counting rabbits and we have 2 males and 2 female rabbits in a short period of time 2+2 will equal a million rabbits its all a matter of perspective..."

No it doesn't. Lol. In the context of basic household math, 2+2 can never equal anything other than 4. It defies logic. If you opt for rabbit fibonacchi numbers, then you have intermediate steps. You don't just magically get the nth rabbit from 2+2. To say that 2+2 can equal anything other than 4 is ridiculous.

"im my second year of college i took a philosophy class and learned a few things about logic and what i learned was most important was not what seems reasonable but what is the truth is whats important... unless you have absolute undeniable proof in something then it may be true or it may not depending on your perspective..."

So now you're saying that logic isn't important in the context of the proof!? How do you arrive at the truth without logic when it comes to philosophy??? It defies reason. In addition to that, is your philosophy class supposed to render my proof false?

"a conclusion without complete truth is a lie..."

You just don't understand Godel's logic then do you. Everything that humans have ever devised does not contain the complete truth. In fact, I can show you that modern math is contradictory. Please ask me to show you because I'm itching to prove you wrong. By your logic, everything's a lie.

"a opinion is just that, a opinion... your information theory is just like you say a theory with either no facts or not enough facts to be considered a fact..."

B.S. Information theory is NOT my theory. It is a scientific theory. Guess what makes a theory a theory? It has many supporting hypothesis and facts. By your notion, I can say that "the earth revolves around the sun" is a theory because it does not have enough facts. Here's a riddle for ya. How many facts does it take to screw in the "fact lightbulb"? How many facts does it take to make a fact a fact. With that said, how can any fact exist? Where did the first facts come from since, by your criterion, they must be based on then existent facts (but there were no facts before the first facts)? It defies reason.

"i through years of religious research and years of thoughtfull consideration have decided that god is not a fact and being from missouri with our attitude SHOW ME"

That's right. I showed you the logic, so you show me by logical objectiveness that I'm wrong. Can you please just try to do that instead of making accusations and assumptions? My job isn't to show you God. With that said, show me the logic! (Heh heh, try Jerry McQuire on for size: SHOW ME THE LOGICCCCCCCCC!!!)

"until provable facts can be shown without religious assumptions then my disbelief has as much validity as your belief and thats a fact"

Lol. Give me a break.

Since you cannot be shown the beginning of the universe, then it doesn't exist. Since you cannot be shown that there are 6-7 billion people on the planet, then they do not exist. Since you cannot see any other planet from outside our solar system then they don't exist (NASA could be making the picture up). Since you have not seen a dinosaur with your own two eyes, they must not exist (they could always create hoaxes you know). Since you have not seen an ice age with you own two eyes they must not have existed at any time. Since "I" have not seen the theory of relativity in action, it must be false. Since we have not seen the direct evolution of new species, evolution must be false.

If the only things you can see are from your eyes, then you are truly blind. A fact doesn't have to be "shown" to be a fact, and they do not exist according to your own personal criterion. No one has ever seen the evolution of new species, and yet, it is an unobservable fact.

Furthermore, I asked you a simple question remember? You were supposed to prove my statement that the "universe had a beginning" was wrong. This is the second time you have produced a red herring. I put you to the charge again, but why bother? You'll just side step the issue again.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.