How we know there is no god

[poser7]

Well is the big bang a good topic cause I can show about fifty flaws in it, I not, I'll take it somewhere where people are open minded.

[ZNFYRH]

Don't confuse one member's close-mindedness as being indicative of the entire site.

This topic is about Zhavric repeating, for the umpteenth time in a year, that he knows the answer to the world's biggest question and he is the only one to have realized it and it's his job to teach us.

The flaws in the Big Bang probably belong in another thread.

Mostly this thread is for sitting and watching people take the bait and feed the troll. Hell, I have Zhavric on ignore and only read one side of the conversation.

Seriously though, if someone cites, as evidence of the non-existence of God, that the Big Bang happened, all you have to do to eliminate that piece of support is show that there is uncertainty about the Big Bang happening.

Also, you're caught in a trap of having to define the Big Bang. All he would have to do is say the Big Bang is something different, and you're stuck in a dictionary war. Good luck with that.

If you want to create a thread in the Science and Technology section called "Flaws in the Big Bang" or something like that... and be sure to leave religion out of it, it would probably attract the interest of the more astronomy-minded.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric As I've stated elsewhere in the thread, a thing can be unproven and false.

And I've disagreed with you. Repeatedly. In every thread that you say it.

And in every thread that I say it, you ignore my reason as to why.

Either stop saying it or start debating.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: poser7 Well is the big bang a good topic cause I can show about fifty flaws in it, I not, I'll take it somewhere where people are open minded.

Staying on-topic and pointing out logical flaws in an argument isn't a sign of being close minded, Poser. If you want to start a thread on the Big Bang, more power to you... but I'm not the badguy for telling you "don't derail my thread".

Quote by: ZNF This topic is about Zhavric repeating, for the umpteenth time in a year, that he knows the answer to the world's biggest question and he is the only one to have realized it and it's his job to teach us.

LOL

ZN got tired of me explaining to him that one and one really does equal two. At this point all he can do is keep me on ignore and throw insults. Pay him no mind.

[Zhavric]

Fangrim, let me show you something:

Quote by: Me All we're saying when something is false is that it contradicts another claim which has met our standard of proof for determining truth.

Quote by: Fangrim Poking holes in a claim does not render that claim false. It only prevents it from being proven. To prove it false, one must prove it's counter-claim.

We've stated the exact same thing. Yet here...

Quote by: Me As I've stated elsewhere in the thread, a thing can be unproven and false.

Quote by: Fangrim And I've disagreed with you. Repeatedly. In every thread that you say it.

Your not only contradict me, but also yourself. Fonceai got banned, Kame is starting to see the light and ZNF has me on ignore. We don't need another volconvo member who knee-jerks "up" if I happen to say "down". You've been in agreement with me for more than a page, but because it's Zhav you have to disagree with me and sling accusations.

Read more carefully, take a deep breath and understand with a little tweaking your argument is my argument.

[ZNFYRH]

Zhavric

You and Fangrim are saying two different things. You emphasized them and still think they are the same.

You are saying that if there is observed evidence of a thing being true, then it's opposite is automatically false.

In Logic, you are correct.

Fangrim is saying that if there is observed evidence of a thing being true, then it's opposite is not automatically false.

If Science, Fangrim is correct.

This is what CoffeeSaint said in another thread.

You choose to accept the inference as correct without actually observing the conclusion.

Fangrim wants it to have the support of evidence in order for him to accept it.

The reason Fangrim is disagreeing with you in every thread is because you are presenting your inference as fact. Inferences are only acceptable as fact is someone accepts the premises.

You are trying to "show" and "teach" people that your inference is correct, and they aren't telling you your inference is wrong. Myself, Kam, Fangrim, CoffeeSaint... none of us have said your logic was wrong.

Where you are wrong is insulting and belittling those who don't accept your premises as true. They don't take your word for it. Your context is not acceptable for them.

Whatever you want to call it, the one reason you are facing resistance, or being placed on ignore, is that you are rude to people who don't accept your inference as fact.

That's all there is to it.

For someone who doesn't like tone being read into their statements, you are reading more into the opposition than there actually is.

So take a deep breath, realize that the opposition is to your attitude and not your inference, and realize that your logic is right, but logic isn't everything.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Fangrim, let me show you something: ... We've stated the exact same thing. Yet here... ... Read more carefully, take a deep breath and understand with a little tweaking your argument is my argument.

Zhavric.

The problem is that you haven't proven the counter-claim.

We aren't saying the same thing because you're operating under the conception that you've proven that God contradicts a proven claim when you proven no such thing.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Zhavric You and Fangrim are saying two different things. You emphasized them and still think they are the same. You are saying that if there is observed evidence of a thing being true, then it's opposite is automatically false. In Logic, you are correct. Fangrim is saying that if there is observed evidence of a thing being true, then it's opposite is not automatically false. If Science, Fangrim is correct.

I liked it better when you had me on ignore. There was less trying to prove this strange difference between logic & science that you've invented for yourself.

I'll make this very simple:

In science if claim A is true then claim Z is false.
Claim Z is false.

What's claim A? True or false?

[ZNFYRH]

In science if claim A is true then claim Z is false. Claim Z is false. What's claim A? True or false?

In science, there is no such thing as true or false.

If you have support that Z is true, and A is the opposite of Z, you need support to show that A is false.

In science, inference doesn't cut it. You need support for each claim, even if they are opposites.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim The problem is that you haven't proven the counter-claim.

Of course it's proven. The actual problem is you keep denying it's proven or that it applies (I've lost track).

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Of course it's proven. The actual problem is you keep denying it's proven or that it applies (I've lost track).

No, Zhavric, you haven't. You have not shown that God does not exist.
What you have done is ignored the bulk of my response where I showed why you didn't with refutation.

[poser7]

I can give evidence so strong you would have to be a fool not to believe in some sort of god, that is, if you will hear it.

[ZNFYRH]

poser7

Welcome to Volconvo.

If you want to talk evidence, then you're taking the science route.

In that case, the conditions that revealed your evidence have to be able to be replicated by anyone, and the evidence observed by anyone.

[poser7]

Very well, here is what I have:

The evolutionists defense for the second law of thermodynamics is that it can be over ruled by adding energy. Very well, this is true but what they fail to see is that energy is destructive unless controlled or harnessed, if you will. This shows us two things, one is that the defense for the second law of thermodynamics is invalid and also that the universe could not have "just happened"

Let me explain, I'll use the big bang theory simply because it is most popular. It could not have created anything simply because energy is destructive without the aid of an intelligent force, and it would be foolish to say that what harnessed it was always there, unless of course you were implying that there was some sort of god or "higher being".

In adition to this, we have the first law of thermodynamics. It states that energy can only be converted, it cannot be created nor destroyed. So now that any theory that tries to explain how we got here without the aid of a god has crumbled, all that's left is to believe in some sort of god, or at least something supernatural.

[ZNFYRH]

poser7

What you just posted wasn't evidence; it's inference.

You are drawing a conclusion based on premises. You believe those premises valid, and your process is sound, so your conclusion is, according to Logic, correct.

But I can't see the Big Bang, nor have you given evidenciary support of what you suggest.

Do you have evidence?

[Jack]

This also presumes that science's final answer is the Big Bang. This isn't so. We are still looking into what happened, and most scientists admit we may never know. Science and non-believers do not offer an absolute answer. Only religion pretends to know for sure. Therefore god is not the only alternative answer for us.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Just because you can't prove something doesn't mean the opposite is true. If I can't prove I'm male, that doesn't automatically make me female, does it?

And in the context of this medium, we don't know if you're a computer, one person or a group. And even if you told us what you are, we couldn't be sure you were telling us the truth.

Regards
S.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Isherwood Only religion pretends to know for sure. Therefore god is not the only alternative answer for us.

I often wonder about something that can be derived from the above quote.

While religion seems to try to enforce a belief system around an ideal, what about someone with no religion but who still believes in God? They are Christian by virtue of their beliefs and not because they conform to religious affiliation, for example.

Quote by: sdbest And in the context of this medium, we don't know if you're a computer, one person or a group. And even if you told us what you are, we couldn't be sure you were telling us the truth.

That's basically the gist of it.

Failing to prove one thing doesn't make something else true.

In the sense of boolean logic it infers the opposite is true, but it doesn't prove it.

Quote by: Isherwood This also presumes that science's final answer is the Big Bang. This isn't so. We are still looking into what happened, and most scientists admit we may never know. Science and non-believers do not offer an absolute answer. Only religion pretends to know for sure. Therefore god is not the only alternative answer for us.

As an aside, I'd like to recommend the book Impossibility: the Limits of Science and the Science of Limits by John D. Barrow (Vintage, 1999), which explores the issue you raise. The fact is that there are constants like the speed of light, for example, that make answering certain questions or fully describing all the "Laws of the Universe" probably impossible.

As a "non-believer" I'm totally comfortable with the notion of limits. And, defaulting to Gods or "There Be Dragons" is no comfort.

I hope you'll forgive my off topic interjection.

Regards
S.

[ZNFYRH]

sdbest

So if I'm reading your post correctly, you are saying that you don't believe in God but you also believe that there are things science has yet to explain that would probably answer some of mankind's questions.

Is that about right?