PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
if you had used the quote button we could quickly click back to it......posting to this board is a discipline......since you fail in that, you fail in all.....
‘There is NO GOD’ Stephen Hawking’s final revelation of the afterlife REVEALED
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
if you had used the quote button we could quickly click back to it......posting to this board is a discipline......since you fail in that, you fail in all.....
a) bummer
b) Have you considered an aerial drone? For a few $Grand you can get a nice UHD camera rig, and fly it all kinds of places, even beneath the forest canopy if you're good enough.
Also Teeterboro is a round trip you could probably do in a day, if you didn't want to overnight up there. And it's just a $Few $hundred to fly a glider airplane for ~45 minutes. And at that latitude this weekend may be near peak foliage for the autumn viewing season.
I'm just sayin' from one impaired New Yorker to another.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
No, one cannot prove a negative.
One CAN prove a negative.
It is not difficult at all.
What is difficult is proving a negative of universal proportions. (Which is usually when this issue arises.)
Restrict the scope of the negative..and it can be proved almost immediately.
It depends on the negative.
a) If Bruce's DNA is found at the murder scene of a stabbing death, he may not be able to prove his innocence. "I didn't do it." is a negative. How can he prove he didn't? BUT !!
b) If the challenge is: Did Jesus Christ of Nazareth hold a valid New York State issued driver's license?
b1) The answer is no.
b2) The proof it is no is, the New York State DMV had not yet been constituted. No licensing agency can issue license before it is constituted. That's proof of a negative. JD was not a licensed driver!
THINK !
Religious leaders are pushing people to believe what they are selling. It is their function to provide proof. Not mine to prove their fictional god does not exist. Want me to believe, then prove it. Problem is, I am an adult and can respond to what they say.
I am a person of god ,you should join my religion. Why? Convince me. But saying prove my god does not exist, is a lousy argument.The reason they say that, is they cannot prove anything they say.
I am a person of god ,you should join my religion. Why? Convince me. But saying prove my god does not exist, is a lousy argument.The reason they say that, is they cannot prove anything they say.
I have absolutely no problem with what you said here, Nordberg.
But what you said here is far distant from what I have been arguing.
The difference between what you said up above and "there are no gods" is enormous.
Not really. He placed the burden of proof exactly where it should be. Ask nord to prove an apple exists and he can carry it. Asked to prove it does not exist and that can be disproven too, the obverse side of the same coin. Produce the apple. Why should it be different with god? You can’t give me a reason, can you, because you are already on record refusing to define or describe god.
God can be disproven by wholesale failure to produce evidence. Directed verdict for atheism.
God cannot be disproven only in the realm of ideas. It is disproven in reality.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Kiss my ass. You just spent a convoluted post agreeing with me you stupid shit. You are not a scientist. Shut the fuck up poseur.
Asking someone for proof of a god...and not getting it...IS NOT PROOF THAT THERE ARE NO GODS.
Micawber...you are full of shit.
God can be disproven by wholesale failure to produce evidence. Directed verdict for atheism.
Only if you are totally willing to disregard logic.
It is your blind guess that no gods exist...and you are willing to make up bullshit that wouldn't stand up to a 10th graders logic course.
Stop while you are far, far behind.
Restrict the scope of the negative...and even someone like you could prove it.
The meme "one cannot prove a negative" is absurd. I have no idea of how it gained popularity, but I suspect it has mostly to do with atheists trying to weasel out of a corner into which they have painted themselves.
There are no gods. Well, the ones that man created exist in their minds, but a god involved and caring about the world is silly.
Do Christians accept other religions gods? Nope. I am just one less. My feeling about religion and gods is exactly like religious people about other religions.I just have one more on my list of not believing.
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
Who said they did? “A lexicographer studies words and compiles the results into a dictionary. This is one of several words for a certain type of writer or editor. Just as a playwright writes plays and a poet writes poems, a lexicographer puts together dictionaries.”
Vocabulary.com
When someone tells me that elephants are yellow reptiles living in Antarctica, I provide them this:
Elephant
A very large plant-eating mammal with a prehensile trunk, long curved ivory tusks, and large ears, native to Africa and southern Asia. It is the largest living land animal.
Oxford Dictionary
The lexicographer studies words and compiles the results so I don’t have to argue about what words mean.
When people say ‘the Big Bang theory is not a theory’ I first point them at a simple dictionary. That fixes the problem for most. Some keep making noises, so I have to give them a better source. It's a shame they didn't pay attention to the dictionary, but, what can you do?
In the following definition of ‘Scientific Theory’, I have bolded the word ‘falsifiable’. If you then scroll down you’ll see that the Big Bang Theory is listed as an example of ‘Scientific Theory’ on the same page.
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.
The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required. That doesn’t mean that all theories can be fundamentally changed (for example, well established foundational scientific theories such as evolution, heliocentric theory, cell theory, theory of plate tectonics etc). In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions. A case in point is Newton's laws of motion, which can serve as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light.
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (for example, electricity, chemistry, and astronomy). Scientists use theories to further scientific knowledge, as well as to facilitate advances in technology or medicine.
As with other forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive,[6] aiming for predictive and explanatory power.
The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required. That doesn’t mean that all theories can be fundamentally changed (for example, well established foundational scientific theories such as evolution, heliocentric theory, cell theory, theory of plate tectonics etc). In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions. A case in point is Newton's laws of motion, which can serve as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light.
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (for example, electricity, chemistry, and astronomy). Scientists use theories to further scientific knowledge, as well as to facilitate advances in technology or medicine.
As with other forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive,[6] aiming for predictive and explanatory power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Scrolling down the same page we see this:
Examples
Biology: cell theory, theory of evolution (modern evolutionary synthesis), germ theory, particulate inheritance theory, dual inheritance theory
Chemistry: collision theory, kinetic theory of gases, Lewis theory, molecular theory, molecular orbital theory, transition state theory, valence bond theory
Physics: atomic theory, Big Bang theory, Dynamo theory, perturbation theory, theory of relativity (successor to classical mechanics), quantum field theory
Biology: cell theory, theory of evolution (modern evolutionary synthesis), germ theory, particulate inheritance theory, dual inheritance theory
Chemistry: collision theory, kinetic theory of gases, Lewis theory, molecular theory, molecular orbital theory, transition state theory, valence bond theory
Physics: atomic theory, Big Bang theory, Dynamo theory, perturbation theory, theory of relativity (successor to classical mechanics), quantum field theory
This shows you haven’t read the Big Bang Theory. See details about it here.
Quote [emphasis mine]:
Features of the model
The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws and the cosmological principle. The cosmological principle states that on large scales the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.
These ideas were initially taken as postulates, but today there are efforts to test each of them. For example, the first assumption has been tested by observations showing that largest possible deviation of the fine structure constant over much of the age of the universe is of order 10−5.[35] Also, general relativity has passed stringent tests on the scale of the Solar System and binary stars.
The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws and the cosmological principle. The cosmological principle states that on large scales the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.
These ideas were initially taken as postulates, but today there are efforts to test each of them. For example, the first assumption has been tested by observations showing that largest possible deviation of the fine structure constant over much of the age of the universe is of order 10−5.[35] Also, general relativity has passed stringent tests on the scale of the Solar System and binary stars.
So is The Big Bang Theory a Scientific theory? You bet your ass it is.
Thank you for sharing that blind guess.
I would have bet you were one of the people who could see the truth on this...but I was wrong.
I acknowledge that it disappoints me.
As I said, I thank you for sharing your blind guess that no gods exist.
Nothing wrong with that...just as there is nothing wrong with someone who blindly guesses there is at least one GOD. (Granted, in cumulative, that can go ape-shit.)
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
That makes you a Nazi.
National Socialists believed in neutralizing people too.
Turning into Nazis isn't going to help the Democrats; in fact it is sealing their fate. Forget about winning the mid-terms.
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
Their being Christians is as relevant as their having pants. Without pants physicists and engineers would not have been able to go to college or give speeches, ask for funding, have friends, and so on. It would have severely affected their work. The same applies to their having air, food, water, shoes, pens, paper, books, schools, and so on. You can think of many things they had, did, enjoyed and used while they invented telephones, cars, etc. Science is the most important ingredient. They achieved what they did despite religion, not because of it. The church has held mankind back for millennia. Science is what gave us our modern world, with its medicine, surgery, cars, planes, internet, phones, etc. The church is what held those things back for centuries.
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
Thanks for an example of Trump’s intelligence. It's great to know at least one POTUS escaped the tyranny of the church.
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
Back when horseless carriages were new, farmers would jump on them and 'ride' them to town. They 'rode' them as they would ride a horse. When the internet came along, some people continued writing posts as they might write a letter, with an ink pen. They'd sign their name at the bottom of each post, and instead of using the quote function, write a post number. As you say it means others can't click on the link to go back to said post. It's irritating, just as trying to drive with those farmers in 1911 was irritating.
Shrug - you'll just have to sit in your lane and hope they don't 'ride' into you too much...
"One cannot prove a negative" predates the term "meme." You are like a 17 year old kid who took his first logic or philosophy class and comes home for Thanksgiving to annoy his wizened father.
You resentment for atheists betrays your theism.
To do is to be: Aristotle
To be is to do: Sartre
Do be do be do: Sinatra
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
don't dis' the cashier at Walmart........he's got a masters in adding and a BS in subtracting.......