‘There is NO GOD’ Stephen Hawking’s final revelation of the afterlife REVEALED

[Micawber]

One can prove a negative.

Obviously one cannot prove a negative of universal scope...just as one cannot prove a positive of universal scope.

Let me ask you this:

Is "There are no gods" a negative? If I could prove that there are no gods...would I be proving a negative?

Sub in : Are "There are no any of the most stupid, ludicrous things imaginable and inimical by definition to everything humanity has ever learned residing in some other reality or supplanted upon our own" a negative? If I could prove There are no any of the most stupid, ludicrous things imaginable and inimical by definition to everything humanity has ever learned residing in some other reality or supplanted upon our own" would I be proving a negative?

 

[Nordberg]

What of all the miracles so designated by the Roman Catholic church? We can argue about that if you want

Weren't any. They make that shit up to keep followers donating to the church. How about the miracles of priests buggering altar boys? This is my favorite. If the Catholic church was a religious institution, it would have taken those priests out and had them legally punished. Instead they covered it up and moved them to different parishes where they did it again. That is how a business acts. it was all about money and power from day one. Everything they do can be analyzed with that perspective.

 

[Into the Night]

No, one cannot prove a negative.

There is only one way to do so (which is not being done in these cases). If you have one and only one negative predicate, you can prove a negative.

Example:
1) All A is in B (positive predicate)
2) No B is in C (negative predicate)
Therefore No A is in C. (negative conclusion, correct form. It is not possible for any element of A to be in C, since all elements of A must be in B._

What is being attempted much of the time is:
1) No A is in B (negative predicate)
2) No B is in C (negative predicate)
Therefore no A is in C (negative conclusion, and a fallacy. It is quite possible some element of A is in C, even though it is not in B.)
This form of fallacy is also called an argument of ignorance.

or:
1) All A is in B (positive predicate)
2) Some B is in C (positive predicate)
Therefore not all A is in C (negative conclusion, and a fallacy. It is quite possible all of A is in C, even though only some of B is in C.)
This form of fallacy is also called a false equivalence.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

False equivalence. The size of the scope makes no difference.

 

[Into the Night]

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 !

Example b) is incorrect. Holding a valid NY driver's license is a positive predicate.
The predicate that NY did not exist as a State in 30AD is also a positive predicate. A conclusion is possible. (False) This, however, is a POSITIVE conclusion, not a negative one.

Example a) is also incorrect. Bruce's DNA at the murder scene is a positive predicate. His denial is a negative predicate. Therefore, Bruce may or may not be innocent. This is a negative conclusion. There is no False or True.

 

[Into the Night]

Sub in : Are "There are no any of the most stupid, ludicrous things imaginable and inimical by definition to everything humanity has ever learned residing in some other reality or supplanted upon our own" a negative?

It's barely English. Clarify.

If I could prove There are no any of the most stupid, ludicrous things imaginable and inimical by definition to everything humanity has ever learned residing in some other reality or supplanted upon our own" would I be proving a negative?

No. A->A is not proving a negative, even if the negative is A.

 

[sear]

"Example b) is incorrect. Holding a valid NY driver's license is a positive predicate." IN #545

That puts you in quite a predicaticament doesn't it.
You're conflating a conclusion (neutral) with proof or disproof.

The DMV disproof is purely chronological. The NY DMV did not exist in the first century. Therefore it could not have been involved.

"Example a) is also incorrect. Bruce's DNA at the murder scene is a positive predicate." IN #545

Bruce didn't deny being there. Bruce denied being a murderer.
The scenario ties Bruce to the scene, not to the crime.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

For a scientific theory to be thrown out, all you need is one example that disproves it. Just one. It also has to be predictive. Scientic theory is very rigorous.

And?

 

[Rob Larrikin]

There is not a person on this thread that has not prayed to God at least once in their life. And still will.

If God doesn't exist then despite everyone praying to Him at least once, nobody did. If you have trouble with that, test it out with an imaginary thing or being. For instance, as you read this, pray to a giant dragon that sits in your back yard. Okay, now, when you've finished praying I'll ask the question.

Did you just pray to the giant dragon in your backyard?

If you say 'yes' you are making a mistake because no such dragon exists.

It means that you were, in fact, praying to yourself.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

I see you are in troll mode.

That's like saying a piece of wood is in wood mode.

There is no other mode for what's his face. He is essentially a very loud mouth attached to a keyboard.

 

[Nordberg]

And?

Plus

 

[Micawber]

If the Catholic church was a religious institution, it would have taken those priests out and had them legally punished. Instead they covered it up and moved them to different parishes where they did it again. That is how a business acts. it was all about money and power from day one. Everything they do can be analyzed with that perspective.

No, they reserve that treatment for non believers.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

For a scientific theory to be thrown out, all you need is one example that disproves it. Just one. It also has to be predictive. Scientic theory is very rigorous.

okay........abiogenesis......a mud puddle on the other side of town got struck by lightening and no life crawled out of it......

 

[Micawber]

There is only one way to do so (which is not being done in these cases). If you have one and only one negative predicate, you can prove a negative.

Example:
1) All A is in B (positive predicate)
2) No B is in C (negative predicate)
Therefore No A is in C. (negative conclusion, correct form. It is not possible for any element of A to be in C, since all elements of A must be in B._

What is being attempted much of the time is:
1) No A is in B (negative predicate)
2) No B is in C (negative predicate)
Therefore no A is in C (negative conclusion, and a fallacy. It is quite possible some element of A is in C, even though it is not in B.)
This form of fallacy is also called an argument of ignorance.

or:
1) All A is in B (positive predicate)
2) Some B is in C (positive predicate)
Therefore not all A is in C (negative conclusion, and a fallacy. It is quite possible all of A is in C, even though only some of B is in C.)
This form of fallacy is also called a false equivalence.

Applying a formal syllogism to the instant debate of god's existence isn't helpful.
Nobody has attempted to do this. (and it cannot be done)
In fact we have only two elements in play, God and the natural world.

The debate here, if any, is epistemological and the interplay between a priori beliefs and empiricism as applied to God.
Personally I disbelieve there is any strictly priori belief. God is no exception. Proof must be shown. So applying a syllogism
is not useful. Nobody can refute an a priori supposition except to say, as we have, there is no empirical evidence.

Here for your amusement is the following however,

Only empirical evidence exists
there is no empirical evidence of god
therefore god does not exist

Boom

 

[USFREEDOM911]

If God doesn't exist then despite everyone praying to Him at least once, nobody did. If you have trouble with that, test it out with an imaginary thing or being. For instance, as you read this, pray to a giant dragon that sits in your back yard. Okay, now, when you've finished praying I'll ask the question.

Did you just pray to the giant dragon in your backyard?

If you say 'yes' you are making a mistake because no such dragon exists.

It means that you were, in fact, praying to yourself.

Prove that Dragons don't exist.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

okay........abiogenesis......a mud puddle on the other side of town got struck by lightening and no life crawled out of it......

more stawmen from the magical thinker

 

[Micawber]

more stawmen from the magical thinker

He is a moron. I block morons. I can get nothing useful from him. All that he knows that is true I already knew when I was 7, and the other 90 percent he thinks is true is false.

There needs to be a give and take.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

Prove that Dragons don't exist.

Trying to prove a non-existent thing is non-existent is way too much work, and besides, it creates too many bad things, turns liars into honest people and honest people into liars, and creates laziness. A boss says he is honest and will only sack people for a good reason. A worker is lazy and does no work. The boss sacks him. The worker says, “I couldn’t do the work because the dragon told me he would kill you if I did. I saved your life.” The boss says, “There is no dragon.” The worker says, “Prove it.” The boss thinks, “Gee, I can’t, so I guess it may have happened, and since there’s doubt and I said I was honest, I can’t sack him for saving my life…”

The boss keeps the lazy worker and his business suffers for it. All other lazy workers start using the ‘dragon excuse’. The business goes broke.

Common usage:

“God made me do it.”

“The devil made me do it.”

“An angel said it was okay.”

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Trying to prove a non-existent thing is non-existent is way too much work, and besides, it creates too many bad things, turns liars into honest people and honest people into liars, and creates laziness. A boss says he is honest and will only sack people for a good reason. A worker is lazy and does no work. The boss sacks him. The worker says, “I couldn’t do the work because the dragon told me he would kill you if I did. I saved your life.” The boss says, “There is no dragon.” The worker says, “Prove it.” The boss thinks, “Gee, I can’t, so I guess it may have happened, and since there’s doubt and I said I was honest, I can’t sack him for saving my life…”

The boss keeps the lazy worker and his business suffers for it. All other lazy workers start using the ‘dragon excuse’. The business goes broke.

Common usage:

“God made me do it.”

“The devil made me do it.”

“An angel said it was okay.”

Then why did you say: "...because no such dragon exists..."??

 

[Ross Dolan]

Sux. Seattle is always lit too, that light reflects off and is scattered by the clouds. That only adds to the problem. Astronomers around here arrange trips to Eastern Washington to get some kind of viewing in!

Yup. Worse than 'Vegas.

There may be hope, but it will require a bit of training.

The brain will map one eye or the other (usually the superior eye) for aiming and focus. It's easy to determine which eye is dominant. Use both eyes to point at a narrow object (a telephone pole works great). Without moving the arm, close one eye at a time. The one that keeps the finger pointing at the pole is the dominant eye.

If that eye is damaged, the brain can remap which eye is dominant. It takes time. It can be treated similarly to a lazy eye. To a certain extent, this is already happening for you (if the eyesight in that eye is damaged). For most people, this retraining will make the sinister eye dominant. Again, it takes time.

I'm 82 years old and I have seen neurological ophthalmologists about it. They've pretty much advised me on what most likely will or will not happen in the time I have left. Lots of viewing of the kind I used to do is probably not a part of that.