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

Micawber said:
I see you are in troll mode. I am, as always, in god mode.
Click to expand...

I am never in "troll" mode...and I am not a troll.

Interesting that you think you are a god. Good luck with that.

Can't anyone ever beat me in an argument?
Click to expand...

I suspect many people, including myself, can...and of course, you can and often do.

I'm still waiting.
Click to expand...

If you refuse to see it happen, you will be waiting a long time.

Patience of job have I.
Click to expand...

That should be Job...with a capital "J"...or you damage your case for being a genius and a god.
 
Into the Night said:
Stop making them.
Click to expand...

Okay...don't stop. You are obviously less interested in making contributions to conversations...than attempting to seem a genius.

A fallacy is nonsense. A fallacy is an error in logic, just like an error in mathematics. Both logic and mathematics are closed functional systems.
Click to expand...

Have a fucking conversation in an Internet forum without trying to be a genius. It won't hurt. I promise.

Very few have been taught logic, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

That is probably true. My graduate work was in Psychology (with Economic and Philosophy majors in undergrad)...so I have. But that was a long, long time ago...and I undoubtedly have lost a lot of what I had in this area. I acknowledge that.

Correct. They are evidence...supporting evidence. Supporting evidence can prove nothing. In science, literally mountains of supporting evidence mean absolutely nothing in the face of a single piece of conflicting evidence.
Click to expand...

Anyone looking to PROVE that gods exist...or do not exist...is a fool.

That is not what we are about here.

The bullshit you offered as "evidence" of "there are no gods" is not even close to evidence that there are no gods...and the attempt was beneath someone with your supposed intelligence. Same thing goes for the bullshit ou offered as "evidence" of "there are gods."

If you are just showing that you are going to be stone-headed...that was a success.

I don't. We can head north again! (although south is warmer right now!)
Click to expand...

I suspect this is going south anyway...but, I'm gonna be here no matter what.
 
Micawber said:
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?
Click to expand...

Get your act in order.

Read and edit your posts before posting.
 
Into the Night said:
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.
Click to expand...

So...your position now is "one cannot prove a negative"...

...and...

..."one can prove a negative."

Interesting.
 
Nordberg said:
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.
Click to expand...

Science is incapable of prediction. It is an open functional system. Theories of science can only describe, not predict.

To gain the power of prediction, science must transcribe the theory into a closed function system, such as mathematics or logic. Only there exists the power of the proof. Along with the power of proof comes the power of prediction. That transcription process is called 'formalizing' a theory. The resulting equation is called a 'law'. Theories of science in the area of physics generally will formalize into mathematics.

Otherwise you are correct. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It does not use supporting evidence (the theory itself is all the support it needs). Science only uses conflicting evidence. A theory remains a theory until it is destroyed by falsification. There are no proofs in science. The requirement of falsifiability is a rigorous test. A null hypothesis of the theory must developed. A test must be constructed to test that null hypothesis. That test must be practical, available, specific, and produce a specific result. It the theory survives, it is automatically part of the body of science. It will remain a theory of science until some test upon the null hypothesis is successful, utterly destroying that theory. The test of falsifiability is the ONLY test that can take a theory beyond the simple circular argument (where all theories, including scientific theories originate).
 
Frank Apisa said:
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?
Click to expand...

The phrase "There are no gods" is a positive. It is a definitive statement. If used as a predicate, you will find challengers on it's use as such.
 
Micawber said:
Did you read what Nordberg said, dolt? He didn't say Trump didn't fit into organized religion, he said he was not a real christian
because he is immoral and capricious and that organized christian is a sham anyway.
Click to expand...
No, he said Trump's religion is Trump. He also attacked organized religion in general.
Micawber said:
God damn, why would god make so many stupid fucks who can't follow a train of through out of the depot.
Click to expand...
Maybe you ought to pay attention.
 
Into the Night said:
His position is not a logical conclusion at all, you are correct. He is making an argument of ignorance fallacy.
Click to expand...

The "fallacy" bullshit truly is getting old, mostly because you are overdoing it. Get away from it.

Anyway...earlier, I insisted that one CAN prove a negative...and mentioned that the scope of the negative mattered. You dismissed the notion that the scope matters (which seems incredible considering your supposed expertise)...but never responded to the question I asked:

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

Mind answering that!
 
Frank Apisa said:
So...your position now is "one cannot prove a negative"...

...and...

..."one can prove a negative."

Interesting.
Click to expand...

One can prove a negative, but only under very limited circumstances, which are not being used by most here. Having said that, your position that it is not possible to prove the existence of any god or gods and that it is not possible to prove any god or gods do not exist IS a negative proof that is valid. I already agreed with it.

My comment that it is not possible prove a negative is directed toward those attempting the invalid forms of a negative proof (which I described here).
 
Into the Night said:
The phrase "There are no gods" is a positive. It is a definitive statement. If used as a predicate, you will find challengers on it's use as such.
Click to expand...

Oops, you must have posted that as I got started on my post.

Sorry for my last post. We're both up early...and at the computer.

Okay..."There are no gods" IS A POSITIVE. As such, it bears the same burden of proof any other assertion requires. I've mentioned that...but the atheist here then proclaim that they can say that without assuming the burden...and that in any case, one cannot prove a negative.

You say both that one cannot prove a negative and one can prove a negative. (That should be cleared up.)

Would you mind giving us a couple of examples of "a negative."
 
Into the Night said:
One can prove a negative, but only under very limited circumstances, which are not being used by most here. Having said that, your position that it is not possible to prove the existence of any god or gods and that it is not possible to prove any god or gods do not exist IS a negative proof that is valid. I already agreed with it.

My comment that it is not possible prove a negative is directed toward those attempting the invalid forms of a negative proof (which I described here).
Click to expand...

That would have been much more classy if you had simply acknowledged an error...that of saying both "one cannot prove a negative" and "one can prove a negative."

Obviously we both are working with what is going on here...in this discussion.

When someone says, "one cannot prove a negative" in regard to "there are no gods"..."there are no gods" obviously is being perceived as a negative...not a positive.

That formed the basis for my comments.

Now, I still say that one CAN prove a negative...and one can.

I'll wait for a few examples of "negatives."
 
Frank Apisa said:
The "fallacy" bullshit truly is getting old, mostly because you are overdoing it. Get away from it.
Click to expand...
No.
Frank Apisa said:
Anyway...earlier, I insisted that one CAN prove a negative...and mentioned that the scope of the negative mattered. You dismissed the notion that the scope matters (which seems incredible considering your supposed expertise)...but never responded to the question I asked:
Click to expand...
Scope doesn't matter. Form of argument does.
Frank Apisa said:
Is "There are no gods" a negative? If I could prove that there are no gods...would I be proving a negative?

Mind answering that!
Click to expand...
Sure. The phrase "there are no gods" is a positive. It is a definitive statement. If you use it as a predicate, it would be a positive predicate. Used as a conclusion it is a positive conclusion.

Attempting to use it as a predicate will likely result in challenges, since the statement itself as a conclusion is not possible. The reason it is not possible is because the only predicates available are negative ones. The same is true of the statement "there are gods". It is not possible to prove a positive with negative predicates.

I challenged you on the positive statement "there is no evidence" because that is likewise a positive statement, and you were using it as a conclusion. It is an invalid conclusion because you were basing that conclusion on a circular argument. Supporting evidence DOES exist for both cases. ALL of it is negative statements or circular arguments in their own right. Because of that, NONE of it can be used to form the positive conclusion "there is a god" or "there is no god". Such a conclusion is also therefore a circular argument, and the argument of ignorance fallacy.

This brings up the question: What is a negative statement? What is a positive statement?

A positive statement is one that is definitive and specific. A negative statement is everything else. Thus, "there is no god" is a positive statement. It is definitive. It is specific. It also happens to be a circular argument, but that in and of itself is not a fallacy. The same is true of the statement "there is a god".

The statement "there is no evidence", however, is a negative statement. It is NOT definitive. It is NOT specific. It attempts to declare a non-void set as void. The only way this can be a positive statement is if the set can be proven void. No such proof was given.

The supporting evidence I listed for both cases, such as "life itself" is a negative statement. It is not definitive. It is not specific. It is an set of an unknown number of elements which makes the set too generic to be specific.
 
Into the Night said:
No.

Scope doesn't matter. Form of argument does.

Sure. The phrase "there are no gods" is a positive. It is a definitive statement. If you use it as a predicate, it would be a positive predicate. Used as a conclusion it is a positive conclusion.

Attempting to use it as a predicate will likely result in challenges, since the statement itself as a conclusion is not possible. The reason it is not possible is because the only predicates available are negative ones. The same is true of the statement "there are gods". It is not possible to prove a positive with negative predicates.

I challenged you on the positive statement "there is no evidence" because that is likewise a positive statement, and you were using it as a conclusion. It is an invalid conclusion because you were basing that conclusion on a circular argument. Supporting evidence DOES exist for both cases. ALL of it is negative statements or circular arguments in their own right. Because of that, NONE of it can be used to form the positive conclusion "there is a god" or "there is no god". Such a conclusion is also therefore a circular argument, and the argument of ignorance fallacy.

This brings up the question: What is a negative statement? What is a positive statement?

A positive statement is one that is definitive and specific. A negative statement is everything else. Thus, "there is no god" is a positive statement. It is definitive. It is specific. It also happens to be a circular argument, but that in and of itself is not a fallacy. The same is true of the statement "there is a god".

The statement "there is no evidence", however, is a negative statement. It is NOT definitive. It is NOT specific. It attempts to declare a non-void set as void. The only way this can be a positive statement is if the set can be proven void. No such proof was given.

The supporting evidence I listed for both cases, such as "life itself" is a negative statement. It is not definitive. It is not specific. It is an set of an unknown number of elements which makes the set too generic to be specific.
Click to expand...

I disagree with some of what you say here...some essential stuff...but I am too goddam tired to do this now. I'll mull over my response while cutting the wood delivered into pieces small enough for our wood burning stove.

Maybe later today.

Good talking!
 
"Prove that Dragons don't exist." U9
Click to expand...
It's easier to prove they do exist.

Komodo dragon (ke-mÖ´dÖ dràg´en) noun
A large monitor lizard (Varanus komodoensis) native to Indonesia. It is the largest living lizard, sometimes growing to a length of 3 meters (10 feet).

[After Komodo, an island of south-central Indonesia.] *

* Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
 
Into the Night said:
Science is incapable of prediction. It is an open functional system. Theories of science can only describe, not predict.

To gain the power of prediction, science must transcribe the theory into a closed function system, such as mathematics or logic. Only there exists the power of the proof. Along with the power of proof comes the power of prediction. That transcription process is called 'formalizing' a theory. The resulting equation is called a 'law'. Theories of science in the area of physics generally will formalize into mathematics.

Otherwise you are correct. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It does not use supporting evidence (the theory itself is all the support it needs). Science only uses conflicting evidence. A theory remains a theory until it is destroyed by falsification. There are no proofs in science. The requirement of falsifiability is a rigorous test. A null hypothesis of the theory must developed. A test must be constructed to test that null hypothesis. That test must be practical, available, specific, and produce a specific result. It the theory survives, it is automatically part of the body of science. It will remain a theory of science until some test upon the null hypothesis is successful, utterly destroying that theory. The test of falsifiability is the ONLY test that can take a theory beyond the simple circular argument (where all theories, including scientific theories originate).
Click to expand...

False Science can be utilized to make informed predictions. it is not "incapable of prediction"

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/how-to-improve-the-science-of-forecasting/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0169207086900282

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowcasting_(meteorology)

People here make too many categorical assertions.
 
Last edited:
sear said:
It's easier to prove they do exist.

Komodo dragon (ke-mÖ´dÖ dràg´en) noun
A large monitor lizard (Varanus komodoensis) native to Indonesia. It is the largest living lizard, sometimes growing to a length of 3 meters (10 feet).

[After Komodo, an island of south-central Indonesia.] *

* Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
Click to expand...

You've pretty much summed of 90 percent of the disagreements here, semantic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top