I’m afraid I’m totally lost here. This thread started off as a theorem. You then proceeded to state that theorems cannot be proven by empirical science. That we have known, as you indicated in your reply to Mefiante. What then was the purpose of the question - just fun? Then you deduce that God is not a scientific theory. What are you then suggesting - that he’s a theorem? Then prove the theorem.
I would like to find out what people think of this very basic and simple theorem:
It is given that all elephants fly south for the winter.
On the scale below, what do you think is the probability that all elephants fly south for the winter?
1 100 per cent probability.
2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent.
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high.
4 Exactly 50 per cent.
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low.
6 Very low probability, but short of zero.
7 0 percent probability.
Do you agree with my argument ( not that I have made one , but wtf does that matter )? Please give reasons.
PS. In the OP, are the “degrees” in Fahrenheit or Centigrade?
Who are these dastardly devils that insists pabi be a scientific theory? As far as I know the one of the main charges against pabi is that he/she/it/whatever isn’t scientific in the least.
Of what use is anything that isn’t testable, repeatable and can be shown to have use? Why worship this and spend your whole fucking life kissing its arse in the hope that you won’t a) die b) spent an eternity burning in hell?
Those who think God is some scientific theory needs to either wake up or at least try and show why people need to take God as scientific theory seriously.Why should an unscientific pabi be taken seriously??? Why? Dear God why?
Dawkins is simply confused if he thinks (or you think) he is “elevating” the idea of God by making it into a scientific theory (like IDers). To illustrate the confusion and silliness, it would be like saying the Pythagorean theorem has taken its rightful place as a scientific theory. Both IDers and Dawkins seem to be equally confused. I don’t think Dawkins is trying “elevate” the idea anyway, give the guy a break, I am sure he is more intelligent than that.
Actually, Mefiante correctly pointed that out.
That is brilliant then. I suspect muffles stated that in vain since we all knew that ;)… I hope :P.
I am suggesting that arguments for the existence of God do not take the form of scientific hypotheses or theories. They take the form of formal axiomatic logic and reasoning.
Your “theorem” does not seem to be traceable back to observations about the real world. Or have you seen some form of flying elephants like you have observed some form of triangle?
So it is really telling that they all fail?
They are about as untestable, unrepeatable, useless, unscientific and fail as bad as these silly things lol.
Are you saying that wiki list of theorems all have faulty or not true premises, the conclusions don’t follow from these and that they have various fallacies that can be demonstrated??
liek wow and stuff.
Are you saying all the arguments for the existence of God have faulty or not true premises, the conclusions don’t follow from these and that they have various fallacies that can be demonstrated??
liek wow and stuff.
Wait, let me guess, you are going to say nothing begins to exist again lol.
I am indeed. Unless you are to provide one here for us that stands up to scrutiny?
liek wow and stuff.indeed. original you aren't eh?
Wait, let me guess, you are going to say nothing begins to exist again lol.Well once you demonstrate something that does, I'll change my mind. lol.
I think you think too much of yourself (Dunning-Kruger effect and all). And you need to read more about what the actual arguments say and not some straw men caricatures people tend to peddle around.
Ah, the old argument from ignorance. Never mind the fact that you are making a metaphysical statement that no serious person seem to take seriously anyway.
Wait, is there someone here that thinks nothing begins to exist? And is there someone that wishes to back up such a metaphysical statement with at least some form of logic? You may begin lol.
You are squandering your chance to educate all of us…
Ah, the old argument from ignorance. Never mind the fact that you are making a metaphysical statement that no serious person seem to take seriously anyway.You struggle with fallacies don't you? Serious people can do their serious business. I won't interfere, Mr everything-that-is-mysterious-is-metaphysical. I don't make metaphysical statements, unless, of course this is a metaphysical statement.
Wait, is there someone here that thinks nothing begins to exist? And is there someone that wishes to back up such a metaphysical statement with at least some form of logic? You may begin lol.Yes. I think nothing begins to exist. I think this because I haven't seen or heard of anything that begins to exist. Everything is just a change in form and or energy - if this is your definition of beginning to exist then you fail. Please demonstrate something that "begins to exist". As in all things, he who makes the positive claim, bears the burden of proof. Show us something that begins to exist with no cause and I'll change my mind.
Edit with respects to your edit: Dunning-Kruger effect my ass. Demonstrate how I am wrong and I will change my mind. This is your cue to shine.
Riiight. Perhaps you can help me to formalize your argument. It is in desperate need of some form of logical coherence (the ball is still in your court to try and logically substantiate your claim that nothing begins to exist).
Fix this argument if you think it is wrong…
Cyghost’s argument for why nothing begins to exist:
- Everything is just a change in form and or energy.
- Therefore nothing begins to exist.
You miss it again. And shift the burden of proof in an dishonest attempt to hide the weaknesses in your argument.
cyghost: goes around doing his own serious business
telic: The kalaam cosmological argument argument is awesome and stuff and shows God to exist. One of the premises is that things begin to exist has a cause. <<<<<---- note the claim???
cyghost: show me things that begin to exist so that I can test the premise. We don’t know whether the Universe began to exist. Everything we observe is but changes in existing energy and form.
telic: you evil straw man hater, prove that nothing begins to exist.
The burden is not mine to bear. Your positive claim, back it the fuck up.
If you say “nothing begins to exist”, the burden is on you to at least give an argument for why it is. It is common sense to think that some things DO IN FACT begin to exist. I see no reason to abandon common sense in favour of you poorly unsubstantiated claim that nothing begins to exist. You can’t even make a proper argument to logically support it.
Or wait, does your argument vaguely follow the following structure:
- Everything is just a change in form and or energy.
- Therefore nothing begins to exist.
Moan, evade, twist and turn all you want, if you can’t substantiate your claim, I am sticking with the principle of causality, the principle of sufficient reason and common sense ;).
stick with whatever floats your boat.
But do bring us a theorem that tells us dear pabi exists that doesn’t have holes the size of the grand canyon. That would be sweet.
ROFL, are you abandoning your “nothing begins to exist” tripe because you are unable to logically justify it? Good on you if that is the case. If not, please at least try and logically substantiate it. Or do you just believe it is true that nothing begins to exist without any kind of logical argumentation? I’ll ask again:
Does your argument vaguely follow the following structure:
- Everything is just a change in form and or energy.
- Therefore nothing begins to exist.
Yes, no, maybe? Why? Do you even have a proper argument lol?
“nothing begins to exist” is in direct opposition to your positive claim that “things begin to exist.”
I am not making any argument for it. I am waiting for you to show us something that begins to exist so that I can change my mind.
Well that and / or a constructive, coherent, sound argument for the existence of pabi.
Either would actually substantiate your position and I really don’t see why you keep us in suspense like this. Is this a three month slow trap?
I don’t recall claiming it does.
So there is no theorem to prove the existence of God, just arguments of a certain form?