think tank forum

news and politics » god does not exist

lucas's avatar
16 years ago
link
lucas
i ❤ demo
thanks to chiken:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060605/od_nm/ukr … NlYwN0bQ--
 
16 years ago
link
dru
The Art of Subconscious Illusion
page was not found
 
16 years ago
link
dbrown
don't forget leonhard euler's famous proof:
"(a+b^n)/n=x, hence god exists!"

reference: fermat's last theorem. for a web link see:
http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/EulerLeonhard.html
 
16 years ago
link
dbrown
replace proof with conjecture.
hmorgan's avatar
12 years ago
link
hmorgan
h*may
I don't understand how you could possibly prove some kind of god's existence with math. Last time I checked, a god's existence could not be proved. Period.
bsdlite's avatar
12 years ago
link
bsdlite
thinks darkness is his ally
*slow jerk*
Chiken's avatar
12 years ago
link
Chiken
Don't Let Your Walls Down
i am god
nny's avatar
12 years ago
link
nny
M̮͈̣̙̰̝̃̿̎̍ͬa͉̭̥͓ț̘ͯ̈́t̬̻͖̰̞͎ͤ̇ ̈̚J̹͎̿̾ȏ̞̫͈y̭̺ͭc̦̹̟̦̭̫͊̿ͩeͥ̌̾̓ͨ
We will create him. He will look like darth vader, but dance way better.
Weasley's avatar
12 years ago
link
Weasley
20 x 10 living
I think god should look like the T101 from T2
nny's avatar
12 years ago
link
nny
M̮͈̣̙̰̝̃̿̎̍ͬa͉̭̥͓ț̘ͯ̈́t̬̻͖̰̞͎ͤ̇ ̈̚J̹͎̿̾ȏ̞̫͈y̭̺ͭc̦̹̟̦̭̫͊̿ͩeͥ̌̾̓ͨ
Give us some time at NYCR, we'll see what we can do.
Carpetsmoker's avatar
12 years ago
link
Carpetsmoker
Martin
haha, challenge accepted ;)
Étrangère's avatar
12 years ago
link
Étrangère
I am not a robot...
I really don't get it. Why the fuck do people even talk about god in hopes of "converting" people to their opinion about it/him/whatever. No one can ever win this stupid fucking argument.

*exhale*
nny's avatar
12 years ago
link
nny
M̮͈̣̙̰̝̃̿̎̍ͬa͉̭̥͓ț̘ͯ̈́t̬̻͖̰̞͎ͤ̇ ̈̚J̹͎̿̾ȏ̞̫͈y̭̺ͭc̦̹̟̦̭̫͊̿ͩeͥ̌̾̓ͨ
Actually thanks to the advent of nuclear weapons, they can win!
Carpetsmoker's avatar
12 years ago
link
Carpetsmoker
Martin
> I really don't get it. Why the fuck do people even talk about god in hopes of "converting" people to
> their opinion about it/him/whatever. No one can ever win this stupid fucking argument.

That's not quite true, believers make the claim something exists (God), so it's their duty to provide evidence that it exists. So far, they have provided no serious evidence.

It's impossible for we "non-believers" to prove that God doesn't exist, because it's impossible to prove that *anything* doesn't exist. Saying this argument is "can never be won" is the same as saying that "no argument at all can ever be won".
nny's avatar
12 years ago
link
nny
M̮͈̣̙̰̝̃̿̎̍ͬa͉̭̥͓ț̘ͯ̈́t̬̻͖̰̞͎ͤ̇ ̈̚J̹͎̿̾ȏ̞̫͈y̭̺ͭc̦̹̟̦̭̫͊̿ͩeͥ̌̾̓ͨ
Purple Monkey Elevator.
Carpetsmoker's avatar
12 years ago
link
Carpetsmoker
Martin
I am beginning to think nny just does a "strings /dev/random | head -n 1" for his posts.
nny's avatar
12 years ago
link
nny
M̮͈̣̙̰̝̃̿̎̍ͬa͉̭̥͓ț̘ͯ̈́t̬̻͖̰̞͎ͤ̇ ̈̚J̹͎̿̾ȏ̞̫͈y̭̺ͭc̦̹̟̦̭̫͊̿ͩeͥ̌̾̓ͨ
I find your hypothesis intriguing, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Étrangère's avatar
12 years ago
link
Étrangère
I am not a robot...
Dude believers can't prove god exists, either. And they shouldn't, if they are true believers. That's the whole damn point of faith arg.
Chiken's avatar
12 years ago
link
Chiken
Don't Let Your Walls Down
i just hate how the burden of proof is on non believers to prove god doesn't exist when believers should be the ones with all the responsibility to prove anything.
Carpetsmoker's avatar
12 years ago
r1, link
Carpetsmoker
Martin
> Dude believers can't prove god exists, either. And they shouldn't, if they are true believers. That's
> the whole damn point of faith arg.

That's just a easy way out, close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and shout LALALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
That's the "whole damn point to faith".

> i just hate how the burden of proof is on non believers to prove god doesn't exist when believers
> should be the ones with all the responsibility to prove anything.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
bsdlite's avatar
12 years ago
link
bsdlite
thinks darkness is his ally
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

... what?
Étrangère's avatar
12 years ago
link
Étrangère
I am not a robot...
yeah wow.
nny's avatar
12 years ago
link
nny
M̮͈̣̙̰̝̃̿̎̍ͬa͉̭̥͓ț̘ͯ̈́t̬̻͖̰̞͎ͤ̇ ̈̚J̹͎̿̾ȏ̞̫͈y̭̺ͭc̦̹̟̦̭̫͊̿ͩeͥ̌̾̓ͨ
Yeah well, according to anecdotal evidence from "the ladies" god does in fact exist, and I am one whenever I am placed in a bed.

Epic Five! *hand in the air*
asemisldkfj's avatar
12 years ago
link
asemisldkfj
the law is no protection
what is the confusion with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?"

obviously proof is not something that someone with faith is primarily (or at all necessarily) interested in. religion is about faith, belief, etc., not hard proof. personally I don't have faith, but I'm not going to press someone with faith to "prove" their beliefs to me, so long as those beliefs aren't dictating what I can and can not do. i.e., I don't think that religious doctrine should inform law. religious values, maybe they should, and I don't know that anything can be done to prevent them from doing so. point is, I think religion should be strictly a personal matter.
nny's avatar
12 years ago
link
nny
M̮͈̣̙̰̝̃̿̎̍ͬa͉̭̥͓ț̘ͯ̈́t̬̻͖̰̞͎ͤ̇ ̈̚J̹͎̿̾ȏ̞̫͈y̭̺ͭc̦̹̟̦̭̫͊̿ͩeͥ̌̾̓ͨ
Well at a certain point our definitions of law are upheld based on a faith in a system. Whether it's religious in origin or not is somewhat irrelevant. Morality isn't a commonly held concept. We all have different views of it. Weather it's the threat of hell or the threat of incarceration the methodology by which we institute regulation really doesn't matter much beyond the end result... DOES IT WORK?

That would be my statement.
bsdlite's avatar
12 years ago
link
bsdlite
thinks darkness is his ally
> what is the confusion with "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?"

it's not confusing, it's just wrong
asemisldkfj's avatar
12 years ago
link
asemisldkfj
the law is no protection
@nny that's kind of a whole other discussion, but ok. the existing difference between religion and law, at least in the US, is that law applies to everyone. which is the context in which I was making my post.

@bsdlite ok, then why is it wrong? it seems pretty common sense to me. if you claim something extraordinary, you need extraordinary evidence to back it up, if your interest is in proving your claim. if your "claim" is simply a matter of your religious belief, like I said, proof may not even enter the equation, which is fine.
nny's avatar
12 years ago
link
nny
M̮͈̣̙̰̝̃̿̎̍ͬa͉̭̥͓ț̘ͯ̈́t̬̻͖̰̞͎ͤ̇ ̈̚J̹͎̿̾ȏ̞̫͈y̭̺ͭc̦̹̟̦̭̫͊̿ͩeͥ̌̾̓ͨ
asemi, it would be my immediate response that a proof returns a boolean value. true or false.

so it can't really be "extraordinary". You don't drop EXXXTREME 0s when you call a return(); unless of course your compiler is macho man randy savage.
Chiken's avatar
12 years ago
link
Chiken
Don't Let Your Walls Down
if you take away extraordinary then their proof always fails
nny's avatar
12 years ago
r1, link
nny
M̮͈̣̙̰̝̃̿̎̍ͬa͉̭̥͓ț̘ͯ̈́t̬̻͖̰̞͎ͤ̇ ̈̚J̹͎̿̾ȏ̞̫͈y̭̺ͭc̦̹̟̦̭̫͊̿ͩeͥ̌̾̓ͨ
#include <politics.h>

void proof(char *gods[]) {

double long extraordinary;
zealots = 0;

while ( religions != Nihilism ) {
if ( gods[zealots] ) {
extraordinary = 0;
return(extraordinary);
}
zealots++;
}

int main() {

char gods[];
proof(gods);
extraordinary = 1;
return(extraordinary);

}
nny's avatar
12 years ago
link
nny
M̮͈̣̙̰̝̃̿̎̍ͬa͉̭̥͓ț̘ͯ̈́t̬̻͖̰̞͎ͤ̇ ̈̚J̹͎̿̾ȏ̞̫͈y̭̺ͭc̦̹̟̦̭̫͊̿ͩeͥ̌̾̓ͨ
chicken -o proof_of_god ..
Étrangère's avatar
12 years ago
link
Étrangère
I am not a robot...

obviously proof is not something that someone with faith is primarily (or at all necessarily) interested in. religion is about faith, belief, etc., not hard proof. personally I don't have faith, but I'm not going to press someone with faith to "prove" their beliefs to me, so long as those beliefs aren't dictating what I can and can not do. i.e., I don't think that religious doctrine should inform law. religious values, maybe they should, and I don't know that anything can be done to prevent them from doing so. point is, I think religion should be strictly a personal matter.



Yes.
asemisldkfj's avatar
12 years ago
link
asemisldkfj
the law is no protection
then replace "proof" with "evidence," because I'm pretty sure that's essentially what it means in that context. I've never read it as proof like a formal mathematical proof or something, but maybe that's because I've always hated those.