Posts: 19645
Threads: 177
Joined: July 31, 2012
Reputation:
92
RE: Burden of Proof
January 8, 2013 at 8:02 am
(January 7, 2013 at 7:57 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: (January 7, 2013 at 7:45 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I must have missed that part... what did you want to be proved?
The proof of god we require is simple. If such an entity exists and interacts with this planet, we require some measure of such interaction which would be at odds with all known physics.... I don't know if that would be enough, but it would be a start... warm fuzzy feelings and other mental representations are invalid as proof... See? simple!
see post number 49
Thanks. Let's look into it then!
(January 7, 2013 at 5:47 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: No one has proved that the burden of proof is with the claiment all they have done is make claims it should be based on custom and practice, or on fanciful ideas on how the universe of logical discussion would break down without proving or testing these ideas. You claim the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim so now follow your own maxim the one you love so much and PROVE YOUR CLAIM. let me see proof and not conjecture, assumptions and bias.
If you require proof of such a claim, it is because you can see some merit in the negation of said claim.
Like I implied in the post with all the axion bottles (and has been presented to you many times), such negation leads only to a ridicule, absurd and non-sensical position.
Posts: 444
Threads: 12
Joined: December 30, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: Burden of Proof
January 8, 2013 at 3:12 pm
"God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist." Goedel.
"The more I think about language, the more it amazes me that people ever understand each other at all." Goedel
Godel showed that "it is impossible to establish the internal logical consistency of a very large class of deductive systems--elementary arithmetic, for example--unless one adopts principles of reasoning so complex that their internal consistency is as open to doubt as that of the sytems themselves."(10) In short, we can have no certitude that our most cherished systems of math are free from internal contradiction.
Intuition is not proof; it is the opposite of proof. We do not analyze intuition to see a proof but by intuition we see something without a proof. Goedel
seems having started this forum and even this thread it has not been a waste of time, I have learned that I must read more from this guy.
Posts: 67318
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Burden of Proof
January 8, 2013 at 3:27 pm
(This post was last modified: January 8, 2013 at 3:37 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
"SuperRhythm, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. SuperRhythm exists in the understanding. If SuperRhythm exists in the understanding, we could imagine SuperRhythm to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, SuperRhythm must exist."
What, might I ask, is the logical justification for existence being greater than non-existence by the by? Does creating this definition actually prove that any entity matches the definition? Godel clearly thought very highly of his imagination/intuition, and it's ability to do magic, he was also clearly not a linguist.
(try gaskings parody btw)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 13901
Threads: 263
Joined: January 11, 2009
Reputation:
82
RE: Burden of Proof
January 8, 2013 at 3:33 pm
Ah the old ontological bullshit rears its ugly head once more.
I may just scream in frustration.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
Posts: 3637
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Burden of Proof
January 8, 2013 at 3:40 pm
(January 8, 2013 at 3:12 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: "God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist." Goedel.
Seriously?! The Ontological Argument for the existence of god?
You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Quote:I have learned that I must read more from this guy.
Kurt Godel was a brilliant mathematician, If you read more of him, read about his expertise in math (Read - 'Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid' by Douglas Hofstadter. Brilliant book). But his math prowess make him no more of an expert of the existence of a god as you, which seeing as how you seem to fall for every fallacious argument, is not saying much.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 2254
Threads: 85
Joined: January 24, 2010
Reputation:
29
RE: Burden of Proof
January 8, 2013 at 3:43 pm
(January 7, 2013 at 6:31 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: So what you are saying is No. Shut up. My patience-tanks are on empty with you.
Answer the question in this epistemic dispute by defining your stupid magical ghost thingy or piss off.
(January 8, 2013 at 3:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "SuperRhythm, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. SuperRhythm exists in the understanding. If SuperRhythm exists in the understanding, we could imagine SuperRhythm to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, SuperRhythm must exist." Actually HyperRhythm triumphs SuperRhythm in every aspect and conceivable and inconceivable way.
That's the Hypernatural for you, kicks the arse out of pussy Supernatural any day of the week.
Posts: 3637
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Burden of Proof
January 8, 2013 at 3:45 pm
Quote:(try gaskings parody btw)
A piece of parody, Gasking's Proof for the Non-existence of god is as follows:
1. The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement (would you be more impressed by Turner painting a beautiful landscape or a blind one-armed dwarf?)
4.The biggest handicap to a creator would be non-existence
5.Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6.Therefore, God does not exist.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 29904
Threads: 116
Joined: February 22, 2011
Reputation:
159
RE: Burden of Proof
January 8, 2013 at 5:05 pm
(This post was last modified: January 8, 2013 at 5:12 pm by Angrboda.)
Mark 13:13 Wrote:I may be a lot of things but i'm not stupid
I'm not persuaded that you've met the burden of proof with respect to this claim.
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Burden of Proof
January 8, 2013 at 5:07 pm
(This post was last modified: January 8, 2013 at 5:08 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
Proof isn't such a burden. I like proof.
But only when I can find it (and only when I can be bothered, naturally!). Mathematics and logic based on tautologically true premises that is.
Posts: 444
Threads: 12
Joined: December 30, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: Burden of Proof
January 8, 2013 at 5:56 pm
(This post was last modified: January 8, 2013 at 6:09 pm by Mark 13:13.)
(January 8, 2013 at 3:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "SuperRhythm, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. SuperRhythm exists in the understanding. If SuperRhythm exists in the understanding, we could imagine SuperRhythm to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, SuperRhythm must exist."
What, might I ask, is the logical justification for existence being greater than non-existence by the by? Does creating this definition actually prove that any entity matches the definition? Godel clearly thought very highly of his imagination/intuition, and it's ability to do magic, he was also clearly not a linguist.
(try gaskings parody btw)
Whatever he was, his ideas or at least some caused the something of an earth quake in several field that require mathematics and logic and his mode of thinking has to be respected based on the contribution he has made.
(January 8, 2013 at 3:40 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: (January 8, 2013 at 3:12 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: "God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist." Goedel.
Seriously?! The Ontological Argument for the existence of god?
You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Quote:I have learned that I must read more from this guy.
Kurt Godel was a brilliant mathematician, If you read more of him, read about his expertise in math (Read - 'Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid' by Douglas Hofstadter. Brilliant book). But his math prowess make him no more of an expert of the existence of a god as you, which seeing as how you seem to fall for every fallacious argument, is not saying much.
All true but he seems someone in tune with my mental processes just on a higher level so for me I need to read. And you point about just because he knows his maths doesn't make him an expert on everything. So it almost begs the question who are the experts we need to look to when we want to discuss the existence or non existence of God. ps I googled the book and yes I think you are right so I will order and read it. Many on the forum it seems from some posts i seem to be getting will probably appreciate the break from my posts that that will necessitate lol.
(January 8, 2013 at 5:05 pm)apophenia Wrote: Mark 13:13 Wrote:I may be a lot of things but i'm not stupid
I'm not persuaded that you've met the burden of proof with respect to this claim.
lol
|
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
