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

[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..."??

[Frank Apisa]

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.

[Frank Apisa]

I see you are in troll mode. I am, as always, in god mode.

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?

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

I'm still waiting.

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

Patience of job have I.

That should be Job...with a capital "J"...or you damage your case for being a genius and a god.

[Frank Apisa]

Stop making them.

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.

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.

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.

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!)

I suspect this is going south anyway...but, I'm gonna be here no matter what.

[Frank Apisa]

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?

Get your act in order.

Read and edit your posts before posting.

[Frank Apisa]

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

Okay...as I suspected...you are full of shit.

[Frank Apisa]

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.

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

...and...

..."one can prove a negative."

Interesting.

[Into the Night]

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.

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).

[Into the Night]

The assertion "There are no gods" IS NOTHING BUT A BLIND GUESS.

There is no logic involved. In fact, logic would require that you withdraw the assertion.

His position is not a logical conclusion at all, you are correct. He is making an argument of ignorance fallacy.

[Into the Night]

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?

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.

[Into the Night]

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.

No, he said Trump's religion is Trump. He also attacked organized religion in general.

God damn, why would god make so many stupid fucks who can't follow a train of through out of the depot.

Maybe you ought to pay attention.

[Frank Apisa]

His position is not a logical conclusion at all, you are correct. He is making an argument of ignorance fallacy.

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!