Page 37 of 66 FirstFirst ... 2733343536373839404147 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 555 of 978

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

  1. #541 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    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?
    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?

  2. #542 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,515
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,562 Times in 17,090 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    What of all the miracles so designated by the Roman Catholic church? We can argue about that if you want
    Weren't any. They make that shit up to keep followers donating to the church. How about the miracles of priests buggering altar boys? This is my favorite. If the Catholic church was a religious institution, it would have taken those priests out and had them legally punished. Instead they covered it up and moved them to different parishes where they did it again. That is how a business acts. it was all about money and power from day one. Everything they do can be analyzed with that perspective.

  3. #543 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,784
    Thanks
    30,519
    Thanked 12,926 Times in 11,513 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guille View Post
    No, one cannot prove a negative.
    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.

  4. #544 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,784
    Thanks
    30,519
    Thanked 12,926 Times in 11,513 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    One CAN prove a negative.

    It is not difficult at all.

    What is difficult is proving a negative of universal proportions. (Which is usually when this issue arises.)

    Restrict the scope of the negative..and it can be proved almost immediately.
    False equivalence. The size of the scope makes no difference.

  5. #545 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,784
    Thanks
    30,519
    Thanked 12,926 Times in 11,513 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    It depends on the negative.

    a) If Bruce's DNA is found at the murder scene of a stabbing death, he may not be able to prove his innocence. "I didn't do it." is a negative. How can he prove he didn't? BUT !!

    b) If the challenge is: Did Jesus Christ of Nazareth hold a valid New York State issued driver's license?

    b1) The answer is no.

    b2) The proof it is no is, the New York State DMV had not yet been constituted. No licensing agency can issue license before it is constituted. That's proof of a negative. JD was not a licensed driver!

    THINK !
    Example b) is incorrect. Holding a valid NY driver's license is a positive predicate.
    The predicate that NY did not exist as a State in 30AD is also a positive predicate. A conclusion is possible. (False) This, however, is a POSITIVE conclusion, not a negative one.

    Example a) is also incorrect. Bruce's DNA at the murder scene is a positive predicate. His denial is a negative predicate. Therefore, Bruce may or may not be innocent. This is a negative conclusion. There is no False or True.

  6. #546 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,784
    Thanks
    30,519
    Thanked 12,926 Times in 11,513 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    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?
    It's barely English. Clarify.
    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    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?
    No. A->A is not proving a negative, even if the negative is A.

  7. #547 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,121
    Thanks
    253
    Thanked 1,189 Times in 895 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 88 Times in 87 Posts

    Default

    "Example b) is incorrect. Holding a valid NY driver's license is a positive predicate." IN #545
    That puts you in quite a predicaticament doesn't it.
    You're conflating a conclusion (neutral) with proof or disproof.

    The DMV disproof is purely chronological. The NY DMV did not exist in the first century. Therefore it could not have been involved.
    "Example a) is also incorrect. Bruce's DNA at the murder scene is a positive predicate." IN #545
    Bruce didn't deny being there. Bruce denied being a murderer.
    The scenario ties Bruce to the scene, not to the crime.
    "It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18

  8. #548 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    823
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 192 Times in 174 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 31 Times in 27 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    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.
    And?
    The first witchdoctor 100,000 years ago said, "God did it," and today the Pope says the same thing.

  9. #549 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    823
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 192 Times in 174 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 31 Times in 27 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    There is not a person on this thread that has not prayed to God at least once in their life. And still will.
    If God doesn't exist then despite everyone praying to Him at least once, nobody did. If you have trouble with that, test it out with an imaginary thing or being. For instance, as you read this, pray to a giant dragon that sits in your back yard. Okay, now, when you've finished praying I'll ask the question.

    Did you just pray to the giant dragon in your backyard?

    If you say 'yes' you are making a mistake because no such dragon exists.

    It means that you were, in fact, praying to yourself.
    The first witchdoctor 100,000 years ago said, "God did it," and today the Pope says the same thing.

  10. #550 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    823
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked 192 Times in 174 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 31 Times in 27 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    I see you are in troll mode.
    That's like saying a piece of wood is in wood mode.

    There is no other mode for what's his face. He is essentially a very loud mouth attached to a keyboard.
    The first witchdoctor 100,000 years ago said, "God did it," and today the Pope says the same thing.

  11. #551 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,515
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,562 Times in 17,090 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Larrikin View Post
    And?
    Plus

  12. #552 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    If the Catholic church was a religious institution, it would have taken those priests out and had them legally punished. Instead they covered it up and moved them to different parishes where they did it again. That is how a business acts. it was all about money and power from day one. Everything they do can be analyzed with that perspective.
    No, they reserve that treatment for non believers.

  13. #553 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,840
    Thanks
    13,241
    Thanked 40,785 Times in 32,151 Posts
    Groans
    3,660
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    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.
    okay........abiogenesis......a mud puddle on the other side of town got struck by lightening and no life crawled out of it......

  14. #554 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    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.
    Applying a formal syllogism to the instant debate of god's existence isn't helpful.
    Nobody has attempted to do this. (and it cannot be done)
    In fact we have only two elements in play, God and the natural world.

    The debate here, if any, is epistemological and the interplay between a priori beliefs and empiricism as applied to God.
    Personally I disbelieve there is any strictly priori belief. God is no exception. Proof must be shown. So applying a syllogism
    is not useful. Nobody can refute an a priori supposition except to say, as we have, there is no empirical evidence.

    Here for your amusement is the following however,

    Only empirical evidence exists
    there is no empirical evidence of god
    therefore god does not exist

    Boom

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Micawber For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (10-19-2018)

  16. #555 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74,838
    Thanks
    15,266
    Thanked 14,432 Times in 12,044 Posts
    Groans
    18,546
    Groaned 1,699 Times in 1,647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Larrikin View Post
    If God doesn't exist then despite everyone praying to Him at least once, nobody did. If you have trouble with that, test it out with an imaginary thing or being. For instance, as you read this, pray to a giant dragon that sits in your back yard. Okay, now, when you've finished praying I'll ask the question.

    Did you just pray to the giant dragon in your backyard?

    If you say 'yes' you are making a mistake because no such dragon exists.

    It means that you were, in fact, praying to yourself.
    Prove that Dragons don't exist.
    SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.


Similar Threads

  1. Stephen Hawking dies aged 76
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 184
    Last Post: 03-16-2018, 09:29 PM
  2. Stephen Hawking is dead at 76
    By BRUTALITOPS in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-13-2018, 11:28 PM
  3. Stephen Hawking is dead at 76
    By Nordberg in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-13-2018, 10:11 PM
  4. Stephen Hawking Puts An Expiry Date On Humanity
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-17-2016, 02:27 AM
  5. Shout Out from Dr. Stephen Hawking
    By Cypress in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 06-11-2010, 07:21 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •