Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Four Letter Word Relates to Both Micro & Macro Universe
0 views
Skip to first unread message
HVAC
Nov 24, 2011, 8:52:32 AM11/24/11
to
On 11/23/2011 3:39 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, when we are not here, can one hear the sound waves?
>>>
>>> (like when a tree falls in the forest and nobody's around)
>>
>> When no observer is around when a tree falls in the woods,
>> it makes no noise but it does make a sound.
>
> Prove it, HotShotVAC!
Certainly. When the aforementioned tree falls, it creates
oscillations in the air. This is what is known as 'sound'.
A perception of that sound is what we call 'noise'.
Therefore, if no one is around, the fallen tree makes a
sound but not a noise.
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, when we are not here, can one hear the sound waves?
>>>
>>> (like when a tree falls in the forest and nobody's around)
>>
>> When no observer is around when a tree falls in the woods,
>> it makes no noise but it does make a sound.
>
> Prove it, HotShotVAC!
Certainly. When the aforementioned tree falls, it creates
oscillations in the air. This is what is known as 'sound'.
A perception of that sound is what we call 'noise'.
Therefore, if no one is around, the fallen tree makes a
sound but not a noise.
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
HVAC
Nov 24, 2011, 9:09:59 AM11/24/11
to
On 11/23/2011 4:52 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>
> The next thing the naive atheist will say is that it's "impossible" to
> prove a negative. In other words, since there are no scientific
> observations that would prove the anthropic principle to be true, then
> everything must STOP THERE, and the anthropic principle then MUST be
> accepted to be false. And this is untrue.
>
> It is NOT impossible to prove a negative. In fact, I'll go out on a
> limb here and assert that the ease or difficulty of proving a negative
> is precisely equal to the ease or difficulty of proving its associated
> positive.
>
> Say, you just went down to the local animal shelter, and you saved a
> big, black dog from the gas chamber. The next day, a friend calls you
> and says that someone told him you had taken home a small, brown dog.
> So your friend thinks that you do NOT have a large, black dog. That's
> a negative. Is it impossible to prove that negative? Of course not.
> You invite your friend over to show him that your dog is large and
> black, NOT small and brown. You have easily proved a negative.
What you consider to be proof is not what I consider to be proof.
In your example above, the dognapper may have switched dogs before
his friend arrived. So his showing the big, black dog isn't proof....
> The only reason that it's impossible to prove that Santa Claus does
> NOT exist is that it's impossible to prove that he *does* exist.
>
> The only reason that it's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist
> is that it's impossible to prove that God *does* exist.
Again, you proceed from a false premise.
To the trained observer, a large dose of skepticism is required.
Your eyes, your upbringing, and your 'common sense' can fool you.
Don't trust them....Confirm everything.
> Anyway, the anthropic principle must be true on a philosophical level,
> Santa Claus must exist or there would be a lot of unhappy children on
> Christmas day, and everyone must know by now that God is a beautiful
> lady. All she really wants is for us to love her. A little gratitude
> wouldn't hurt, either.
A feeling of love and gratitude for a mythical creature is just
a bit difficult for me to produce. Besides, if your god really
wants my love and gratitude, I'd rather have HER tell me than YOU.
I prefer to not go through a middle-man.
Doesn't that make sense.
> ...and I have it on good authority that turkeys do, in fact, exist!
> Harlow the HVAC is a shining, feathery example. Will he survive yet
> another Thanksgiving dinner? He must be a great hider!
Happy Thanksgiving to you, too.
It's my favorite holiday.
>
>
> The next thing the naive atheist will say is that it's "impossible" to
> prove a negative. In other words, since there are no scientific
> observations that would prove the anthropic principle to be true, then
> everything must STOP THERE, and the anthropic principle then MUST be
> accepted to be false. And this is untrue.
>
> It is NOT impossible to prove a negative. In fact, I'll go out on a
> limb here and assert that the ease or difficulty of proving a negative
> is precisely equal to the ease or difficulty of proving its associated
> positive.
>
> Say, you just went down to the local animal shelter, and you saved a
> big, black dog from the gas chamber. The next day, a friend calls you
> and says that someone told him you had taken home a small, brown dog.
> So your friend thinks that you do NOT have a large, black dog. That's
> a negative. Is it impossible to prove that negative? Of course not.
> You invite your friend over to show him that your dog is large and
> black, NOT small and brown. You have easily proved a negative.
What you consider to be proof is not what I consider to be proof.
In your example above, the dognapper may have switched dogs before
his friend arrived. So his showing the big, black dog isn't proof....
> The only reason that it's impossible to prove that Santa Claus does
> NOT exist is that it's impossible to prove that he *does* exist.
>
> The only reason that it's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist
> is that it's impossible to prove that God *does* exist.
Again, you proceed from a false premise.
To the trained observer, a large dose of skepticism is required.
Your eyes, your upbringing, and your 'common sense' can fool you.
Don't trust them....Confirm everything.
> Anyway, the anthropic principle must be true on a philosophical level,
> Santa Claus must exist or there would be a lot of unhappy children on
> Christmas day, and everyone must know by now that God is a beautiful
> lady. All she really wants is for us to love her. A little gratitude
> wouldn't hurt, either.
A feeling of love and gratitude for a mythical creature is just
a bit difficult for me to produce. Besides, if your god really
wants my love and gratitude, I'd rather have HER tell me than YOU.
I prefer to not go through a middle-man.
Doesn't that make sense.
> ...and I have it on good authority that turkeys do, in fact, exist!
> Harlow the HVAC is a shining, feathery example. Will he survive yet
> another Thanksgiving dinner? He must be a great hider!
Happy Thanksgiving to you, too.
It's my favorite holiday.
Painius
Nov 25, 2011, 1:43:52 PM11/25/11
to
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:52:32 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/23/2011 3:39 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> Prove it, HotShotVAC!
>
>Certainly. When the aforementioned tree falls, it creates
>oscillations in the air. This is what is known as 'sound'.
>
>A perception of that sound is what we call 'noise'.
>
>Therefore, if no one is around, the fallen tree makes a
>sound but not a noise.
Is your "proof" "soundly" based?
>On 11/23/2011 3:39 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> Prove it, HotShotVAC!
>
>Certainly. When the aforementioned tree falls, it creates
>oscillations in the air. This is what is known as 'sound'.
>
>A perception of that sound is what we call 'noise'.
>
>Therefore, if no one is around, the fallen tree makes a
>sound but not a noise.
Other valid definitions for "sound"...
1) The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such
vibrations in the air or other medium.
2) A distinctive noise.
3) The distance over which something can be heard.
4) Meaningless noise.
5) THESAURUS...
A) noisiness
B) racketiness
C) auditory sensation
D) sense experience
E) sense impression
So it appears that you have a too-narrowed mental concept of "sound".
And the initial philosophical question is still "sound" (pun
intended):
When a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to
hear it, does it make a sound ("noise" or otherwise)?
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
Painius
Nov 25, 2011, 2:19:50 PM11/25/11
to
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:09:59 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/23/2011 4:52 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> The next thing the naive atheist will say is that it's "impossible" to
>> prove a negative. In other words, since there are no scientific
>> observations that would prove the anthropic principle to be true, then
>> everything must STOP THERE, and the anthropic principle then MUST be
>> accepted to be false. And this is untrue.
>>
>> It is NOT impossible to prove a negative. In fact, I'll go out on a
>> limb here and assert that the ease or difficulty of proving a negative
>> is precisely equal to the ease or difficulty of proving its associated
>> positive.
>>
>> Say, you just went down to the local animal shelter, and you saved a
>> big, black dog from the gas chamber. The next day, a friend calls you
>> and says that someone told him you had taken home a small, brown dog.
>> So your friend thinks that you do NOT have a large, black dog. That's
>> a negative. Is it impossible to prove that negative? Of course not.
>> You invite your friend over to show him that your dog is large and
>> black, NOT small and brown. You have easily proved a negative.
>
>What you consider to be proof is not what I consider to be proof.
>
>In your example above, the dognapper may have switched dogs before
>his friend arrived. So his showing the big, black dog isn't proof....
Well, Harlow, if you're going to change the FACTS of the storyline,
>On 11/23/2011 4:52 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> The next thing the naive atheist will say is that it's "impossible" to
>> prove a negative. In other words, since there are no scientific
>> observations that would prove the anthropic principle to be true, then
>> everything must STOP THERE, and the anthropic principle then MUST be
>> accepted to be false. And this is untrue.
>>
>> It is NOT impossible to prove a negative. In fact, I'll go out on a
>> limb here and assert that the ease or difficulty of proving a negative
>> is precisely equal to the ease or difficulty of proving its associated
>> positive.
>>
>> Say, you just went down to the local animal shelter, and you saved a
>> big, black dog from the gas chamber. The next day, a friend calls you
>> and says that someone told him you had taken home a small, brown dog.
>> So your friend thinks that you do NOT have a large, black dog. That's
>> a negative. Is it impossible to prove that negative? Of course not.
>> You invite your friend over to show him that your dog is large and
>> black, NOT small and brown. You have easily proved a negative.
>
>What you consider to be proof is not what I consider to be proof.
>
>In your example above, the dognapper may have switched dogs before
>his friend arrived. So his showing the big, black dog isn't proof....
then you could go off on several wild, invalid tangents. There was no
"dognapper" involved; it is simply the story of a person who decides
to rescue a dog from the shelter. The dog was large and black. And
the whole point is that it's just as easy to prove the negative (that
the dog is NOT large and black) as it is to prove the positive (that
dog IS large and black).
>> The only reason that it's impossible to prove that Santa Claus does
>> NOT exist is that it's impossible to prove that he *does* exist.
>>
>> The only reason that it's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist
>> is that it's impossible to prove that God *does* exist.
>
>Again, you proceed from a false premise.
>
>To the trained observer, a large dose of skepticism is required.
>Your eyes, your upbringing, and your 'common sense' can fool you.
>
>Don't trust them....Confirm everything.
there being a God, and yet you are NOT skeptical about there NOT being
a God. So you do NOT try to "confirm everything". You are in the
habit of practicing skepticism in regards to the existence of God, the
existence of a creator; however, you don't seem to question at all the
stance of the atheist.
A true skeptic would question not only the existence of God, which I
do; a true skeptic would ALSO question the non-existence of God, which
I also do.
Don't trust them....Confirm *everything*.
>> Anyway, the anthropic principle must be true on a philosophical level,
>> Santa Claus must exist or there would be a lot of unhappy children on
>> Christmas day, and everyone must know by now that God is a beautiful
>> lady. All she really wants is for us to love her. A little gratitude
>> wouldn't hurt, either.
>
>A feeling of love and gratitude for a mythical creature is just
>a bit difficult for me to produce. Besides, if your god really
>wants my love and gratitude, I'd rather have HER tell me than YOU.
>
>I prefer to not go through a middle-man.
>
>Doesn't that make sense.
A feeling that God doesn't exist is just as difficult for me to
produce. Besides, if I am really to believe that God does not exist,
then I'd rather determine it on my own than to believe a lot of
atheists who can no more prove that God does NOT exist than a
religious believer can prove that God DOES exist. BOTH of these
tenets are impossible to prove.
I prefer to not go through a middle-man, too.
>> ...and I have it on good authority that turkeys do, in fact, exist!
>> Harlow the HVAC is a shining, feathery example. Will he survive yet
>> another Thanksgiving dinner? He must be a great hider!
>
>Happy Thanksgiving to you, too.
>
>It's my favorite holiday.
Remember the old adage:
You are what you eat. <g>
HVAC
Nov 25, 2011, 4:33:30 PM11/25/11
to
On 11/25/2011 1:43 PM, Painius wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:52:32 -0500, HVAC<mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/23/2011 3:39 PM, Painius wrote:
>>>
>>> Prove it, HotShotVAC!
>>
>> Certainly. When the aforementioned tree falls, it creates
>> oscillations in the air. This is what is known as 'sound'.
>>
>> A perception of that sound is what we call 'noise'.
>>
>> Therefore, if no one is around, the fallen tree makes a
>> sound but not a noise.
>
> Is your "proof" "soundly" based?
>
> Other valid definitions for "sound"...
>
> 1) The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such
> vibrations in the air or other medium.
>
> 2) A distinctive noise.
>
> 3) The distance over which something can be heard.
>
> 4) Meaningless noise.
>
> 5) THESAURUS...
>
> A) noisiness
>
> B) racketiness
>
> C) auditory sensation
>
> D) sense experience
>
> E) sense impression
>
> So it appears that you have a too-narrowed mental concept of "sound".
Not at all. I'm right, you are wrong. Case closed.
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:52:32 -0500, HVAC<mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/23/2011 3:39 PM, Painius wrote:
>>>
>>> Prove it, HotShotVAC!
>>
>> Certainly. When the aforementioned tree falls, it creates
>> oscillations in the air. This is what is known as 'sound'.
>>
>> A perception of that sound is what we call 'noise'.
>>
>> Therefore, if no one is around, the fallen tree makes a
>> sound but not a noise.
>
> Is your "proof" "soundly" based?
>
> Other valid definitions for "sound"...
>
> 1) The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such
> vibrations in the air or other medium.
>
> 2) A distinctive noise.
>
> 3) The distance over which something can be heard.
>
> 4) Meaningless noise.
>
> 5) THESAURUS...
>
> A) noisiness
>
> B) racketiness
>
> C) auditory sensation
>
> D) sense experience
>
> E) sense impression
>
> So it appears that you have a too-narrowed mental concept of "sound".
>
> And the initial philosophical question is still "sound" (pun
> intended):
>
> When a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to
> hear it, does it make a sound ("noise" or otherwise)?
>
--
HVAC
Nov 25, 2011, 4:40:25 PM11/25/11
to
On 11/25/2011 2:19 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>>
>> Again, you proceed from a false premise.
>>
>> To the trained observer, a large dose of skepticism is required.
>> Your eyes, your upbringing, and your 'common sense' can fool you.
>>
>> Don't trust them....Confirm everything.
>
> Which you very obviously do not do, Harlow. You are skeptical about
> there being a God, and yet you are NOT skeptical about there NOT being
> a God. So you do NOT try to "confirm everything". You are in the
> habit of practicing skepticism in regards to the existence of God, the
> existence of a creator; however, you don't seem to question at all the
> stance of the atheist.
The default position should be one of skepticism. Anyone making a claim
>
>>
>> Again, you proceed from a false premise.
>>
>> To the trained observer, a large dose of skepticism is required.
>> Your eyes, your upbringing, and your 'common sense' can fool you.
>>
>> Don't trust them....Confirm everything.
>
> Which you very obviously do not do, Harlow. You are skeptical about
> there being a God, and yet you are NOT skeptical about there NOT being
> a God. So you do NOT try to "confirm everything". You are in the
> habit of practicing skepticism in regards to the existence of God, the
> existence of a creator; however, you don't seem to question at all the
> stance of the atheist.
must then submit proof for that claim. If you want to say that god
exists, then produce the evidence. For you to demand evidence that
something that YOU claim exists, does NOT exist, is illogical.
> A true skeptic would question not only the existence of God, which I
> do; a true skeptic would ALSO question the non-existence of God, which
> I also do.
>> A feeling of love and gratitude for a mythical creature is just
>> a bit difficult for me to produce. Besides, if your god really
>> wants my love and gratitude, I'd rather have HER tell me than YOU.
>>
>> I prefer to not go through a middle-man.
>>
>> Doesn't that make sense.
>
> Yes, it does make sense.
Christopher A. Lee
Nov 25, 2011, 4:55:53 PM11/25/11
to
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 16:40:25 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/25/2011 2:19 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>> Again, you proceed from a false premise.
>>>
>>> To the trained observer, a large dose of skepticism is required.
>>> Your eyes, your upbringing, and your 'common sense' can fool you.
>>>
>>> Don't trust them....Confirm everything.
>>
>> Which you very obviously do not do, Harlow. You are skeptical about
>> there being a God, and yet you are NOT skeptical about there NOT being
>> a God. So you do NOT try to "confirm everything". You are in the
>> habit of practicing skepticism in regards to the existence of God, the
>> existence of a creator; however, you don't seem to question at all the
>> stance of the atheist.
Why does Paininarse keep lying about atheists, to atheists?
>On 11/25/2011 2:19 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>> Again, you proceed from a false premise.
>>>
>>> To the trained observer, a large dose of skepticism is required.
>>> Your eyes, your upbringing, and your 'common sense' can fool you.
>>>
>>> Don't trust them....Confirm everything.
>>
>> Which you very obviously do not do, Harlow. You are skeptical about
>> there being a God, and yet you are NOT skeptical about there NOT being
>> a God. So you do NOT try to "confirm everything". You are in the
>> habit of practicing skepticism in regards to the existence of God, the
>> existence of a creator; however, you don't seem to question at all the
>> stance of the atheist.
>The default position should be one of skepticism. Anyone making a claim
>must then submit proof for that claim. If you want to say that god
>exists, then produce the evidence. For you to demand evidence that
>something that YOU claim exists, does NOT exist, is illogical.
are symmetrical.
When in fact we wouldn't even give it a thought if theists had the
sense to keep their religious beliefs where they belong - among their
fellow religionists.
>> A true skeptic would question not only the existence of God, which I
>> do; a true skeptic would ALSO question the non-existence of God, which
>> I also do.
Painius
Nov 25, 2011, 5:30:09 PM11/25/11
to
considered "right". However, I have proved that "sound" and "noise"
are considered one and the same thing, which makes your answer "sound"
as ludicrous as it actually is. So being "right" gives your words no
iron.
And the initial philosophical question is still "noisy" as ever:
When a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to
The smartest and wisest people who've ever lived have tried to resolve
this question. Stop trying. You only make yourself appear schtupider
and schtupider.
Jeff-Relf.Me
Nov 26, 2011, 12:39:32 AM11/26/11
to
I don't understand why you ( HVAC and Painius ) are at odds. For me, this "Athism|Agnosticism" issue was resolved long ago. To an ant I'm a "god", to a god I'm an "ant". "Mother Nature" is "The Supreme God": eternal, infinite and perfect. She consumes fuel (eXergy) so, virtually, She's “alive”. As I've already said ( too many times ): "Ability to do work" is called "eXergy". The so·called "energy crisis" (1979) was really an eXergy crisis. Overall, once eXergy is used it's spent, never to return. Eventually, everything loses the ability to do work, including the cosmos itself, the known Universe is weakening. There's always some eXergy left in the cosmos because, over any length of time, only a portion is consumed. Whether there's "a lot" or "a little" left depends on your point of view. General Relativity says that, empirically, clocks tick faster and meter sticks are smaller in less dense regions. The cosmos is unraveling, thinning out ── gravity is diminishing. As the Universe thins, empirically, its "volume" expands. Gravity is a static, transparent, hard·to·measure, 4·D field; it isn't granular, you can't track bits of it ( through time ) ── time and space may not be separated. "The Meaning of Life" is virtual, subjective and finite. "Life" is a natural battery that stores ( and consumes ) eXergy. unLike nature, science is finite; it has a horizon, a limit, to wit: 13.75 giga·years ago and 46.5 * 2 giga·light·years wide. "Here and now" are special to me; but I'm subjective. Objectively, every point in (space)time is just as real as any other; but, to be truly objective, you'd have to know everywhere and everywhen. In so much as you don't know the future, you're surprised by it; so, for you, the future appears malleable though it's not. The future is just as fixed as the past, neither can be changed. Although it can't be definitively proven, still, I can't doubt that all of (space)time is static, immutable, immobile and unchanging. So nature is at once "nothing" ( 4·D, changeless and choiceless ) and everything ( excluding nothing ). No man was ever free, not really. We occupy a limited space, a limited time: a limited spacetime. No amount of money could buy you 100 years of ·quality· living. Science is sober, Religion is drunk. Drunk is more fun, but it might kill and/or anger you and yours. Those who breed like rabbits, die like rabbits.
Painius
Nov 26, 2011, 4:50:58 AM11/26/11
to
>On 11/25/2011 2:19 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Again, you proceed from a false premise.
>>>
>>> To the trained observer, a large dose of skepticism is required.
>>> Your eyes, your upbringing, and your 'common sense' can fool you.
>>>
>>> Don't trust them....Confirm everything.
>>
>> Which you very obviously do not do, Harlow. You are skeptical about
>> there being a God, and yet you are NOT skeptical about there NOT being
>> a God. So you do NOT try to "confirm everything". You are in the
>> habit of practicing skepticism in regards to the existence of God, the
>> existence of a creator; however, you don't seem to question at all the
>> stance of the atheist.
>
>
>The default position should be one of skepticism. Anyone making a claim
>must then submit proof for that claim. If you want to say that god
>exists, then produce the evidence. For you to demand evidence that
>something that YOU claim exists, does NOT exist, is illogical.
Have I done that? No. I have never claimed that God exists. It is
>>
>>>
>>> Again, you proceed from a false premise.
>>>
>>> To the trained observer, a large dose of skepticism is required.
>>> Your eyes, your upbringing, and your 'common sense' can fool you.
>>>
>>> Don't trust them....Confirm everything.
>>
>> Which you very obviously do not do, Harlow. You are skeptical about
>> there being a God, and yet you are NOT skeptical about there NOT being
>> a God. So you do NOT try to "confirm everything". You are in the
>> habit of practicing skepticism in regards to the existence of God, the
>> existence of a creator; however, you don't seem to question at all the
>> stance of the atheist.
>
>
>The default position should be one of skepticism. Anyone making a claim
>must then submit proof for that claim. If you want to say that god
>exists, then produce the evidence. For you to demand evidence that
>something that YOU claim exists, does NOT exist, is illogical.
just as logical for me to be skeptical of atheism as it is for me to
be skeptical of theism.
You have often made a claim that God does not exist. So follow your
own rule above. Submit proof for that claim. If you want to say that
God does not exist, then produce the evidence.
Painius
Nov 26, 2011, 4:53:28 AM11/26/11
to
Painius
Nov 26, 2011, 5:40:27 AM11/26/11
to
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 21:39:32 -0800 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>?
Harlow and other atheists claim that there is no God.
Religious believers claim that God does exist.
I am at odds with both claims.
The reality is that both claims are impossible to prove. The reality
is that both "sides" are capable of coming up with evidence that
*they* believe supports their claim. None of the evidence is "hard"
evidence, just soft stuff that may or may not be enough to sway
others. None of it sways me. I am skeptical of both claims.
It's as simple as that.
>?
>I don't understand why you ( HVAC and Painius ) are at odds.
Allow me to explain, Jeff.
Harlow and other atheists claim that there is no God.
Religious believers claim that God does exist.
I am at odds with both claims.
The reality is that both claims are impossible to prove. The reality
is that both "sides" are capable of coming up with evidence that
*they* believe supports their claim. None of the evidence is "hard"
evidence, just soft stuff that may or may not be enough to sway
others. None of it sways me. I am skeptical of both claims.
It's as simple as that.
Helmut Wabnig
Nov 26, 2011, 7:10:57 AM11/26/11
to
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 05:40:27 -0500, Painius <stars...@aol.com>
wrote:
It is not.
If something exists, it's existence can be proved: just show it.
If something does not exist, it's non-existence cannot be proved.
Therefore the situation is unsymmetrical and you cannot take the
middle position in between the trivial case and the impossible case.
w.
wrote:
If something exists, it's existence can be proved: just show it.
If something does not exist, it's non-existence cannot be proved.
Therefore the situation is unsymmetrical and you cannot take the
middle position in between the trivial case and the impossible case.
w.
Androcles
Nov 26, 2011, 7:56:37 AM11/26/11
to
"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote in message
news:v3i1d7hmchhb5fo2f...@4ax.com...
show it.
Painius
Nov 26, 2011, 12:24:31 PM11/26/11
to
Someone comes along with a worthy argument.
So part of your premise is that if something exists, it can be proved
to exist.
And part of my premise is that, even though God might exist, it is
impossible to prove that God exists.
Would you say that this is the essence of our disagreement?
As Androcles pointed out, even though there is a large body of
mathematical evidence for the existence of time dilation and length
contraction within the realm of the theory relativity, there is no
actual "proof". Nobody has yet to prove these things beyond a shadow
of doubt.
Proving things is sometimes very easy, sometimes difficult, and
sometimes impossible. It would be easy to prove to you that I exist.
We could exchange geographic locations and one of us could visit the
other. It would be more difficult to prove that planet Jupiter
exists, since all we can see from here with the naked eye is a bright,
starlike pinpoint of light, and a telescope might show a beautiful
disk with colorful latitude bands and a great red spot. Harder
evidence, but still not proof. Until astronauts set foot on the Moon,
many thought it was truly made of cheese, and there are some who
*still* won't accept that the world is not flat.
We tend to take things for granted, we take them on the word of
scientists, or our parents, our teachers or our friends. Have you
ever actually tried to prove that the Earth rotates on its axis? Have
you ever tried to prove that the Earth is a sphere and isn't flat? Can
you prove that the Earth's magnetic field increases and decreases and
sometimes flip-flops?
Twenty years ago we KNEW that the Solar system had nine planets. NOW
we know that it has eight planets. Go ahead, PROVE it.
Just because we KNOW something exists does not mean that we can PROVE
that it exists. Do YOU exist? PROVE it. Prove that you are not just
a bot posting to UseNet. Does your MIND exist? PROVE it. Hopefully,
by now you will grant that some things are easier to prove than other
things, and that the existence of some things are difficult to
impossible to prove.
So I must still contend that, while it is impossible to prove that God
does not exist, it is also impossible to prove that God *does* exist,
and either premise is possible, ie, God may or may not exist.
To an atheist, the argument lacks symmetry. To a theist, who has
somewhere, somehow convinced himself that God exists, there is
undeniable proof of his existence. And theists are often surprised
when they find out that their "proof" just isn't good enough for some
of us.
As humans, we often have a tendency to live on either one side of the
fence or the other, and it's not always easy to understand how anyone
can be comfortable sitting "on the fence". Trust me, it isn't the
least bit comfortable, but it's definitely where I am on the issue of
whether or not God exists.
HVAC
Nov 26, 2011, 12:43:59 PM11/26/11
to
On 11/26/2011 12:24 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>
> As Androcles pointed out, even though there is a large body of
> mathematical evidence for the existence of time dilation and length
> contraction within the realm of the theory relativity, there is no
> actual "proof". Nobody has yet to prove these things beyond a shadow
> of doubt.
Well, that's crap.
>
>
> As Androcles pointed out, even though there is a large body of
> mathematical evidence for the existence of time dilation and length
> contraction within the realm of the theory relativity, there is no
> actual "proof". Nobody has yet to prove these things beyond a shadow
> of doubt.
Every day in particle accelerators, particles that have a
fleeting life...Say 1/1000th of a second, may exist for double
or triple that as they are accelerated to near light speed.
That is real-world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proof.
So what foolishness were you saying about 'god' again?
HVAC
Nov 26, 2011, 12:45:51 PM11/26/11
to
On 11/26/2011 12:24 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Proving things is sometimes very easy, sometimes difficult, and
> sometimes impossible. It would be easy to prove to you that I exist.
> We could exchange geographic locations and one of us could visit the
> other. It would be more difficult to prove that planet Jupiter
> exists, since all we can see from here with the naked eye is a bright,
> starlike pinpoint of light, and a telescope might show a beautiful
> disk with colorful latitude bands and a great red spot. Harder
> evidence, but still not proof. Until astronauts set foot on the Moon,
> many thought it was truly made of cheese, and there are some who
> *still* won't accept that the world is not flat.
Ya. But they DO have one thing in common...They ALL believe in god.
> sometimes impossible. It would be easy to prove to you that I exist.
> We could exchange geographic locations and one of us could visit the
> other. It would be more difficult to prove that planet Jupiter
> exists, since all we can see from here with the naked eye is a bright,
> starlike pinpoint of light, and a telescope might show a beautiful
> disk with colorful latitude bands and a great red spot. Harder
> evidence, but still not proof. Until astronauts set foot on the Moon,
> many thought it was truly made of cheese, and there are some who
> *still* won't accept that the world is not flat.
Do the math.
HVAC
Nov 26, 2011, 12:52:25 PM11/26/11
to
On 11/26/2011 12:24 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>
>
>
> To an atheist, the argument lacks symmetry. To a theist, who has
> somewhere, somehow convinced himself that God exists, there is
> undeniable proof of his existence. And theists are often surprised
> when they find out that their "proof" just isn't good enough for some
> of us.
>
> As humans, we often have a tendency to live on either one side of the
> fence or the other, and it's not always easy to understand how anyone
> can be comfortable sitting "on the fence". Trust me, it isn't the
> least bit comfortable, but it's definitely where I am on the issue of
> whether or not God exists.
It's just because you are afraid.
> somewhere, somehow convinced himself that God exists, there is
> undeniable proof of his existence. And theists are often surprised
> when they find out that their "proof" just isn't good enough for some
> of us.
>
> As humans, we often have a tendency to live on either one side of the
> fence or the other, and it's not always easy to understand how anyone
> can be comfortable sitting "on the fence". Trust me, it isn't the
> least bit comfortable, but it's definitely where I am on the issue of
> whether or not God exists.
Fear isn't a bad thin, it's a good thing. We are afraid to
go against the values we were taught as children because
we know that bad things happen to us if we disobey our parents.
But overcoming fear is what we refer to as 'courage'.
Christopher A. Lee
Nov 26, 2011, 1:04:45 PM11/26/11
to
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:43:59 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/26/2011 12:24 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> As Androcles pointed out, even though there is a large body of
>> mathematical evidence for the existence of time dilation and length
>> contraction within the realm of the theory relativity, there is no
>> actual "proof". Nobody has yet to prove these things beyond a shadow
>> of doubt.
>
>Well, that's crap.
>
>Every day in particle accelerators, particles that have a
>fleeting life...Say 1/1000th of a second, may exist for double
>or triple that as they are accelerated to near light speed.
>
>That is real-world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proof.
>
>So what foolishness were you saying about 'god' again?
Time dilation was demonstrated in 1971.
>On 11/26/2011 12:24 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> As Androcles pointed out, even though there is a large body of
>> mathematical evidence for the existence of time dilation and length
>> contraction within the realm of the theory relativity, there is no
>> actual "proof". Nobody has yet to prove these things beyond a shadow
>> of doubt.
>
>Well, that's crap.
>
>Every day in particle accelerators, particles that have a
>fleeting life...Say 1/1000th of a second, may exist for double
>or triple that as they are accelerated to near light speed.
>
>That is real-world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proof.
>
>So what foolishness were you saying about 'god' again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
Painius
Nov 26, 2011, 1:21:43 PM11/26/11
to
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:43:59 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/26/2011 12:24 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>
>> As Androcles pointed out, even though there is a large body of
>> mathematical evidence for the existence of time dilation and length
>> contraction within the realm of the theory relativity, there is no
>> actual "proof". Nobody has yet to prove these things beyond a shadow
>> of doubt.
>
>Well, that's crap.
>
>Every day in particle accelerators, particles that have a
>fleeting life...Say 1/1000th of a second, may exist for double
>or triple that as they are accelerated to near light speed.
>
>That is real-world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proof.
Evidence my dear boy, just evidence. Don't you know the difference?
>On 11/26/2011 12:24 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>
>> As Androcles pointed out, even though there is a large body of
>> mathematical evidence for the existence of time dilation and length
>> contraction within the realm of the theory relativity, there is no
>> actual "proof". Nobody has yet to prove these things beyond a shadow
>> of doubt.
>
>Well, that's crap.
>
>Every day in particle accelerators, particles that have a
>fleeting life...Say 1/1000th of a second, may exist for double
>or triple that as they are accelerated to near light speed.
>
>That is real-world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proof.
Between evidence and proof? Most atheists don't know the difference.
Most theists don't know the difference either.
All your above experiment *proves* is that particles may exist for
double or triple their usual lifetimes when they are accelerated to
near light speed. It does NOT by ANY MEANS necessarily indicate that
the flow of time has been changed for them.
Your calling it a "real-world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proof"
speaks volumes about how you like to "jump the gun" as regards the
results of experiments. That puts you in good company.
Painius
Nov 26, 2011, 1:22:53 PM11/26/11
to
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:45:51 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/26/2011 12:24 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>
>> Proving things is sometimes very easy, sometimes difficult, and
>> sometimes impossible. It would be easy to prove to you that I exist.
>> We could exchange geographic locations and one of us could visit the
>> other. It would be more difficult to prove that planet Jupiter
>> exists, since all we can see from here with the naked eye is a bright,
>> starlike pinpoint of light, and a telescope might show a beautiful
>> disk with colorful latitude bands and a great red spot. Harder
>> evidence, but still not proof. Until astronauts set foot on the Moon,
>> many thought it was truly made of cheese, and there are some who
>> *still* won't accept that the world is not flat.
>
>
>Ya. But they DO have one thing in common...They ALL believe in god.
Prove it.
>On 11/26/2011 12:24 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>
>> Proving things is sometimes very easy, sometimes difficult, and
>> sometimes impossible. It would be easy to prove to you that I exist.
>> We could exchange geographic locations and one of us could visit the
>> other. It would be more difficult to prove that planet Jupiter
>> exists, since all we can see from here with the naked eye is a bright,
>> starlike pinpoint of light, and a telescope might show a beautiful
>> disk with colorful latitude bands and a great red spot. Harder
>> evidence, but still not proof. Until astronauts set foot on the Moon,
>> many thought it was truly made of cheese, and there are some who
>> *still* won't accept that the world is not flat.
>
>
>Ya. But they DO have one thing in common...They ALL believe in god.
Painius
Nov 26, 2011, 1:24:27 PM11/26/11
to
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:52:25 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/26/2011 12:24 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> To an atheist, the argument lacks symmetry. To a theist, who has
>> somewhere, somehow convinced himself that God exists, there is
>> undeniable proof of his existence. And theists are often surprised
>> when they find out that their "proof" just isn't good enough for some
>> of us.
>>
>> As humans, we often have a tendency to live on either one side of the
>> fence or the other, and it's not always easy to understand how anyone
>> can be comfortable sitting "on the fence". Trust me, it isn't the
>> least bit comfortable, but it's definitely where I am on the issue of
>> whether or not God exists.
>
>It's just because you are afraid.
>
>Fear isn't a bad thin, it's a good thing. We are afraid to
>go against the values we were taught as children because
>we know that bad things happen to us if we disobey our parents.
>
>But overcoming fear is what we refer to as 'courage'.
Yes.
>On 11/26/2011 12:24 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> To an atheist, the argument lacks symmetry. To a theist, who has
>> somewhere, somehow convinced himself that God exists, there is
>> undeniable proof of his existence. And theists are often surprised
>> when they find out that their "proof" just isn't good enough for some
>> of us.
>>
>> As humans, we often have a tendency to live on either one side of the
>> fence or the other, and it's not always easy to understand how anyone
>> can be comfortable sitting "on the fence". Trust me, it isn't the
>> least bit comfortable, but it's definitely where I am on the issue of
>> whether or not God exists.
>
>It's just because you are afraid.
>
>Fear isn't a bad thin, it's a good thing. We are afraid to
>go against the values we were taught as children because
>we know that bad things happen to us if we disobey our parents.
>
>But overcoming fear is what we refer to as 'courage'.
HVAC
Nov 26, 2011, 1:41:21 PM11/26/11
to
On 11/26/2011 1:21 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, that's crap.
>>
>> Every day in particle accelerators, particles that have a
>> fleeting life...Say 1/1000th of a second, may exist for double
>> or triple that as they are accelerated to near light speed.
>>
>> That is real-world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proof.
>
> Evidence my dear boy, just evidence. Don't you know the difference?
> Between evidence and proof? Most atheists don't know the difference.
> Most theists don't know the difference either.
>
> All your above experiment *proves* is that particles may exist for
> double or triple their usual lifetimes when they are accelerated to
> near light speed. It does NOT by ANY MEANS necessarily indicate that
> the flow of time has been changed for them.
>
> Your calling it a "real-world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proof"
> speaks volumes about how you like to "jump the gun" as regards the
> results of experiments. That puts you in good company.
Nice attempt at a dodge....
>
>>
>> Well, that's crap.
>>
>> Every day in particle accelerators, particles that have a
>> fleeting life...Say 1/1000th of a second, may exist for double
>> or triple that as they are accelerated to near light speed.
>>
>> That is real-world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proof.
>
> Evidence my dear boy, just evidence. Don't you know the difference?
> Between evidence and proof? Most atheists don't know the difference.
> Most theists don't know the difference either.
>
> All your above experiment *proves* is that particles may exist for
> double or triple their usual lifetimes when they are accelerated to
> near light speed. It does NOT by ANY MEANS necessarily indicate that
> the flow of time has been changed for them.
>
> Your calling it a "real-world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, proof"
> speaks volumes about how you like to "jump the gun" as regards the
> results of experiments. That puts you in good company.
HVAC
Nov 26, 2011, 1:43:06 PM11/26/11
to
On 11/26/2011 1:24 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>>>
>>> As humans, we often have a tendency to live on either one side of the
>>> fence or the other, and it's not always easy to understand how anyone
>>> can be comfortable sitting "on the fence". Trust me, it isn't the
>>> least bit comfortable, but it's definitely where I am on the issue of
>>> whether or not God exists.
>>
>> It's just because you are afraid.
>>
>> Fear isn't a bad thin, it's a good thing. We are afraid to
>> go against the values we were taught as children because
>> we know that bad things happen to us if we disobey our parents.
>>
>> But overcoming fear is what we refer to as 'courage'.
>
> Yes.
Then overcome your superstition and fear.
>
>>>
>>> As humans, we often have a tendency to live on either one side of the
>>> fence or the other, and it's not always easy to understand how anyone
>>> can be comfortable sitting "on the fence". Trust me, it isn't the
>>> least bit comfortable, but it's definitely where I am on the issue of
>>> whether or not God exists.
>>
>> It's just because you are afraid.
>>
>> Fear isn't a bad thin, it's a good thing. We are afraid to
>> go against the values we were taught as children because
>> we know that bad things happen to us if we disobey our parents.
>>
>> But overcoming fear is what we refer to as 'courage'.
>
> Yes.
Renounce god and accept Satan as your master.
Androcles
Nov 26, 2011, 1:49:01 PM11/26/11
to
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:v8a2d75tl2rlpeg6v...@4ax.com...
Christopher A. Lee
Nov 26, 2011, 1:55:47 PM11/26/11
to
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:49:01 -0000, "Androcles"
Project much, imbecile?
<plonk>
<plonk>
HVAC
Nov 26, 2011, 2:36:20 PM11/26/11
to
On 11/26/2011 1:43 PM, HVAC wrote:
>
>>>
>>> But overcoming fear is what we refer to as 'courage'.
>>
>> Yes.
>
>
> Then overcome your superstition and fear.
> Renounce god and accept Satan as your master.
OOPS! Did I say that out loud?
>
>>>
>>> But overcoming fear is what we refer to as 'courage'.
>>
>> Yes.
>
>
> Then overcome your superstition and fear.
> Renounce god and accept Satan as your master.
Jeff-Relf.Me
Nov 26, 2011, 3:15:08 PM11/26/11
to
"God" is "Mother Nature", of course she exists. As I've said too many times: To an ant I'm a "god", to a god I'm an "ant". "Mother Nature" is "The Supreme God": eternal, infinite and perfect. She consumes fuel (eXergy) so, virtually, She's “alive”.
Christopher A. Lee
Nov 26, 2011, 3:19:03 PM11/26/11
to
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:15:08 -0800 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>?
>?
Painius
Nov 26, 2011, 8:42:44 PM11/26/11
to
dilation and feel that time dilation is likely a reality. The fact
remains that "evidence" is NOT "proof".
When a person requires "proof", then one must go the EXTRA mile,
because mere evidence is not enough. One must gather *enough*
evidence to prove something to be true or false in the eyes of any
given beholder.
The case against theism is a case in point. What many others accept
as ample evidence (in their eyes, "proof") that God exists is by no
means either proof or ample evidence in your eyes.
It can all be very subjective. YMMV.
G=EMC^2
Nov 27, 2011, 9:24:47 AM11/27/11
to
On Nov 25, 2:19 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:09:59 -0500, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 11/23/2011 4:52 PM, Painius wrote:
>
> >> The next thing the naive atheist will say is that it's "impossible" to
> >> prove a negative. In other words, since there are no scientific
> >> observations that would prove the anthropic principle to be true, then
> >> everything must STOP THERE, and the anthropic principle then MUST be
> >> accepted to be false. And this is untrue.
>
> >> It is NOT impossible to prove a negative. In fact, I'll go out on a
> >> limb here and assert that the ease or difficulty of proving a negative
> >> is precisely equal to the ease or difficulty of proving its associated
> >> positive.
>
> >> Say, you just went down to the local animal shelter, and you saved a
> >> big, black dog from the gas chamber. The next day, a friend calls you
> >> and says that someone told him you had taken home a small, brown dog.
> >> So your friend thinks that you do NOT have a large, black dog. That's
> >> a negative. Is it impossible to prove that negative? Of course not.
> >> You invite your friend over to show him that your dog is large and
> >> black, NOT small and brown. You have easily proved a negative.
>
> >What you consider to be proof is not what I consider to be proof.
>
> >In your example above, the dognapper may have switched dogs before
> >his friend arrived. So his showing the big, black dog isn't proof....
>
> Well, Harlow, if you're going to change the FACTS of the storyline,
> then you could go off on several wild, invalid tangents. There was no
> "dognapper" involved; it is simply the story of a person who decides
> to rescue a dog from the shelter. The dog was large and black. And
> the whole point is that it's just as easy to prove the negative (that
> the dog is NOT large and black) as it is to prove the positive (that
> dog IS large and black).
>
> >> The only reason that it's impossible to prove that Santa Claus does
> >> NOT exist is that it's impossible to prove that he *does* exist.
>
> >> The only reason that it's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist
> >> is that it's impossible to prove that God *does* exist.
>
> >> Anyway, the anthropic principle must be true on a philosophical level,
> >> Santa Claus must exist or there would be a lot of unhappy children on
> >> Christmas day, and everyone must know by now that God is a beautiful
> >> lady. All she really wants is for us to love her. A little gratitude
> >> wouldn't hurt, either.
> produce. Besides, if I am really to believe that God does not exist,
> then I'd rather determine it on my own than to believe a lot of
> atheists who can no more prove that God does NOT exist than a
> religious believer can prove that God DOES exist. BOTH of these
> tenets are impossible to prove.
>
> I prefer to not go through a middle-man, too.
>
> >> ...and I have it on good authority that turkeys do, in fact, exist!
> >> Harlow the HVAC is a shining, feathery example. Will he survive yet
> >> another Thanksgiving dinner? He must be a great hider!
>
> >Happy Thanksgiving to you, too.
>
> >It's my favorite holiday.
>
> Mine too.
>
> Remember the old adage:
>
> You are what you eat. <g>
Having so many Gods is a big part of humankind problem. Every bible
has its God #1 and will kill other Gods to prove it. Japs have their
God,China,M.E Africa likewise. If there was a God he would be on TV
and have a talk show. O ya TreBert
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:09:59 -0500, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 11/23/2011 4:52 PM, Painius wrote:
>
> >> The next thing the naive atheist will say is that it's "impossible" to
> >> prove a negative. In other words, since there are no scientific
> >> observations that would prove the anthropic principle to be true, then
> >> everything must STOP THERE, and the anthropic principle then MUST be
> >> accepted to be false. And this is untrue.
>
> >> It is NOT impossible to prove a negative. In fact, I'll go out on a
> >> limb here and assert that the ease or difficulty of proving a negative
> >> is precisely equal to the ease or difficulty of proving its associated
> >> positive.
>
> >> Say, you just went down to the local animal shelter, and you saved a
> >> big, black dog from the gas chamber. The next day, a friend calls you
> >> and says that someone told him you had taken home a small, brown dog.
> >> So your friend thinks that you do NOT have a large, black dog. That's
> >> a negative. Is it impossible to prove that negative? Of course not.
> >> You invite your friend over to show him that your dog is large and
> >> black, NOT small and brown. You have easily proved a negative.
>
> >What you consider to be proof is not what I consider to be proof.
>
> >In your example above, the dognapper may have switched dogs before
> >his friend arrived. So his showing the big, black dog isn't proof....
>
> Well, Harlow, if you're going to change the FACTS of the storyline,
> then you could go off on several wild, invalid tangents. There was no
> "dognapper" involved; it is simply the story of a person who decides
> to rescue a dog from the shelter. The dog was large and black. And
> the whole point is that it's just as easy to prove the negative (that
> the dog is NOT large and black) as it is to prove the positive (that
> dog IS large and black).
>
> >> The only reason that it's impossible to prove that Santa Claus does
> >> NOT exist is that it's impossible to prove that he *does* exist.
>
> >> The only reason that it's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist
> >> is that it's impossible to prove that God *does* exist.
>
> >Again, you proceed from a false premise.
>
> >To the trained observer, a large dose of skepticism is required.
> >Your eyes, your upbringing, and your 'common sense' can fool you.
>
> >Don't trust them....Confirm everything.
>
> Which you very obviously do not do, Harlow. You are skeptical about
> there being a God, and yet you are NOT skeptical about there NOT being
> a God. So you do NOT try to "confirm everything". You are in the
> habit of practicing skepticism in regards to the existence of God, the
> existence of a creator; however, you don't seem to question at all the
> stance of the atheist.
>
> >Again, you proceed from a false premise.
>
> >To the trained observer, a large dose of skepticism is required.
> >Your eyes, your upbringing, and your 'common sense' can fool you.
>
> >Don't trust them....Confirm everything.
>
> Which you very obviously do not do, Harlow. You are skeptical about
> there being a God, and yet you are NOT skeptical about there NOT being
> a God. So you do NOT try to "confirm everything". You are in the
> habit of practicing skepticism in regards to the existence of God, the
> existence of a creator; however, you don't seem to question at all the
> stance of the atheist.
>
> A true skeptic would question not only the existence of God, which I
> do; a true skeptic would ALSO question the non-existence of God, which
> I also do.
>
> Don't trust them....Confirm *everything*.
> do; a true skeptic would ALSO question the non-existence of God, which
> I also do.
>
>
> >> Anyway, the anthropic principle must be true on a philosophical level,
> >> Santa Claus must exist or there would be a lot of unhappy children on
> >> Christmas day, and everyone must know by now that God is a beautiful
> >> lady. All she really wants is for us to love her. A little gratitude
> >> wouldn't hurt, either.
>
> >A feeling of love and gratitude for a mythical creature is just
> >a bit difficult for me to produce. Besides, if your god really
> >wants my love and gratitude, I'd rather have HER tell me than YOU.
>
> >I prefer to not go through a middle-man.
>
> >Doesn't that make sense.
>
> Yes, it does make sense.
>
> A feeling that God doesn't exist is just as difficult for me to
> >A feeling of love and gratitude for a mythical creature is just
> >a bit difficult for me to produce. Besides, if your god really
> >wants my love and gratitude, I'd rather have HER tell me than YOU.
>
> >I prefer to not go through a middle-man.
>
> >Doesn't that make sense.
>
> Yes, it does make sense.
>
> produce. Besides, if I am really to believe that God does not exist,
> then I'd rather determine it on my own than to believe a lot of
> atheists who can no more prove that God does NOT exist than a
> religious believer can prove that God DOES exist. BOTH of these
> tenets are impossible to prove.
>
> I prefer to not go through a middle-man, too.
>
> >> ...and I have it on good authority that turkeys do, in fact, exist!
> >> Harlow the HVAC is a shining, feathery example. Will he survive yet
> >> another Thanksgiving dinner? He must be a great hider!
>
> >Happy Thanksgiving to you, too.
>
> >It's my favorite holiday.
>
> Mine too.
>
> Remember the old adage:
>
> You are what you eat. <g>
Having so many Gods is a big part of humankind problem. Every bible
has its God #1 and will kill other Gods to prove it. Japs have their
God,China,M.E Africa likewise. If there was a God he would be on TV
and have a talk show. O ya TreBert
Pu...@pooks.hill.fey
Nov 27, 2011, 1:42:16 PM11/27/11
to
that the answer to your question, is a direct, NO!
***
The spelling, like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
Puck Greenman #162
BAAWA Knight.
tj Frazir
Nov 27, 2011, 3:19:52 PM11/27/11
to
prove it ..OK
Evry carbon atom that makes up dna has all you know on evry point of
evry carbon atom.
Holographic carbon atom soul.
You are your own wittenss.
The second you die 5 BY passed.
Your carbon atom soul fell into the BH at the center of the MWG.
You fell into the internet of reality called Gods house.
God gets all I ever saw when I get there with it.
WE take our world and all its time to gods house where there will be a
new world .
Prove it !!
The quartz in the wall of the cave of jesus has a holographic image .
one light can Prove it.
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
Evry carbon atom that makes up dna has all you know on evry point of
evry carbon atom.
Holographic carbon atom soul.
You are your own wittenss.
The second you die 5 BY passed.
Your carbon atom soul fell into the BH at the center of the MWG.
You fell into the internet of reality called Gods house.
God gets all I ever saw when I get there with it.
WE take our world and all its time to gods house where there will be a
new world .
Prove it !!
The quartz in the wall of the cave of jesus has a holographic image .
one light can Prove it.
http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA
Painius
Nov 28, 2011, 11:27:21 AM11/28/11
to
Yet another hockey puck who needs to learn how to read with
understanding.
That was *precisely* what he said, Puck. Where did you get it
wrong?...
>>>If something exists, it's existence can be proved: just show it.
>>>If something does not exist, it's non-existence cannot be proved.
wanting!
Pu...@pooks.hill.fey
Nov 28, 2011, 3:31:10 PM11/28/11
to
The OP's statement was based on logic, where as your premise (that, even though God might
exist, it is impossible to prove that God exists.) is nothing more than an unsupported
assertion.
It is one of those school yard arguments that simply jumps from one fantasy to the next.
Arguments like, " You must first believe", " You must first have faith", "maybe god
doesn't want you to know it is there", etc, etc, etc, till the cows come home.
Painius
Nov 29, 2011, 2:13:23 PM11/29/11
to
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 04:50:58 -0500, Painius <stars...@aol.com>
wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 16:40:25 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 11/25/2011 2:19 PM, Painius wrote:
>>>
>>>Harlow the HVAC falsely promised:
>just as logical for me to be skeptical of atheism as it is for me to
>be skeptical of theism.
>
>You have often made a claim that God does not exist. So follow your
>own rule above. Submit proof for that claim. If you want to say that
>God does not exist, then produce the evidence.
Thaaat's what I thought.
All water, no salt.
You make a claim, but you won't even follow YOUR OWN RULE and at least
produce evidence for your claim.
Never mind. Atheists have been at it for a very long time in an
attempt to produce evidence that there is no deity and that theism is
wrong. And as much hollerin' that goes on, there is still no
evidence. Atheism is just as faith-based as theism!
I shall remain a paratheist.
wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 16:40:25 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 11/25/2011 2:19 PM, Painius wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, you proceed from a false premise.
>>>>
>>>> To the trained observer, a large dose of skepticism is required.
>>>> Your eyes, your upbringing, and your 'common sense' can fool you.
>>>>
>>>> Don't trust them....Confirm everything.
>>>
>>> Which you very obviously do not do, Harlow. You are skeptical about
>>> there being a God, and yet you are NOT skeptical about there NOT being
>>> a God. So you do NOT try to "confirm everything". You are in the
>>> habit of practicing skepticism in regards to the existence of God, the
>>> existence of a creator; however, you don't seem to question at all the
>>> stance of the atheist.
>>
>>>> Again, you proceed from a false premise.
>>>>
>>>> To the trained observer, a large dose of skepticism is required.
>>>> Your eyes, your upbringing, and your 'common sense' can fool you.
>>>>
>>>> Don't trust them....Confirm everything.
>>>
>>> Which you very obviously do not do, Harlow. You are skeptical about
>>> there being a God, and yet you are NOT skeptical about there NOT being
>>> a God. So you do NOT try to "confirm everything". You are in the
>>> habit of practicing skepticism in regards to the existence of God, the
>>> existence of a creator; however, you don't seem to question at all the
>>> stance of the atheist.
>>
>>The default position should be one of skepticism. Anyone making a claim
>>must then submit proof for that claim. If you want to say that god
>>exists, then produce the evidence. For you to demand evidence that
>>something that YOU claim exists, does NOT exist, is illogical.
>
>Have I done that? No. I have never claimed that God exists. It is
>>must then submit proof for that claim. If you want to say that god
>>exists, then produce the evidence. For you to demand evidence that
>>something that YOU claim exists, does NOT exist, is illogical.
>
>just as logical for me to be skeptical of atheism as it is for me to
>be skeptical of theism.
>
>You have often made a claim that God does not exist. So follow your
>own rule above. Submit proof for that claim. If you want to say that
>God does not exist, then produce the evidence.
Thaaat's what I thought.
All water, no salt.
You make a claim, but you won't even follow YOUR OWN RULE and at least
produce evidence for your claim.
Never mind. Atheists have been at it for a very long time in an
attempt to produce evidence that there is no deity and that theism is
wrong. And as much hollerin' that goes on, there is still no
evidence. Atheism is just as faith-based as theism!
I shall remain a paratheist.
Painius
Nov 29, 2011, 3:35:32 PM11/29/11
to
And poking in your two cents worth of nosy, when Helmut Wabnig made a
fine set of statements, but did not follow through with a response
thus far, still shines as a good example of the writings of democrats
who have never learned how to read with understanding.
You *do* seem to know a lot about schoolyard arguments and fantasies,
though. Gives you away as a student. Perhaps there's hope for you,
yet?
--
Happy Holidays!
HVAC
Nov 29, 2011, 3:36:57 PM11/29/11
to
On 11/29/2011 2:13 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The default position should be one of skepticism. Anyone making a claim
>>> must then submit proof for that claim. If you want to say that god
>>> exists, then produce the evidence. For you to demand evidence that
>>> something that YOU claim exists, does NOT exist, is illogical.
>>
>> Have I done that? No. I have never claimed that God exists. It is
>> just as logical for me to be skeptical of atheism as it is for me to
>> be skeptical of theism.
>>
>> You have often made a claim that God does not exist. So follow your
>> own rule above. Submit proof for that claim. If you want to say that
>> God does not exist, then produce the evidence.
>
> Thaaat's what I thought.
>
> All water, no salt.
>
> You make a claim, but you won't even follow YOUR OWN RULE and at least
> produce evidence for your claim.
>
> Never mind. Atheists have been at it for a very long time in an
> attempt to produce evidence that there is no deity and that theism is
> wrong. And as much hollerin' that goes on, there is still no
> evidence. Atheism is just as faith-based as theism!
>
> I shall remain a paratheist.
"Coward' is the correct term.
>
>>>
>>> The default position should be one of skepticism. Anyone making a claim
>>> must then submit proof for that claim. If you want to say that god
>>> exists, then produce the evidence. For you to demand evidence that
>>> something that YOU claim exists, does NOT exist, is illogical.
>>
>> Have I done that? No. I have never claimed that God exists. It is
>> just as logical for me to be skeptical of atheism as it is for me to
>> be skeptical of theism.
>>
>> You have often made a claim that God does not exist. So follow your
>> own rule above. Submit proof for that claim. If you want to say that
>> God does not exist, then produce the evidence.
>
> Thaaat's what I thought.
>
> All water, no salt.
>
> You make a claim, but you won't even follow YOUR OWN RULE and at least
> produce evidence for your claim.
>
> Never mind. Atheists have been at it for a very long time in an
> attempt to produce evidence that there is no deity and that theism is
> wrong. And as much hollerin' that goes on, there is still no
> evidence. Atheism is just as faith-based as theism!
>
> I shall remain a paratheist.
No offense.
Christopher A. Lee
Nov 29, 2011, 3:55:01 PM11/29/11
to
>No offense.
G=EMC^2
Nov 29, 2011, 8:48:47 PM11/29/11
to
On Nov 29, 2:13 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 04:50:58 -0500, Painius <starswir...@aol.com>
Painius In the macro realm humankind built churches,and wrote a book
that is claimed to be words of God. Einstein believed in God. There
can be no Gods in the micro realm. Gods do not fit with QM. Einstein
did not like QM. Here is the kicker There is more hocas pocus in QM.
Go figure TreBert
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 04:50:58 -0500, Painius <starswir...@aol.com>
that is claimed to be words of God. Einstein believed in God. There
can be no Gods in the micro realm. Gods do not fit with QM. Einstein
did not like QM. Here is the kicker There is more hocas pocus in QM.
Go figure TreBert
Painius
Nov 30, 2011, 12:54:43 PM11/30/11
to
>>No offense.
--
Happy Holidays!
Painius
Nov 30, 2011, 12:58:28 PM11/30/11
to
atheists live?
At least I'm honest about my uncertainty, unlike most of your
faith-based types, which deeply bury their uncertainty and then do a
lot of hand-waving and name-calling.
Just like you, PretenderVAC.
--
Happy Holidays!
Painius
Nov 30, 2011, 1:06:06 PM11/30/11
to
>Painius In the macro realm humankind built churches,and wrote a book
>that is claimed to be words of God. Einstein believed in God. There
>can be no Gods in the micro realm. Gods do not fit with QM. Einstein
>did not like QM. Here is the kicker There is more hocas pocus in QM.
>Go figure TreBert
There is no "hocus pocus" in QM, Bert, it only seems that way.
>that is claimed to be words of God. Einstein believed in God. There
>can be no Gods in the micro realm. Gods do not fit with QM. Einstein
>did not like QM. Here is the kicker There is more hocas pocus in QM.
>Go figure TreBert
Take the double-slit experiment. Just the mere addition of a sensor,
that can tell the experimenter which slit an electron goes through,
makes the electrons behave like particles instead of waves. Yes, it
does seem like hocus pocus, but there is a scientific reason that it
happens, and you can mark my words that the reason will someday be
found by science. There is no such thing as hocus pocus, Bert, not on
*any* level. Those things that appear as "magic" are only those
things we still have yet to discover!
--
Happy Holidays!
Pu...@pooks.hill.fey
Nov 30, 2011, 3:02:27 PM11/30/11
to
already pointed that out.
>And poking in your two cents worth of nosy, when Helmut Wabnig made a
>fine set of statements, but did not follow through with a response
>thus far, still shines as a good example of the writings of democrats
>who have never learned how to read with understanding.
Interesting, at least two non sequiturs, two ad homonyms, and two direct insults, if we
include the grammar, syntax, etc, and the inference that I am an American.
>
>You *do* seem to know a lot about schoolyard arguments and fantasies,
>though.
family, four generations long.
> Gives you away as a student. Perhaps there's hope for you,
>yet?
HVAC
Nov 30, 2011, 3:13:07 PM11/30/11
to
On 11/30/2011 12:58 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I shall remain a paratheist.
>>
>> "Coward' is the correct term.
>>
>> No offense.
>
> Isn't it more cowardly to live a faith-based life like theists and
> atheists live?
>
> At least I'm honest about my uncertainty, unlike most of your
> faith-based types, which deeply bury their uncertainty and then do a
> lot of hand-waving and name-calling.
At least a believer takes a stand. So does an atheist.
>
>>>
>>> I shall remain a paratheist.
>>
>> "Coward' is the correct term.
>>
>> No offense.
>
> Isn't it more cowardly to live a faith-based life like theists and
> atheists live?
>
> At least I'm honest about my uncertainty, unlike most of your
> faith-based types, which deeply bury their uncertainty and then do a
> lot of hand-waving and name-calling.
But people like YOU are the worst... You want it both ways.
You want to be above those 'kooky' believers like mormuns,
yet you want to have some wiggle room just in case you DO
meet god after you die. It's pathetic really.
Christopher A. Lee
Nov 30, 2011, 3:16:38 PM11/30/11
to
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:02:27 +0000, Pu...@Pooks.Hill.Fey wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:35:32 -0500, Painius <stars...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:31:10 +0000, Pu...@Pooks.Hill.Fey wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:27:21 -0500, Painius <stars...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Arguments like, " You must first believe", " You must first have faith", "maybe god
>>>doesn't want you to know it is there", etc, etc, etc, till the cows come home.
>>
>>No, you attempt pitifully to use semantics to belittle the argument.
Bullshit.
>On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:35:32 -0500, Painius <stars...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:31:10 +0000, Pu...@Pooks.Hill.Fey wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:27:21 -0500, Painius <stars...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Arguments like, " You must first believe", " You must first have faith", "maybe god
>>>doesn't want you to know it is there", etc, etc, etc, till the cows come home.
>>
>>No, you attempt pitifully to use semantics to belittle the argument.
They're classic fallacies - a combination of begging the question and
special pleading.
>Sadly, there was no argument to belittle, just an unsupported assertion; but I have
>already pointed that out.
>>And poking in your two cents worth of nosy, when Helmut Wabnig made a
>>fine set of statements, but did not follow through with a response
>>thus far, still shines as a good example of the writings of democrats
>>who have never learned how to read with understanding.
>
>Mmm.
>
>Interesting, at least two non sequiturs, two ad homonyms, and two direct insults, if we
>include the grammar, syntax, etc, and the inference that I am an American.
>>You *do* seem to know a lot about schoolyard arguments and fantasies,
>>though.
>
>Raising a large family can give you that insight, especially when you are looking at a
>family, four generations long.
presumptions baseless, let alone when the idiots repeat the
presumption to claim what they presume but cop out of backing up. is
different.
>> Gives you away as a student. Perhaps there's hope for you,
>>yet?
>
>For as long as I breath the air, I will be a student.
But then he is the kind of in-your-face theist who can't live and
live, and who cannot bring himself to admit he has nothing after he
raised the subject.
> BAAWA Knight.
Christopher A. Lee
Nov 30, 2011, 3:23:35 PM11/30/11
to
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:13:07 -0500, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/30/2011 12:58 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I shall remain a paratheist.
>>>
>>> "Coward' is the correct term.
>>>
>>> No offense.
>>
>> Isn't it more cowardly to live a faith-based life like theists and
>> atheists live?
What "faith based life" was PainInArse lying that atheists have?
>On 11/30/2011 12:58 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I shall remain a paratheist.
>>>
>>> "Coward' is the correct term.
>>>
>>> No offense.
>>
>> Isn't it more cowardly to live a faith-based life like theists and
>> atheists live?
>> At least I'm honest about my uncertainty, unlike most of your
>> faith-based types, which deeply bury their uncertainty and then do a
>> lot of hand-waving and name-calling.
as important enough to be uncertain about.
In has been repeatedly explained to him that it is merely something
some other people believe.
Why does he imagine it should be anything more than that to us?
>At least a believer takes a stand. So does an atheist.
religion?
>But people like YOU are the worst... You want it both ways.
>You want to be above those 'kooky' believers like mormuns,
>yet you want to have some wiggle room just in case you DO
>meet god after you die. It's pathetic really.
beliefs and imagine that everybody is else is inside them too.
Painius
Nov 30, 2011, 3:30:32 PM11/30/11
to
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:02:27 +0000, Pu...@Pooks.Hill.Fey wrote:
understanding.
>>And poking in your two cents worth of nosy, when Helmut Wabnig made a
>>fine set of statements, but did not follow through with a response
>>thus far, still shines as a good example of the writings of democrats
>>who have never learned how to read with understanding.
>
>Mmm.
>
>Interesting, at least two non sequiturs, two ad homonyms, and two direct insults, if we
>include the grammar, syntax, etc, and the inference that I am an American.
read with understanding, you automatically become a conservative.
>>You *do* seem to know a lot about schoolyard arguments and fantasies,
>>though.
>
>Raising a large family can give you that insight, especially when you are looking at a
>family, four generations long.
>
>> Gives you away as a student. Perhaps there's hope for you,
>>yet?
>
>For as long as I breath the air, I will be a student.
Painius
Nov 30, 2011, 3:35:58 PM11/30/11
to
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:16:38 -0800, Christopher A. Lee
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:02:27 +0000, Pu...@Pooks.Hill.Fey wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:35:32 -0500, Painius <stars...@aol.com> wrote:
When you grow the balls to respond to me directly, only then will your
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:02:27 +0000, Pu...@Pooks.Hill.Fey wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:35:32 -0500, Painius <stars...@aol.com> wrote:
words have iron in the eyes of others.
And I am no theist, while you are obviously a pretend atheist. That's
okay, though, because the vast majority of atheists are pretenders,
just as the vast majority of theists are pretend theists.
Painius
Dec 2, 2011, 12:47:22 PM12/2/11
to
>On 11/30/2011 12:58 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I shall remain a paratheist.
>>>
>>> "Coward' is the correct term.
>>>
>>> No offense.
>>
>> Isn't it more cowardly to live a faith-based life like theists and
>> atheists live?
>>
>> At least I'm honest about my uncertainty, unlike most of your
>> faith-based types, which deeply bury their uncertainty and then do a
>> lot of hand-waving and name-calling.
>
>
>At least a believer takes a stand. So does an atheist.
>
>But people like YOU are the worst... You want it both ways.
>You want to be above those 'kooky' believers like mormuns,
>yet you want to have some wiggle room just in case you DO
>meet god after you die. It's pathetic really.
It doesn't help you to take a stand if it's the wrong stand,
>>
>>>>
>>>> I shall remain a paratheist.
>>>
>>> "Coward' is the correct term.
>>>
>>> No offense.
>>
>> Isn't it more cowardly to live a faith-based life like theists and
>> atheists live?
>>
>> At least I'm honest about my uncertainty, unlike most of your
>> faith-based types, which deeply bury their uncertainty and then do a
>> lot of hand-waving and name-calling.
>
>
>At least a believer takes a stand. So does an atheist.
>
>But people like YOU are the worst... You want it both ways.
>You want to be above those 'kooky' believers like mormuns,
>yet you want to have some wiggle room just in case you DO
>meet god after you die. It's pathetic really.
PreparationHVAC.
I don't want it both ways, Dingleberry, I want it the **RIGHT** way!
And since there is absolutely no way to determine whether the theists
or the atheists are correct, I shall remain a paratheist.
0 new messages