If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out...

[iKotomi]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

It isn't necessary to prove something false. Instead, it is necessary to prove that something is fact.

There is no distinction between these two. When you prove that something is false, you prove that its converse is true, hence why proof by contradiction works.

Scientifically speaking, absolutes can only be proven false. We are not aware of all possible conditions, nor is it possible to recreate all such conditions, so you can not prove anything to be true.

For example, take a statement like water freezes at 32 degrees. First of all, this is a false statement, second of all, even if you do produce a situation where water froze at 32 degrees, you have not shown anything at all. You have shown that water freezes at 32 degrees given the conditions you had during the experiment. You can draw from this experiment a hypothesis of when water freezes at 32 degrees, but you can never claim it is a fact. This is obviously shown when you dissolve substances, change the air pressure, among other things.

 

[Felix007]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

-snip-

I presented that question only due to the conversation we had been having in a seperate thread, where I feel you made it clear that the lack of anything random in the Universe attributed to the existence of a God. Hence, my confusion when you then go on to state that you do not believe it does "for the sake of discussion". I believe we went over, in detail, how the laws of physics can function quite differently in a singularity, or to a lesser degree, a Black Hole.

I agree with your last statement, saying that we know nothing for certain. However, we can certainly shade things with probability, and unless there is evidence otherwise, God does not rate very high on that list.

See how impossible it is to argue against a god? "It's not logical? God doesn't have to be logical to exist." Hell, God doesn't even have to exist to exist, because to do otherwise would be logical, and God is not bound by logic.

Actually, should he be real, I believe God must be logical by definition to exist. As in, he cannot create two sided triangles, pit his omnipotence against his omniscience, create an object he could not move, etc. Otherwise, by his very definition, he would not exist.

In an unrelated note, the Pope has declared that condoms will make the AIDS crisis in Africa worse.

Just wow.

 

[iKotomi]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

Actually, should he be real, I believe God must be logical by definition to exist. As in, he cannot create two sided triangles, pit his omnipotence against his omniscience, create an object he could not move, etc. Otherwise, by his very definition, he would not exist.

Unfortunately, nothing really requires you to believe in it for it to be true. Your argument not only is based on premises that are necessarily true, but it also lacks any real deliberative value. Even the most die-hard atheists should know that you can't disprove or prove the existence of god. Otherwise you just make us look stupid with dumb arguments.

 

[Felix007]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

Unfortunately, nothing really requires you to believe in it for it to be true. Your argument not only is based on premises that are necessarily true, but it also lacks any real deliberative value. Even the most die-hard atheists should know that you can't disprove or prove the existence of god. Otherwise you just make us look stupid with dumb arguments.

Where did the hostility come from?

I never posited that my belief system, specifically that which would define God as "logical", was the only possible way ever that he could exist and that I could not be wrong. Neither did I say that I can prove or disprove God, but merely explained that, in my mind, he would have to be logical in order to be extant to other human beings.

Edit: To clarify further, the above post, which you seem to have vehemently strawmanned into something of a different nature, was no more than speculation. I was not applying proven logic or empirical evidence to my claim, merely musing aloud in a message board. I haven't the slightest idea where you got the idea that I claimed I could prove or disprove God's existence, nor that I thought my statement was ironclad. I'd prefer if you would discontinue projecting ideas on me that I do not claim to hold.

 

[KoshTheKoala]

If I had $1 for every time God bailed me out..

There is no distinction between these two. When you prove that something is false, you prove that its converse is true, hence why proof by contradiction works.

Scientifically speaking, absolutes can only be proven false. We are not aware of all possible conditions, nor is it possible to recreate all such conditions, so you can not prove anything to be true.

For example, take a statement like water freezes at 32 degrees. First of all, this is a false statement, second of all, even if you do produce a situation where water froze at 32 degrees, you have not shown anything at all. You have shown that water freezes at 32 degrees given the conditions you had during the experiment. You can draw from this experiment a hypothesis of when water freezes at 32 degrees, but you can never claim it is a fact. This is obviously shown when you dissolve substances, change the air pressure, among other things.

Actually I think the speed of light is considered a constant and absolute regardless of anything. Even through a medium, the speed of light is constant, even though it appears slower, because it's bouncing around particles (or more precisely, being absorbed and emitted again over and over)