OK Atheists.......prove god doesn't exist

see these fallacies please:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

Oh look, the guy that moans about personal stuff in forums goes straight for the personal stuff.

I told you, you won because I clearly cannot point to life existing anywhere in the universe in order to support point 1 in my list but, you are a genius because you found some life that I completely missed! Hold on, doesn't that mean that the possibility of life arising in this universe is exactly 1 as I said. Oh I am such a muddle head just completely unable to keep up with you IJM because you are clearly my superior. Of course you destroyed me on point 2 as well because matter like Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen are clearly not abundant in the universe, I just know I will not be able to find any science to support that because you tell me there isn't any, so I won't go looking.

If you can't handle sarcasm then stop posting ridiculous things or be clear about exactly what you are saying otherwise, I cannot treat your posts seriously.

 

Not only don't we have any evidence of a god existing, we don't even know why the mind has thought of it? Does anyone see god when they look at a tree, or go to sleep, or eat, or relive themselves? And if they do, who said that that is god? Who said that any of these things that anyone feels, or thinks, is related to god, is in fact related to a god? Isn't it much more likely that they come from within the human mind, and not from outside of it, considering that there is no visual evidence of a god? Isn't god a projection? If you walk into a church and feel god, who is doing the feeling? Where is the feeling coming from? You are the feeling. It's coming from you. Humans feel, they feel all kinds of things. Feelings are an internal reaction that we then place labels on. Words. Oh, that feels like god. No, you got a feeling and used a word, god, to describe it.

 

Oh, look, the guy who's being deliberately obtuse when asked to prove his point.

I happen to believe that life on this planet was created by an intelligent designer, you are the one who thinks it happens by accident simply because carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen exist. All I am doing is calling your bluff. You claim life here happened by accident, surely there must be somewhere else in the universe where this has happened, and although you claim it exists you can't show it to me. Now that's faith.

And by the way, I have never taken your posts seriously.

 

The real difference is that science pushes to explore to find answers - looking for evidence and NOT assuming we know the answer based on zero evidence.

I don't like your "chance" argument, as the number of stars is a 1 with 24 zeros after it and the universe has been around for more than 13 billion years - an inconceivably large amount of "lab time" for those places around those stars where life like we know it could form. And, even with our current limited understanding of abiogenesis we can see that natural processes can limit the role of chance.

It's really hard for me to accept the notion that there is no life in the universe other than on earth when we haven't checked even ONE of the places where such life could exist.

 

That's not what you are doing, what you are doing is forming an opinion and THEN looking for the evidence to fit it. That isn't science.

 

I don't agree even slightly.

The exploration for life and for how life began on earth is not limited in any way and multiple approaches have received significant attention.

 

I didn't think you would.

 

Well it's advocates and protectors in Congress get paid to support that nonsense. The masses believe in it out of shear wishful thinking.

 

BZZZT Wrong!

Forming a HYPOTHESIS and then using TESTS to determine the VALIDITY of the hypothesis is the SCIENTIFIC METHOD!

The Hypothesis in question is can life (as we know it on this planet) exist in the universe?

What is necessary for the existence of life? Liquid water, carbon, oxygen, etc, etc.

Where can the necessary elements for life be found in the universe? In the Goldilocks zone.

Has life formed with these elements in the universe? Yes, at least once.

So the next part of hypothesis was to find other planets in Goldilocks zones elsewhere in the universe. So far about 2 dozen have been located with another dozen of so still being validated. Obviously these Goldilocks planets are common throughout the universe given how many we have discovered in only 25 years of so.

Apply the math to the number of possible places were life could exist and it comes out as billions of billions of planets and that makes the likelihood of life existing elsewhere virtually a given.

All that science needs to do is identify signs of life on another planet and the hypothesis is satisfied.

 

Establish the possibility and then we can think about the probability.

The possibility of life is established.

My belief is that the probability of unknown life elsewhere in our universe is greater than zero.

The possibility of gods is not established, heck, we can't even define them adequately.

 

The Drake Equation:
N = R* • fp • ne • fl • fi • fc • L

• N = The number of civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy whose electromagnetic emissions are detectable.
• R* =The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of intelligent life.
• fp = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.
• ne = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment suitable for life.
• fl = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears.
• fi = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges.
• fc = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
• L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

The Seeger Equation:
N = N*F(Q)• F(HZ)• F(O)• F(L) •F(S)

• N = the number of planets with detectable signs of life
• N* = the number of stars observed
• F(Q) = the fraction of stars that are quiet
• F(HZ) = the fraction of stars with rocky planets in the habitable zone
• F(O)= the fraction of those planets that can be observed
• F(L) = the fraction that have life
• F(S) = the fraction on which life produces a detectable signature gas

I don't know these seem kind of like science to me. Frank Drank was a Harvard PhD who was a professor at astronomy at Cornell University for 20 years. He also chaired the Board of Physics and Astronomy of the National Research Council at the National Academy of Sciences and helped design the Voyager Plaque with Carl Sagan. Sara Seeger also received a PhD from Harvard and currently is the "Class of 1941" Professor of Astrophysics at MIT. They seem sort of legit to me.

 

Precisely correct. "Progressives" (sick) use wordplay as if it were brilliance and science. It is neither.

 

Yes, and Lord Kelvin was the world's premier scientist, president of the Royal Society when he famously proclaimed in 1895, "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."

Two uneducated bicycle mechanics flew at Kitty Hawk a few years later, ignoring the "genius" of science.

How many more such examples would you like of esteemed "scientists" being as wrong as they could possibly be?
Have you never heard of the Fallacy of the Argument From Authority?
Oh yes. You use it in conjunction with the Holy Bible, but never ever associate it with your side of Leftist Authorities.

"The atomic bomb will never work, and I speak as an expert in explosives."

"Donald Trump will never be president. You can take that to the bank." - Nancy Pelosi, genius of "Progressive" (sick) political science

 

Too funny, "Jester".

Who have you beaten today, out of hateful anger that Hillary lost?

 

So you respond to my post (in the debate about whether or not probability claims about life in the universe is science or faith) in which I claim it's science not faith - and you reply by saying its science (confirming my point), but that science is stupid, because more advanced science shows that some claims made by scientists in the past were not good science (which seems to me kind of the way science works). Science is wrong because science is right. Got it. Brilliant by the way.

As for fallacy of argument from authority, it's only wrong when its an improper authority or a contested claim among proper authorities. For example, citing Einstein on time dilation isn't a fallacy.

As for Trump, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

 

Short, sweet and right to the point.

 

Please do so. Show your evidence for intelligent design.

The only people who would reject the probability of extraterrestrial life are people who believe that a god created us in his own image and made the rest of the universe for the sole purpose of engendering awe in his creation.

 

Source?

 

Actually it is.

Einstein was of the opinion that space and time were strongly interrelated. He then went looking for evidence to fit it. If he hadn't found it, his opinion would have been rejected.

Hubble was of the opinion that the universe was expanding. He then went looking for evidence to fit it. If he hadn't found it, his opinion would have been rejected.

Alfred Wegener was of the opinion that the continents shifted. His opinion was rejected. Many years later scientists went looking for evidence to fit his opinion. If they hadn't found it, his opinion would still been rejected.

ON THE OTHER HAND

The theistic method is forming an opinion: GodDidIt, and then ignoring all evidence rebutting that opinion.

The theistic method is forming an opinion: GodDidIt, and then being unable to provide even a shred of evidence to support that opinion.

 

I like the word "progressive". It implies progress. I like to consider myself a progressive. I am all for progress.

Since you used the word "sick"...

• It was progress that made us realize that Bubonic plague is spread by fleas.
• It was progress that gave us a vaccine against Polio.
• It was progress that gave us pacemakers and stents.
• It was progress that gave us organ transplants.
• It was progress that gave us pretty good artificial limbs.
• It is progress that is giving us treatments for cancer.

What, exactly, did religious conservatives give us?

 

That IS the scientific method in action when hypothesis is created.

 

You're spinning, again. I didn't say "its (sic) science." Don't you yet know the difference between a conjunction and possessive?
Obviously not, as YOU lecture ME on intellect.

Now the POINT of the Fallacy of the Argument From Authority is NOT what you claim. The FALLACY is in your pretending that simply BECAUSE you CLAIM a "consensus" in global warming, it is factual. That is the fallacy of the argument from authority.
It is quite impossible that tens of thousands of scientists dissent from global warming nonsense, and Darwinian nonsense, and "There is no God" nonsense purely on the basis of something other THAN science. Do try to comprehend that unalterable fact.
And then learn how to spell simple words three and four letters long.

It is the ARGUMENT you make that is wrong. The ARGUMENT! Think about that. Your claim is utterly bogus simply because you CLAIM it on the basis of AUTHORITIES, who may or may not be wrong.

Same thing you Leftists said about George Bush after he beat the BRILLIANT Al Gore, who flunked out of Vanderbilt Divinity School and "took the initiative in inventing the internet."

How proud you must be of Hillary, after she defended Thomas Tayler who raped a 12-year-old girl.
Hillary laughed as she bragged about "getting him off with only 10 months in jail."

He should have been taken out and shot. But you Leftists adore this demonic, evil woman, who outspent Trump 2 to 1 and STILL LOST! Brilliant of you. No, really. Now join many others like yourself on my Ignore List.

Should you ever be quoted by someone and I see something of substance so quoted, I might reconsider.
But in view of your militant condescension, arrogance, misspelling, and abuse of this thread, I doubt that will ever happen.

Now back to the SUBJECT, "prove God doesn't exist." After all, you and your Leftist pals are so ****-sure about it, PROVE IT!

 

What you're pointing out is that humans make mistakes, most likely because we're humans.

And, that is important.

No progress humans make is going to be made without error. The real challenge is to be able to find these errors and eliminate them as early as possible.

The response by science to that problem is that the majority of the work of science is focused on eliminating what can be shown to be false. It comes at the beginning, where a requirement is that hypotheses must be within our capability to falsify - if it isn't within our capability to falisify (such as the existence of god, string theory, etc.) it simply isn't within the realm of science. It comes in the middle, and it comes in the end where results must be duplicated by others and levels of outside review are required.

Even central authorities (such as Lord Kelvin) find it impossible to stop the elimination of bad ideas - the central theme of science. No ideas, no matter how widely held, are immune. Einstein blew away a significant percent of what the entire world of physics believed to be true. And, we continue to test Einstein's results even today.



This is an area where religion fails as a method of searching for the truth. One can see this by noting that even the one major thread (the one god of the Bible) has given rise to literally hundreds of incompatible "hypotheses" on what it all means held by even the major sub-families, with near total inflexibility and lack of interest in resolution.

In fact, these differences are of significant impact on the lives of humans across the planet, as they are a common cause of hate and discrimination, and have given rise to actual war - the most ludicrous decision making process that could possibly be devised.

So, frankly, I see it as counterproductive to even discuss this issue of the beginning of life. Religion has no decision making process and is absolutely opposed to any answer other than "god did it". And, science is up against a problem for which it is hard to gather evidence - but where progress IS being made.

So, what's to come out of this discussion of abiogenesis?

 

Actually, you did say that. That was the entire point of your post, but unfortunately you reason like a child, so you need to be told what it is you are actually arguing. So yes I'm lecturing you on intellect. I missed an apostrophe. Okay. But I'm sure you saw the earlier and correct use of the same contraction in that sentence right? So I will now continue the lecture: what you have done here is make an ass of yourself (conjunction??? - you mean contraction?) while presenting a textbook ad hominem fallacy. You also failed the principle of interpretive charity (another error of logic).

Actually, my explanation is spot on. Moreover, you give a supposed example of the fallacy without defining it. The best that you could claim here would be an improper employment of the fallacy, not that my understanding of it was wrong. Furthermore, I didn't mention global warming, so I have no idea where you are coming from (oops I ended a sentence with a proposition, uh oh). But since you did raise this question, I will take it as another opportunity to demonstrate your ignorance. What is not clear in your sentence is whether your objection concerns the claim about the consensus or that the consensus itself is problematic. Only the latter would be a concern of the fallacy itself. You emphasize the word claim, which seems that you are objecting to an empirical claim about the quantitative nature of the scientific consensus. But if this is the case, then your claim absolutely fails to address the issue at hand, since again the implication is, if there is a consensus, it would be legitimate. If you are arguing that an actual consensus of climatologists regarding global warming would not count as legitimate evidence for climate change, then you don't understand the fallacy of improper authority.

By the way, just to make sure this lesson in logic is comprehensive, I point you back to post #999 of this thread where I instructed you on the basic structure of modus tollens, which you claimed was a formal logical fallacy.

Strawman, bifurcation fallacy (false dichotomy), ad hominem, fallacy of omission, begging the question, question begging epithets, special pleading - that's quite a list of logical fallacies in such a short period of time. By the way, Hillary is a woman; you used a male pronoun to reference her - I know grammar means so much to you.

I will take being on your ignore list as a badge of honor, surely I am in good company. Such cowardice is certainly befitting someone of your intellect. But no matter, whether you read this or not, the entire forum knows just what you are. And that's good enough for me.