Proof of the non-existence of God

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I said it at the very beginning of the discussion. We cannot know everything and new information is being added to science all the time.
What I dispute is your ridiculous assertion that the addition of new information somehow taints the old information.
I think the problem is your kindergarten attitude towards science. You thought that because the t ...[text shortened]... plication is alway that we are talking about the known planets and that there could be others.

I think the problem is your kindergarten attitude towards science. You thought that because the teacher told you there were nine planets, you would memorize the fact and were highly offended to be told that the teacher was merely simplifying the situation for your benefit. [emphasis added]

You can't have it both ways. Either nine-planets-does-a-solar-system make, or it isn't a fact. Tapping your fave source again for an agreeable definition of fact, here's Wikipedia's take on the word:

"Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something having objective reality that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation."

At one point or another following 1936 and prior to 2006, anyone who supposedly knew anything about the solar system held to the fact that the solar system contained nine planets. There was no equivocation on the issue, no caveat, no escape clause. It was thought as such and taught as such. This was the scientific view.

Now, that scientific fact is no longer a fact, but rather, an ex-fact.

Does that instill confidence in scientific pronouncements, or does it erode the same? In light of the overwhelming amount of times that science has been forced to change its view--- its facts--- my suggestion is that all scientific pronouncements ought to be prefaced with "to the best of our abilities, we think... "

Now you can make the argument that science isn't entirely wrong on certain elements of certain issues, but that isn't the argument, is it? The argument (in plain English) is that science can only be trusted in so much as man can be trusted: about as far as you can throw him.

In contrast, God tells us:
"Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding."
Only in God can man put his trust, his confidence, without fear of failure or alteration.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Either nine-planets-does-a-solar-system make, or it isn't a fact.

It isn't and never has been a fact as you have already been told.

At one point or another following 1936 and prior to 2006, anyone who supposedly knew anything about the solar system held to the [b]fact that the solar system contained nine planets. There was no equivocation on the issue, no caveat, no escape clause. It was thought as such and taught as such. This was the scientific view.[/b]
Wrong. That is as I said, the kindergarten view.

Now, that scientific fact is no longer a fact, but rather, an ex-fact.
Does that instill confidence in scientific pronouncements, or does it erode the same?
Is only instills a lack of confidence of your ability to comprehend simple concepts.

In light of the overwhelming amount of times that science has been forced to change its view--- its facts--- my suggestion is that all scientific pronouncements ought to be prefaced with "to the best of our abilities, we think... "
That pronouncement is already implicit in all scientific statements.

Now you can make the argument that science isn't entirely wrong on certain elements of certain issues, but that isn't the argument, is it? The argument (in plain English) is that science can only be trusted in so much as man can be trusted: about as far as you can throw him.
But you have not provided any good reason for such a claim. The vast majority of scientific facts have not and will not change and you yourself trust them with your life every single day. Or do you walk around your house in mortal fear that the roof might fall on your head at any moment?

In contrast, God tells us:
"Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding."
Only in God can man put his trust, his confidence, without fear of failure or alteration.
In other words "delude yourself into believing a whole lot of lies and they will always be the same set of unchanging lies."

Originally posted by twhitehead
It isn't and never has been a fact as you have already been told.

At one point or another following 1936 and prior to 2006, anyone who supposedly knew anything about the solar system held to the [b]fact that the solar system contained nine planets. There was no equivocation on the issue, no caveat, no escape clause. It was thought as such and t believing a whole lot of lies and they will always be the same set of unchanging lies."[/b]

It isn't and never has been a fact as you have already been told.
Perhaps you’re just not reading. I never characterized it as a fact. I merely pointed out that it was thought and taught as a fact. And--- as you are fully aware despite your insulting protestations otherwise--- this was not taken as a fact merely at the “kindergarten” level. It was thought and taught by the scientific community… for all levels.

…pronouncement is already implicit in all scientific statements.
Then I guess the admonishment against relying on science is vindicated.

But you have not provided any good reason for such a claim.
Nor have I provided any good reason for such a claim as the world being round. Some things have become so steadfastly established that no further inquiry is necessary. If you truly wish to hold to the idea that man can be trusted, I really can’t imagine what it would take to disabuse you of such a notion. Man has forever shown himself to be unreliable. End of story.


The vast majority of scientific facts have not and will not change…
That almost sounds like you have a percentage in mind. Based on what, one wonders.

…and you yourself trust them with your life every single day. Or do you walk around your house in mortal fear that the roof might fall on your head at any moment?
Most advances came as a result of those whose roofs did fall down on their heads. I’m not sure if they were actually afraid prior to the same, however. Do you think their level of comfort had anything to do with the failures and/or temporary successes?


In other words "delude yourself into believing a whole lot of lies and they will always be the same set of unchanging lies."
Look who’s making bold, unfounded statements based on emotional reactions to their past. How utterly objective of you!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I think the problem is your kindergarten attitude towards science. You thought that because the teacher told you there were nine planets, you would memorize the fact and were highly offended to be told that the teacher was merely simplifying the situation for your benefit. [emphasis added]

You can't have it both ways. Either nine-planets- ...[text shortened]... in God can man put his trust, his confidence, without fear of failure or alteration.[/b]

=============================
At one point or another following 1936 and prior to 2006, anyone who supposedly knew anything about the solar system held to the fact that the solar system contained nine planets. There was no equivocation on the issue, no caveat, no escape clause. It was thought as such and taught as such. This was the scientific view.

Now, that scientific fact is no longer a fact, but rather, an ex-fact.

Does that instill confidence in scientific pronouncements, or does it erode the same? In light of the overwhelming amount of times that science has been forced to change its view--- its facts--- my suggestion is that all scientific pronouncements ought to be prefaced with "to the best of our abilities, we think... "
======================================

Though I have mentioned it before, the thought of this cartoon always makes me kind of chuckle:

A few distinquished white coated scientists are standing and sitting around a blackbaord filled with complex mathematical calculations.

One of them is saying "The most depressing thing is that everything we believe here today will one day be proven false."

It does make point.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Perhaps you’re just not reading. I never characterized it as a fact. I merely pointed out that it was thought and taught as a fact. And--- as you are fully aware despite your insulting protestations otherwise--- this was not taken as a fact merely at the “kindergarten” level. It was thought and taught by the scientific community… for all levels.

Not so. I have been fully aware of the fact since childhood that when reference is made to '9 planets' that there is an implicit 'that we know of so far'. Can you find me a single reference from the scientific community that claims that all the planets have been discovered?

Then I guess the admonishment against relying on science is vindicated.
Not at all. We really on what we know 'to the best of our abilities' all the time. We even stake our life on it.

Nor have I provided any good reason for such a claim as the world being round. Some things have become so steadfastly established that no further inquiry is necessary.
If your claim is 'steadfastly established', then it would hardly be under discussion.

If you truly wish to hold to the idea that man can be trusted, I really can’t imagine what it would take to disabuse you of such a notion. Man has forever shown himself to be unreliable. End of story.
Yet you trust 'man' with your life every day.

Most advances came as a result of those whose roofs did fall down on their heads. I’m not sure if they were actually afraid prior to the same, however. Do you think their level of comfort had anything to do with the failures and/or temporary successes?
Yes I do. And it demonstrates my point and shows how ridiculous your claim is doesn't it?

Originally posted by jaywill
Though I have mentioned it before, the thought of this cartoon always makes me kind of chuckle:

A few distinquished white coated scientists are standing and sitting around a blackbaord filled with complex mathematical calculations.

One of them is saying [b]"The most depressing thing is that everything we believe here today will one day be proven false."

It does make point.[/b]

Funny yes, accurate no. I hope you are not as misguided as FreakyKBH about the workings of science.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Funny yes, accurate no. I hope you are not as misguided as FreakyKBH about the workings of science.

This was not a discussion about the workings of science, as you describe--- and you know it. That science (in all of its fields) is constantly and continually fine-tuning, changing and correcting its perspective was the first part of the issue. At long last, you admitted the same.

The second part of the discussion was whether one should put their trust in man's ability to sort things out, as well as if he even knows the right questions to ask in getting things sorted out. History shows us that man in every scientific field gets it wrong a woefully large portion of the time, even as he confidentally insists that--- this time--- he has it right.

Misguided? Sure. If that's what you want to call it. It is clear that you would rather chase around wisps of smoke than face the fire of truth. Driving a car demonstrates a certain amount of trust in various fields of man's investigations, to be sure. However, this is not equated with the trust man is directed to put in God. And, of course, you know this, as well.

It is a far distance between driving a car and the concept expressed in Jeremiah:

"Thus says the LORD, "Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind And makes flesh his strength, And whose heart turns away from the LORD."

But, again, you knew that, didn't you?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This was not a discussion about the workings of science, as you describe--- and you know it. That science (in all of its fields) is [b]constantly and continually fine-tuning, changing and correcting its perspective was the first part of the issue. At long last, you admitted the same.

The second part of the discussion wa gth, And whose heart turns away from the LORD."

But, again, you knew that, didn't you?[/b]

….History shows us that man in EVERY scientific field gets it wrong a woefully large portion of the time,
.… (my emphasis)

Are we talking here about the whole of human history INCLUDING before there was any real science or are we talking here about history of PROPER science that STRICTLY adheres to SCIENTIFIC METHOD? -only the latter would count here.

Also, for example, in the scientific field of mathematics (which IS a science) man has got it wrong a “woefully large portion of the time”?
Can you give us any evidence/reason to believe that this is the case? -answer -no.

What about a VERY NARROW and modern scientific field such as, say, mapping the surface of the far side of the moon?
Can you give us any evidence/reason to believe that most of the time scientists have simply got their maps of the far side of the moon wrong? -answer -no.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
….History shows us that man in EVERY scientific field gets it wrong a woefully large portion of the time,
.… (my emphasis)

Are we talking here about the whole of human history INCLUDING before there was any real science or are we talking here about history of PROPER science that STRICTLY adheres to SCIENTIFIC METHOD? -only the latter would ...[text shortened]... f the time scientists have simply got their maps of the far side of the moon wrong? -answer -no.[/b]

As typical, your failure to comprehend the topic leads to all kinds of misapplication.

"Real science?" Whatever do you mean by that, exactly? Do you mean real knowledge? Or do you mean the real effort to discover how the physical world works?

Show one example of any field which strictly adheres to the scientific method (as if there is a scientific method which can rightfully command the definite article).

Thank you for pointing out that mathematics IS a science. How could that ever have skipped past the rest of us? What would have prompted you to add that little nugget, I wonder. The field is replete with examples of math that worked--- for awhile--- and then it didn't. Find your own examples.

What about a VERY NARROW and modern scientific field such as, say, mapping the surface of the far side of the moon?
Maybe you can introduce us to your expert. What was his name again? I remember, it was Joe Smith, Doctor of Mapping the Surface of the Far Side of the Moon. Sure, we remember him!

Are you seriously thinking that this drivel passes for argument? Go read something, will you? Maybe a book, or something.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This was not a discussion about the workings of science, as you describe--- and you know it. That science (in all of its fields) is [b]constantly and continually fine-tuning, changing and correcting its perspective was the first part of the issue. At long last, you admitted the same.

The second part of the discussion wa ...[text shortened]... gth, And whose heart turns away from the LORD."

But, again, you knew that, didn't you?[/b]

Funny how the same man who struggles to find scientific truths can be so sure of himself when it comes to supernatural ones, isn't it?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As typical, your failure to comprehend the topic leads to all kinds of misapplication.

"Real science?" Whatever do you mean by that, exactly? Do you mean real knowledge? Or do you mean the real effort to discover how the physical world works?

Show one example of any field which strictly adheres to the scientific method (as if there is a scientific t this drivel passes for argument? Go read something, will you? Maybe a book, or something.

Thank you for pointing out that mathematics IS a science. How could that ever have skipped past the rest of us? What would have prompted you to add that little nugget, I wonder. The field is replete with examples of math that worked--- for awhile--- and then it didn't. Find your own examples
What???
Give us one, just one mathematical theorem that has been disproven.
You are talking out of your arse FBH

Originally posted by twhitehead
Clearly you do care about whether or not you can admit that you are wrong. Your example was badly chosen, did not illustrate your point and was intended to be deceptive. But you cant seem to simply admit that and move on.

You have also totally failed to provide any convincing argument to back up your ridiculous claim that all scientific knowledge is es ...[text shortened]... gods that would be rather different from the God you refer to. So once again you are wrong.

'I am absolutely sure that there are plenty of conscious people on this planet who have never heard of nor thought of the concept of a God and plenty more who believe in multiple gods that would be rather different from the God you refer to. So once again you are wrong.'

nonsense Whitey my good man, every single culture since the dawn of time has had a concept of divinity and spirituality, whether its monotheistic or otherwise, perhaps you can cite a culture that has not?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
'I am absolutely sure that there are plenty of conscious people on this planet who have never heard of nor thought of the concept of a God and plenty more who believe in multiple gods that would be rather different from the God you refer to. So once again you are wrong.'

nonsense Whitey my good man, every single culture since the dawn of time rituality, whether its monotheistic or otherwise, perhaps you can cite a culture that has not?[/b]

you have made a universal statement Robbie Carrobie so it remains for you to demonstrate this valid by exhaustively showing it is true that "every single culture since the dawn of time" has had a concept of divinity and spirituality.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Thank you for pointing out that mathematics IS a science. How could that ever have skipped past the rest of us? What would have prompted you to add that little nugget, I wonder. The field is replete with examples of math that worked--- for awhile--- and then it didn't. Find your own examples.

Mathematics is an art not a science. Mathematics relies on axioms, science on experiment. Essentially mathematics does not have to relate to anything in the real world, it just has to follow the rules it sets for itself.

With that in mind I´d be interested to see some examples of mathematics that suddenly stopped working.

Originally posted by Agerg
Thank you for pointing out that mathematics IS a science. How could that ever have skipped past the rest of us? What would have prompted you to add that little nugget, I wonder. The field is replete with examples of math that worked--- for awhile--- and then it didn't. Find your own examples
What???
Give us one, just one mathematical theorem that has been disproven.
You are talking out of your arse FBH[/b]

Funny, I don't recall being that specific. What I do recall is saying that math has been used as proof for certain perspectives, and further, that the math worked... for awhile. Then, in light of more and better information, the math didn't work.

This isn't a treatise against science in any form; rather it is a very supportable indictment against placing science on a pedestal of worship--- something worthy of man's trust.