I just think it's the most amazing coincidence that we got the only competent and non-corrupt politician out of the entire state of Illinois in the White House. Dodged a real bullet there.
people in HR rank only slightly above the people that sweep the floor.
With no exaggeration, I can say that the people who sweep the floor provide a much more useful service than most HR departments. I wouldn't impugn their intelligence (or species for that matter) by suggesting they are inferior to HR.
Wow, you're treading on thin ice here. I mean there are some things that should never be made fun of. Do you realize how many people could take offense at this "joke"? People could be screaming "blasphemy" and worse! I'm personally not offended, but I think a lot of people wouldn't be so tolerant. I think you are running the risk of creating hatred and even violence with this kind of mockery.
I mean, implying that the Creator of the Universe doesn't use Emacs? That's harsh... where's your sense of decorum and respect for other people's religions?!
And who know how much their brains and nervous systems have evolved? Were these paleo-podes as smart as their modern brethren? Did they have all the camouflage and mimicry and other astounding talents that seem surprisingly sophisticated for something so squidgey and alien-looking?
I don't know whether scientists could possibly infer that kind of information from fossils (brain size, I suppose) but it's certainly possible that these animals evolved into a very optimal body form all those millions of years ago and have been perfecting more subtle aspects than their gross physiognomy.
Not really. Do you think much code written today will have any value in 20 years, or 40 years, leave alone 75 or 95 years after the author dies?
Copyright as originally envisioned is what's needed for OSS, and would serve society in general much better than the essentially perpetual copyright that now exists.
All I can say is "Whoosh!" Attacking the Bible as if it were meant to be completely literal in all places is a straw-man argument that lazy people make when they want to dismiss it out of hand. Sure, there are people who believe it _is_ meant to be taken completely literally, and they are as silly as you imply, but they represent a small minority of Christendom both in numbers, and especially historically.
What about the people who understand that much of Scripture is allegorical, that it does not contradict history, or science, but supplements it by allowing for the possibility of something larger, and more subtle, than what we see with our eyes or conceive with our minds, that it is based on a divinely-inspired oral history that expresses powerful and sublime ideas in a sometimes simplified context that promotes human understanding, and that it is not some kind of goofy textbook on planetary evolution, zoology, or strange human endurance records?
It does not take faith to lack belief, only to believe something.
Indeed. An agnostic can use that defense, but not an atheist. An agnostic admits he does not know and cannot know that God exists. He correctly recognizes that only faith can decide the issue either way for any person and that he, the agnostic, does not have faith. That's a position I can respect as a completely logical one.
An atheist does believe something positive: that God does not exist. Given the ethereal nature of the definition of God, Who is unseen, all-powerful, can do anything He wants how can you prove anything? Let's face it, Someone like that is rather hard to pin down, or to rule out. He could, to be brutally honest, have created the world 6000 years ago and planted fossils as some sort of practical joke. And why just the Judeo-Christian God, what about all the other belief systems, including pantheism? Some people think God is the sun, or the moon, or the winds, or the clouds, or... everything. Ruling all those out seems like rather a mounting task.
Believing He doesn't exist is ultimately as much a matter of faith and believing He does. You are free to believe it and to defend it, and can certainly find reasons to back it up, but you are deluding yourself if you claim you can prove it.
Please recall however, "Thou shalt not put the Lord, thy God to the test." Does God want us to believe because something good happens to us if we do? Or is there a deeper, more powerful reason?
Anonymous, your help is appreciated. However, I'm debating with a person who claims that his disbelief in God is more than a matter of faith. I would hardly think he would take Scripture as compelling evidence. I _do_ take Scripture as compelling evidence, in conjunction with other things as well, not the least of which is 2000 years of history inspired, influenced and guided by that Scripture.
In playing "Devil's Advocate" I find that most of my suggestions (that Christ was some kind of insane person, or was simply "created" by authors to fulfill a prophecy, etc) to be rather far-fetched, if possible in theory. However, I'm trying to argue a somewhat different point than perhaps you are. I'm not arguing for the existence of God, although I do believe and would certainly encourage anyone to consider His existence and to use Scripture as a means to learn about Him and guide that person towards deciding for himself.
However, I'm talking to an atheist who is convinced he is right based on logic. I don't expect to change his mind. My goals are more modest. I just want him to admit that he cannot prove God doesn't exist any more than I can prove He does. And frankly, I'd love to hear his reasoning. It would be challenging and interesting to follow his logic and see what it is that has him believing it's more than a matter of faith. He's made me very curious because lots of people have made those claims, and no one seems to be able to back it up without resorting to ad hominem attacks, spurious reasoning and sometimes just plain bull-headed arrogance in defense of the indefensible.
There are many, many reasons to cause one to believe God exists, but somewhere along the way, even if only a little bit, faith is needed. Somewhere you have to consider that all this could be fiction, all this could be some vast grand conspiracy to control people, or any of a hundred other motives humans have for manipulating each other, and yet, given all the evidence, given all the vast treasures of Christian thought, literature, philosophy, even art, given 2000 years of testimony defended by people even with their very lives, that _something_ must be there. You can't give someone that faith. You can only show them where the path begins, make recommendations, being an exemplar of Christian living and let the Spirit work as He will. You can perhaps help lead someone in the right direction, but whatever happens after that is between him and the Lord.
Originally, I just wanted to make an amusing comment with a grain of truth. A forum on new technology is hardly the place to hold such a discussion, but fortunately,/.'s flexibility allows for this, moderators notwithstanding. I think it's one of/.'s plusses! To those people who are annoyed at having to wade through this crap, I can only give thanks for supporting and participating in a forum that allows such "abuse". It is truly the seed of real communication. You wouldn't expect I read/. solely for the lackadaisical editing, the endless story dupes, or lame blog-spam posing as real stories. I'm here for the discussions, which despite all the "frost pists" and middle-school-drop-out grammar and spelling Nazis and stupid memes beat into a thin pudding, is a really interesting place to discuss news for nerds and stuff that matters.
I happen to believe that there is a living Person Who is God, but I don't claim to be able to prove it. I can show you a whole bunch of circumstantial evidence, over thousands of years, but most of it boils down to stuff people have done. That kind of thing could be faked, I suppose. After all, millions of people believe in astrology, for which there is less evidence than for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster or an honest U.S. Senator. You claim there is no God, and do seem to be claiming you can prove it, because you say it's more than a matter of faith on your part. I'd like to know how you think you can... and I'm not just yanking your chain. I'm really curious.
Now, we can prove who Elvis is. He's one of the most famous people who ever lived. We know what he looks like. We even know many details of his life in intimate detail. There are still thousands of people who knew him personally, including his wife, and millions of people who met him or witnessed him perform. We could, if you want to get technical, do DNA tests, fingerprints, etc, etc, and be quite confident, to the limits of our intellectual and technical abilities that a person is or is not Elvis.
So, the next step is. How do we identify God? If we are talking about Christ, the only firsthand accounts of Him are some 2000 years old, and to His appearance... well aside from a few certain scars and distinguishing marks, about the best we can say is he had "long hair, beard and sandals, and a funky bunch of friends" like the Kris Kristofferson song goes.
Furthermore, if you're playing along at home, I've already pointed out that we cannot eliminate the possibility that He was a very clever liar, a very weird sort of megalomaniac or a complete fabrication based on some Essene mystic who had some nice moral teachings and kind of fit some stuff in a bunch of old prophetic books that talk a lot about smiting and turtledoves.
So how do we identify God? He's invisible and can do anything He wants, by the popular definition. He could be a dove descending from the sky. He could be a bush that burns and is never extinguished. He could be a grilled cheese sandwich or a brick or anything else that might strike His whimsy (see Google for more examples). He can create all of existence, which makes Him a little more capable or you or me or spin batteries or even our President who likes to talk like Him and seems to like to be compared to Him. Even more than Chuck Norris.
So if you can give me some way to identify, at least to the level of reasonable doubt as I did with Elvis, Who God is, then we can proceed to construct a test that will allow us to determine whether or not He exists. It doesn't matter if we cannot actually perform the test. If you somehow convince me that God is a person who lives nine billion light years away (one for each of His names in the Arthur Clarke story), I will be happy to assert that yes, given enough time, we could (for a certain value of could) determine if God does or does not exist. And if we can determine how to prove He exists, then it is at least logically possible to prove, or to determine how to prove, He doesn't exist, even we ourselves are doomed to spend the rest of our lives like Vladimir and Estragon knowing "The Truth is Out There", but not being able to do anything about it.
Or we could just cut through the crap and you could stop holding out and tell me why you think that while my belief in God is a matter of faith, your disbelief of Him is not. After all, it's your claim to back up, not mine.
1. You identify a living person who is Elvis. 2. Q.E.D.
Ta da! This is a proof that Elvis is alive. Or to be more precise since you repeatedly don't get it, these are the steps that you can use to prove Elvis is alive. Now the fact that Elvis isn't alive is irrelevant. It's still a valid proof. We're talking logic here, not whether or not Elvis is alive. Furthermore, the proof can be shown to be false because we can go to Graceland and see that Elvis is buried there.
Have you ever heard of non-Euclidian geometry? The whole concept came about by an "arbitrary" decision to assume the 5th postulate of Euclidian geometry (concerning the non-intersection of parallel lines) was _not_ true, and applying all the rules of logic. Guess what? They came up with all kinds of new geometries that ended up having interesting and useful applications. The fact that space, so far as we can tell, is Euclidian in nature in no way invalidates the logic of these non-Euclidian geometries.
Now can you construct a similar proof for the non-existence of God, as you so claimed? If so, I'd love to see it, because you would be the first person in history. And even if you were to claim such a (however absurdly) that you had such a proof, there would be no way to show you were wrong. There would be no experiment (even a thought experiment) that could be performed to verify or contradict your experiment. I've stated repeatedly that you cannot prove God exists, which... I guess, since I can't follow your thinking... you disagree with. If so, please explain.
If you are so gosh-darned more smart than me, then quit talking and start chalking: Show me why your non-belief in God is based on logic. Let's see your vaunted intelligence instead of just pointing out, repeatedly that I am wrong, by misinterpreting my words, and consistently missing my point. But you probably won't... you'll just whine a little more that I'm wrong and you're right, which I am apparently supposed to take on faith.
That's the problem with so many atheists. Your minds are too narrow and your thought processes are based too much on emotion rather than reason. It's a shame really. You'd think someone claiming to be the pinnacle of rationality would be able to demonstrate more than the most superstitious shaman in the darkest jungle warding off evil spirits with his charms.
Wow. You've completely missed my point... again. Go back and re-read my post; you seem to have completely forgotten what I originally said, or as is too common in places like/., are trying to place words in my mouth that I did not say so you can beat a straw man to death.
I'll recap: If it's impossible to prove God exists then, it's also impossible to prove He doesn't exist because such a proof would not be falsifiable. That's the same logic as a basic tenet of science: a theory cannot be considered valid (i.e. more than a hypothesis) if there's no possible way to disprove it. You can't claim something that cannot possibly be shown to be wrong. Furthermore, I believe that it is _not_ possible to prove God exists.
I went on to say that despite the fact that I believe in God, I do not think it is possible to prove God exists. Therefore, your non-belief in God is no more based on fact than my belief in God could possibly be. Since you cannot be proved wrong, your theory that God does not exist is merely a hypothesis and cannot be considered to have been proven.
My logic is perfectly fine. If your comment reflects what passes for reading comprehension in your world, I agree that we better just stop here.
My argument is perfectly fine. I _can_ prove Elvis is alive, meaning it's possible to show Elvis is alive, by showing you a living Elvis. Now, since Elvis is dead, I can't do it at this specific time, but that's not my argument. Perhaps the wording was less precise than it needed to be.
If you cannot prove God exists, you also cannot prove He doesn't exist, because such a proof would not be falsifiable. The very nature of God, by definition defies proof. I am perfectly happy to admit that I cannot prove God exists, despite my faith in His existence. I look at the evidence, especially that of Christ (Who did exist, and is either who He said He was, or was a liar (or the Gospel writers were) or was insane... no other possibilities), and have concluded, based on _faith_, that He is Who He said He is, and not a crazy person or a hoax concocted by 1st century zealots. I cannot prove this to you and have no intentions on trying. However, a very small seed of faith, nourished with a great deal of reason and logic have led me to point where I am.
The _best_ you can probably do in this matter is invoke Occam's Razor, which unfortunately works either way depending on your point of view. What's more complex and less probable, the idea of an invisible, omnipotent Creator or incredible order and complexity arising through randomness? Which is simpler. St. Thomas Aquinas had several proofs of God, which I myself don't find completely compelling, although I have great appreciation for his use of logic.
As much as you would like to believe otherwise, your lack of belief is as much a matter of faith as my belief. I certainly don't fault your "faith" that God doesn't exist, that's up to you. I do however disagree with you, and more importantly, hold that your beliefs cannot possibly carry more weight or be more based on logic or empirical data than mine, because it's impossible to prove a negative. It's a Catch-22, and I'm perfectly happy to admit that... I think God wants us to need faith in Him, because if there were no question, there would also be no free will. He's infinite, invisible and omnipotent. Any argument you could make for His lack of existence can be gratuitously countered with the fact that God can do anything... including giving us an evolutionary tendency to believe in Him! Including, however much I disagree with the idea, that He made the world 6000 years ago and planted fossils and all the other physical evidence as some sort of divine practical joke.
If you believe that you can disprove the existence of God, I'd love to hear your theory. If it holds water, I would think you would have quite a bit of well-deserved notoriety coming your way. Don't hide your light under a bushel.
By the way: I was making a joke regarding theism to mirror your sig, in the way mathematical definitions are made, where theism is defined as a belief in a number of gods. Zero is a number. It's a joke...
p.s. I hope these spin batteries work out. I've always thought a "quantum leap" in battery technology such as this appears to be could be as transformative to our way of life as the microchip was.
We are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. I dismiss your god as you dismiss the others.
And we are also both theists. Your faith in the existence of zero gods is as strong as my faith in the existence of one God. The only difference is the number of gods.
That kind of thing just doesn't seem to happen in the English-speaking world.
I can't speak for other places, but America is quickly becoming a post-meritocracy. It infects everyone from the lowest burger-flipper who can't count change to the highest political office holders who would fail Econ 101.
Meh. Louisianna Phil isn't that great. I mean I like Zydeco, but it's only him on the accordion, and he's not very good. Plus he smokes too much and sings like Stevie Nicks.
Oh, wait, you meant the L.A. Philharmonic... never mind.
Nuclear power plants have this problem too. Although there are some bad effects from waste heat, it's fairly localized. While this problem would presumably be worse with fusion plants, but perhaps large man-made bodies of water would suffice rather than rivers, etc, with their respective biological habitats. Or maybe we could use some of that limitless energy to create a really big peltier...;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I just think it's the most amazing coincidence that we got the only competent and non-corrupt politician out of the entire state of Illinois in the White House. Dodged a real bullet there.
people in HR rank only slightly above the people that sweep the floor.
With no exaggeration, I can say that the people who sweep the floor provide a much more useful service than most HR departments. I wouldn't impugn their intelligence (or species for that matter) by suggesting they are inferior to HR.
Windows Update is now a control panel item.
So what does that do? Launch IE with Windows Update? (Probably does underneath)
Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
Wow, you're treading on thin ice here. I mean there are some things that should never be made fun of. Do you realize how many people could take offense at this "joke"? People could be screaming "blasphemy" and worse! I'm personally not offended, but I think a lot of people wouldn't be so tolerant. I think you are running the risk of creating hatred and even violence with this kind of mockery.
I mean, implying that the Creator of the Universe doesn't use Emacs? That's harsh... where's your sense of decorum and respect for other people's religions?!
Before you know it it'll become more complicated to use
Java? I didn't think that was possible. On the other hand, IBM sells Lotus Notes, so who knows what they are capable of?
Good point, Golddess. I'll keep that in mind for next time, since others have already done it here.
And who know how much their brains and nervous systems have evolved? Were these paleo-podes as smart as their modern brethren? Did they have all the camouflage and mimicry and other astounding talents that seem surprisingly sophisticated for something so squidgey and alien-looking?
I don't know whether scientists could possibly infer that kind of information from fossils (brain size, I suppose) but it's certainly possible that these animals evolved into a very optimal body form all those millions of years ago and have been perfecting more subtle aspects than their gross physiognomy.
Well there you go, monkeys aren't very good at maths. Literature is more their thing.
If you call him a monkey, he's going to get very angry. You wouldn't believe how forcefully a peanut can be thrown. But, yes, literature is his thing.
OOK!
I wonder how rich Mr. Ellison would be if he invested all his energy bitching about the world keeping him down into more writing.
so I'm of two minds I suppose.
Not really. Do you think much code written today will have any value in 20 years, or 40 years, leave alone 75 or 95 years after the author dies?
Copyright as originally envisioned is what's needed for OSS, and would serve society in general much better than the essentially perpetual copyright that now exists.
What is it with these illiterate moderators? Doesn't anyone _read_ any more? Oh, wait. Of course not.
All I can say is "Whoosh!" Attacking the Bible as if it were meant to be completely literal in all places is a straw-man argument that lazy people make when they want to dismiss it out of hand. Sure, there are people who believe it _is_ meant to be taken completely literally, and they are as silly as you imply, but they represent a small minority of Christendom both in numbers, and especially historically.
What about the people who understand that much of Scripture is allegorical, that it does not contradict history, or science, but supplements it by allowing for the possibility of something larger, and more subtle, than what we see with our eyes or conceive with our minds, that it is based on a divinely-inspired oral history that expresses powerful and sublime ideas in a sometimes simplified context that promotes human understanding, and that it is not some kind of goofy textbook on planetary evolution, zoology, or strange human endurance records?
It does not take faith to lack belief, only to believe something.
Indeed. An agnostic can use that defense, but not an atheist. An agnostic admits he does not know and cannot know that God exists. He correctly recognizes that only faith can decide the issue either way for any person and that he, the agnostic, does not have faith. That's a position I can respect as a completely logical one.
An atheist does believe something positive: that God does not exist. Given the ethereal nature of the definition of God, Who is unseen, all-powerful, can do anything He wants how can you prove anything? Let's face it, Someone like that is rather hard to pin down, or to rule out. He could, to be brutally honest, have created the world 6000 years ago and planted fossils as some sort of practical joke. And why just the Judeo-Christian God, what about all the other belief systems, including pantheism? Some people think God is the sun, or the moon, or the winds, or the clouds, or... everything. Ruling all those out seems like rather a mounting task.
Believing He doesn't exist is ultimately as much a matter of faith and believing He does. You are free to believe it and to defend it, and can certainly find reasons to back it up, but you are deluding yourself if you claim you can prove it.
Please recall however, "Thou shalt not put the Lord, thy God to the test." Does God want us to believe because something good happens to us if we do? Or is there a deeper, more powerful reason?
Anonymous, your help is appreciated. However, I'm debating with a person who claims that his disbelief in God is more than a matter of faith. I would hardly think he would take Scripture as compelling evidence. I _do_ take Scripture as compelling evidence, in conjunction with other things as well, not the least of which is 2000 years of history inspired, influenced and guided by that Scripture.
In playing "Devil's Advocate" I find that most of my suggestions (that Christ was some kind of insane person, or was simply "created" by authors to fulfill a prophecy, etc) to be rather far-fetched, if possible in theory. However, I'm trying to argue a somewhat different point than perhaps you are. I'm not arguing for the existence of God, although I do believe and would certainly encourage anyone to consider His existence and to use Scripture as a means to learn about Him and guide that person towards deciding for himself.
However, I'm talking to an atheist who is convinced he is right based on logic. I don't expect to change his mind. My goals are more modest. I just want him to admit that he cannot prove God doesn't exist any more than I can prove He does. And frankly, I'd love to hear his reasoning. It would be challenging and interesting to follow his logic and see what it is that has him believing it's more than a matter of faith. He's made me very curious because lots of people have made those claims, and no one seems to be able to back it up without resorting to ad hominem attacks, spurious reasoning and sometimes just plain bull-headed arrogance in defense of the indefensible.
There are many, many reasons to cause one to believe God exists, but somewhere along the way, even if only a little bit, faith is needed. Somewhere you have to consider that all this could be fiction, all this could be some vast grand conspiracy to control people, or any of a hundred other motives humans have for manipulating each other, and yet, given all the evidence, given all the vast treasures of Christian thought, literature, philosophy, even art, given 2000 years of testimony defended by people even with their very lives, that _something_ must be there. You can't give someone that faith. You can only show them where the path begins, make recommendations, being an exemplar of Christian living and let the Spirit work as He will. You can perhaps help lead someone in the right direction, but whatever happens after that is between him and the Lord.
Originally, I just wanted to make an amusing comment with a grain of truth. A forum on new technology is hardly the place to hold such a discussion, but fortunately, /.'s flexibility allows for this, moderators notwithstanding. I think it's one of /.'s plusses! To those people who are annoyed at having to wade through this crap, I can only give thanks for supporting and participating in a forum that allows such "abuse". It is truly the seed of real communication. You wouldn't expect I read /. solely for the lackadaisical editing, the endless story dupes, or lame blog-spam posing as real stories. I'm here for the discussions, which despite all the "frost pists" and middle-school-drop-out grammar and spelling Nazis and stupid memes beat into a thin pudding, is a really interesting place to discuss news for nerds and stuff that matters.
OK. Now, we're getting somewhere. Finally.
I happen to believe that there is a living Person Who is God, but I don't claim to be able to prove it. I can show you a whole bunch of circumstantial evidence, over thousands of years, but most of it boils down to stuff people have done. That kind of thing could be faked, I suppose. After all, millions of people believe in astrology, for which there is less evidence than for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster or an honest U.S. Senator. You claim there is no God, and do seem to be claiming you can prove it, because you say it's more than a matter of faith on your part. I'd like to know how you think you can... and I'm not just yanking your chain. I'm really curious.
Now, we can prove who Elvis is. He's one of the most famous people who ever lived. We know what he looks like. We even know many details of his life in intimate detail. There are still thousands of people who knew him personally, including his wife, and millions of people who met him or witnessed him perform. We could, if you want to get technical, do DNA tests, fingerprints, etc, etc, and be quite confident, to the limits of our intellectual and technical abilities that a person is or is not Elvis.
So, the next step is. How do we identify God? If we are talking about Christ, the only firsthand accounts of Him are some 2000 years old, and to His appearance... well aside from a few certain scars and distinguishing marks, about the best we can say is he had "long hair, beard and sandals, and a funky bunch of friends" like the Kris Kristofferson song goes.
Furthermore, if you're playing along at home, I've already pointed out that we cannot eliminate the possibility that He was a very clever liar, a very weird sort of megalomaniac or a complete fabrication based on some Essene mystic who had some nice moral teachings and kind of fit some stuff in a bunch of old prophetic books that talk a lot about smiting and turtledoves.
So how do we identify God? He's invisible and can do anything He wants, by the popular definition. He could be a dove descending from the sky. He could be a bush that burns and is never extinguished. He could be a grilled cheese sandwich or a brick or anything else that might strike His whimsy (see Google for more examples). He can create all of existence, which makes Him a little more capable or you or me or spin batteries or even our President who likes to talk like Him and seems to like to be compared to Him. Even more than Chuck Norris.
So if you can give me some way to identify, at least to the level of reasonable doubt as I did with Elvis, Who God is, then we can proceed to construct a test that will allow us to determine whether or not He exists. It doesn't matter if we cannot actually perform the test. If you somehow convince me that God is a person who lives nine billion light years away (one for each of His names in the Arthur Clarke story), I will be happy to assert that yes, given enough time, we could (for a certain value of could) determine if God does or does not exist. And if we can determine how to prove He exists, then it is at least logically possible to prove, or to determine how to prove, He doesn't exist, even we ourselves are doomed to spend the rest of our lives like Vladimir and Estragon knowing "The Truth is Out There", but not being able to do anything about it.
Or we could just cut through the crap and you could stop holding out and tell me why you think that while my belief in God is a matter of faith, your disbelief of Him is not. After all, it's your claim to back up, not mine.
Wow. You really don't get it.
Here's how you prove Elvis is alive:
1. You identify a living person who is Elvis.
2. Q.E.D.
Ta da! This is a proof that Elvis is alive. Or to be more precise since you repeatedly don't get it, these are the steps that you can use to prove Elvis is alive. Now the fact that Elvis isn't alive is irrelevant. It's still a valid proof. We're talking logic here, not whether or not Elvis is alive. Furthermore, the proof can be shown to be false because we can go to Graceland and see that Elvis is buried there.
Have you ever heard of non-Euclidian geometry? The whole concept came about by an "arbitrary" decision to assume the 5th postulate of Euclidian geometry (concerning the non-intersection of parallel lines) was _not_ true, and applying all the rules of logic. Guess what? They came up with all kinds of new geometries that ended up having interesting and useful applications. The fact that space, so far as we can tell, is Euclidian in nature in no way invalidates the logic of these non-Euclidian geometries.
Now can you construct a similar proof for the non-existence of God, as you so claimed? If so, I'd love to see it, because you would be the first person in history. And even if you were to claim such a (however absurdly) that you had such a proof, there would be no way to show you were wrong. There would be no experiment (even a thought experiment) that could be performed to verify or contradict your experiment. I've stated repeatedly that you cannot prove God exists, which... I guess, since I can't follow your thinking... you disagree with. If so, please explain.
If you are so gosh-darned more smart than me, then quit talking and start chalking: Show me why your non-belief in God is based on logic. Let's see your vaunted intelligence instead of just pointing out, repeatedly that I am wrong, by misinterpreting my words, and consistently missing my point. But you probably won't... you'll just whine a little more that I'm wrong and you're right, which I am apparently supposed to take on faith.
That's the problem with so many atheists. Your minds are too narrow and your thought processes are based too much on emotion rather than reason. It's a shame really. You'd think someone claiming to be the pinnacle of rationality would be able to demonstrate more than the most superstitious shaman in the darkest jungle warding off evil spirits with his charms.
Wow. You've completely missed my point... again. Go back and re-read my post; you seem to have completely forgotten what I originally said, or as is too common in places like /., are trying to place words in my mouth that I did not say so you can beat a straw man to death.
I'll recap: If it's impossible to prove God exists then, it's also impossible to prove He doesn't exist because such a proof would not be falsifiable. That's the same logic as a basic tenet of science: a theory cannot be considered valid (i.e. more than a hypothesis) if there's no possible way to disprove it. You can't claim something that cannot possibly be shown to be wrong. Furthermore, I believe that it is _not_ possible to prove God exists.
I went on to say that despite the fact that I believe in God, I do not think it is possible to prove God exists. Therefore, your non-belief in God is no more based on fact than my belief in God could possibly be. Since you cannot be proved wrong, your theory that God does not exist is merely a hypothesis and cannot be considered to have been proven.
My logic is perfectly fine. If your comment reflects what passes for reading comprehension in your world, I agree that we better just stop here.
My argument is perfectly fine. I _can_ prove Elvis is alive, meaning it's possible to show Elvis is alive, by showing you a living Elvis. Now, since Elvis is dead, I can't do it at this specific time, but that's not my argument. Perhaps the wording was less precise than it needed to be.
But you can prove Elvis is alive. I watched that cool documentary about him called "Bubba-Ho-Tep". He's very alive.
Can't wait for the ray-traced BSD desktop version of Duke Nukem Invents The Flying Car.
Not a BSD desktop... a HURD desktop!
If you cannot prove God exists, you also cannot prove He doesn't exist, because such a proof would not be falsifiable. The very nature of God, by definition defies proof. I am perfectly happy to admit that I cannot prove God exists, despite my faith in His existence. I look at the evidence, especially that of Christ (Who did exist, and is either who He said He was, or was a liar (or the Gospel writers were) or was insane... no other possibilities), and have concluded, based on _faith_, that He is Who He said He is, and not a crazy person or a hoax concocted by 1st century zealots. I cannot prove this to you and have no intentions on trying. However, a very small seed of faith, nourished with a great deal of reason and logic have led me to point where I am.
The _best_ you can probably do in this matter is invoke Occam's Razor, which unfortunately works either way depending on your point of view. What's more complex and less probable, the idea of an invisible, omnipotent Creator or incredible order and complexity arising through randomness? Which is simpler. St. Thomas Aquinas had several proofs of God, which I myself don't find completely compelling, although I have great appreciation for his use of logic.
As much as you would like to believe otherwise, your lack of belief is as much a matter of faith as my belief. I certainly don't fault your "faith" that God doesn't exist, that's up to you. I do however disagree with you, and more importantly, hold that your beliefs cannot possibly carry more weight or be more based on logic or empirical data than mine, because it's impossible to prove a negative. It's a Catch-22, and I'm perfectly happy to admit that... I think God wants us to need faith in Him, because if there were no question, there would also be no free will. He's infinite, invisible and omnipotent. Any argument you could make for His lack of existence can be gratuitously countered with the fact that God can do anything... including giving us an evolutionary tendency to believe in Him! Including, however much I disagree with the idea, that He made the world 6000 years ago and planted fossils and all the other physical evidence as some sort of divine practical joke.
If you believe that you can disprove the existence of God, I'd love to hear your theory. If it holds water, I would think you would have quite a bit of well-deserved notoriety coming your way. Don't hide your light under a bushel.
By the way: I was making a joke regarding theism to mirror your sig, in the way mathematical definitions are made, where theism is defined as a belief in a number of gods. Zero is a number. It's a joke...
p.s. I hope these spin batteries work out. I've always thought a "quantum leap" in battery technology such as this appears to be could be as transformative to our way of life as the microchip was.
We are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. I dismiss your god as you dismiss the others.
And we are also both theists. Your faith in the existence of zero gods is as strong as my faith in the existence of one God. The only difference is the number of gods.
That kind of thing just doesn't seem to happen in the English-speaking world.
I can't speak for other places, but America is quickly becoming a post-meritocracy. It infects everyone from the lowest burger-flipper who can't count change to the highest political office holders who would fail Econ 101.
Those who suggest ads, really mean, "Someone else foots the bill". Problem is, what do you do when everyone wants everyone else to "foot the bill"?
You elect Obama! What else?
Meh. Louisianna Phil isn't that great. I mean I like Zydeco, but it's only him on the accordion, and he's not very good. Plus he smokes too much and sings like Stevie Nicks.
Oh, wait, you meant the L.A. Philharmonic... never mind.
Nuclear power plants have this problem too. Although there are some bad effects from waste heat, it's fairly localized. While this problem would presumably be worse with fusion plants, but perhaps large man-made bodies of water would suffice rather than rivers, etc, with their respective biological habitats. Or maybe we could use some of that limitless energy to create a really big peltier... ;-)