Yes, I do have proof that god does not exist.

[cleanhippie]

[rexcat]

1. ...

That's a good one. Great find!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. Doesn't exist? What if I still want to believe that he is a male bipod who looks like me,

except for the invisible part?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. I have stopped believing in absolutes on some things.

If humans exist then other beings must exist someplace in the universe...possibly in our own solar system.

Whether a being comprised of energy exists who am I to say? Perhaps if one or many do exist they have no need to communicate with us, or if they are given to the impulse perhaps they are presently and have been screwing with humankind for millennium.

It would be an interesting joke to make the biologicals dance for the ethereal pleasure of eternal beings. No?

[Deep13]

30. your logic just gave me a neck injury.

Whatever energy beings you think might exist, they are not gods.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

42. Never said they were, but

What if that is what they wanted humankind to believe.

"Dance, human, dance!"


On edit: please don't bring up the great old ones!

[edhopper]

74. Your reading habits

(which i assume from your pen name) may lead you to some wonderful speculation.
But Isaac would be the first to tell you that your first statement is a conclusion without evidence and therefore cannot be given.
Also "a being comprised of energy" is highly problematic.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

82. And?

Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2013, 01:22 PM - Edit history (1)

To speculate that human beings are the only beings in the universe shows both arrogance and a childish form of conceptualization.

Also "a being comprised of energy" is highly problematic.

Perhaps.

Humans are really in their infancy in understanding the universe. A being of energy may be problematic, but it does not have to mean their existence is impossible.

[edhopper]

87. You are not answering my reply

When you say "must exist" that is not speculation, that is an absolute.

Is it probable that life exists elsewhere? Yes. Is it possible for there to be intelligent life? Yes.
Do we have any evidence that it is so? No.
So for you to insist that there is life, perhaps even in our solar system is pure speculation.

So do you still stand by:
"If humans exist then other beings must exist someplace in the universe...possibly in our own solar system. "?

The physics of a being of pure energy is highly problematic, since it would need to circumvent a few physical laws of the Universe.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

97. That's nice.

[edhopper]

98. Glad I could

amuse you.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

99. It's not realy an amusing day.

It took a while to track down our niece since she was in Boston, and I am distracted.

That's nice meant: "Okay, Great."

[edhopper]

100. Sorry

trivial shit like this discussion really becomes meaningless on days like this.
I responded before i was completely aware of the events.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

102. No offense taken.

Everything is fine on our end, and my niece was studying in her dorm room.

Okay, so IF there are other beings, and I meant not necessarily sentient in our solar system since there is always the possibility of something under the ice of Europa , then perhaps they are hopefully smarter than mankind can be.

Perhaps they exist, know about Earth, and want nothing to do with us.

[edhopper]

103. I think the possibility

of life elsewhere in the Universe is probable. Intelligent life is an unknown. But because of the absence of any radio signal detected from anywhere, it would seem that intelligent, technologically sophisticated life is rare if it exists at all.

(you could always have a super intelligent whale like species for instance, that would have no need to form a civilization or technology)

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. A REAL one to worship should be a tripod....

....just saying...

[immoderate]

3. I have proof that you don't!

But I won't show it to you, Rune.

--imm

[rug]

7. Welcome to DU!

Last edited Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:17 PM - Edit history (1)

On edit: You may want to check out this Group as well: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1221

[Phillip McCleod]

9. i think it was quite clever.

provocative though, huh?

welcome home!

[mr blur]

11. Welcome. However, what you say is nonsense.

I don't have to prove that it's nonsense. You can't prove that it isn't. It's my belief that it's nonsense and if you mock my belief you're a bigot.

If you stick around, that's all you need to remember to take part.

Oh, that and that the Jury system is your friend, they'll back you up - they're afraid someone will think they're anti-religion, which is A Crime.

[rug]

12. There's that warm welcome that makes this Group a beacon of civility.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

24. It looks like Name Removed has already been escorted from the building

A shame too, I think s/he would have fit right in here in the Religion group.

[rug]

26. It doesn't excuse the comment.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

32. Nothing to excuse

Someone wading straight into the Religion group exhibiting the familiarity of an old-timer is going to get what they get.

[rug]

33. What familiarity?

The post disagreed with the OP and got the usual sullen reply.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

48. The aforementioned poster, now nuked

knew exactly which group to go to, which hot button thread to post in, and which poster to pick at, all while playing the rather predictable part of a grievously persecuted believer. That person has been around the DU block a few times, and it seemed pretty obvious to me.

[rug]

65. And you know this how?

That was his first post. The next four were in C&O which resulted in the tombstone.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

67. You were on MIRT, you know how it goes

After a while, one gets a nose for trolls.

[rug]

68. I do. It's usually more than one post.

In any event, some first posts are so nukeable on sight. I don't think this one was. Certainly it didn't warrant the reply it got.

His next four posts were in C&O where he posted, inter alia, that Catholics who support abortion should be excommunicated. Skinner ppred him as a malicious intruder after the hidden posts.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

69. I didn't know about the posts in the C&O group, and I certainly wouldn't have

considered him nukeable just based on his post here in Religion. But that one post did make my troll sense go all tingly. To wit, he seemed to have a familiarity with the normal goings-on in this group.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. We should be polite to obvious trolls? Why?

[rug]

36. I would answer you Warren but I'm too polite.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. You can't resist personal attacks, but attempt to shame others for doing

what you do habitually. I guess your late self exile has not improved your demeanor in the slightest.

[rug]

44. Although, my politeness has limits.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

75. A jury voted 5-1 to leave this post alone...

At Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:56 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I would answer you Warren but I'm too polite.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=76167

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Rug thinks he is being clever, but anyone with basic reading comprehension can see that he called another DU'er a troll. This is a personal attack, and it was unwarranted, uncalled for, and disruptive.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:03 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Really? This place is like a day care center sometimes, in more ways than one. Leave it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Alerted for implying that someone is a troll when that someone implied someone else is a troll? The mind boggles.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Another alerter too lazy to select the exact reply in which rug called someone a troll....thus, I refuse to hide something this innocuous. I am thoroughly sick of silly alerts by even sillier DUers
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I think Warren can handle this.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[rug]

76. Thanks.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

77. You're welcome....

I always prefer debate to silly censorship.

[goldent]

80. "There's that warm welcome that makes this Group a beacon of civility."

I think my first "welcome" focused mainly on the fact that some "horrible" people were recently expelled.

[hrmjustin]

13. I welcome you to Du but remember everyone has a different opinion on faith.

We should always respect that.

[cbayer]

15. Welcome to DU and to the religion group.

[Hissyspit]

18. Nonsense.

[Zoeisright]

21. Wrong.

Sounds like he hit a nerve there.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is NO proof for the existence of any type of god. Philosophical proofs are not physical proofs and they are not scientific. You make the claim; you back it up. That's the way science and reality work.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. "There are many proofs" all of which are considered uninteresting to modern philosophy

So which one are you going to confound us with? Ontological? Cosmological? Teleological? Lets roll!

[On the Road]

6. Mr Fiborg Has Succeeded

in putting religion and atheism on the same playing field. Whether that is what he was after is another matter.

[Phillip McCleod]

10. i wouldn't take him at face value..

..since he was teasing, and all.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

25. And that's okay

If both were forced to be subjected to the same critical analysis, I think many believers would not be happy with the results.

[rug]

8. Straw man argument.

[Deep13]

28. how so? nt

[rug]

31. "It is perfect and irrefutable."

I don't think any attempt to prove the existence of a God has claimed that. To the contrary, the proofs routinely acknowledge that any attempt to prove the infinite by the finite is inherently imperfect.

"You cannont see it or detect it in any way."

He's conflating evidence of God with proof of God.

[Deep13]

38. proof is enough evidence to exclude other possibilities.

in this case there is no evidence of god and, therefore, no proof.

[rug]

39. It depends on what you're trying to prove.

I don't think there are any evidence based proofs of God.

What you will end up doing is arguing evidentiary standards and types of evidence, not the existence of God.

[Phillip McCleod]

110. true but kant tried to argue that divine imperatives..

..were the source of imperative laws like the natural laws. i checked out your other link on natural laws but when it comes to human behavior it seems to me that matters are further complicated than 'simple' relativity and quantum mechanics..

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. I think it's God Himself that 'his proof' is being compared to

Perfect, cannot be seen, cannot be deduced etc. But people still say they are convinced of the existence of this perfect God.

[rug]

66. I'm sure that's his intent but his grammar leads elsewhere.

[corkhead]

14. I have absolute proof there is a god:

Sarah Palin is not our Vice President.

THE END

[A Simple Game]

16. I have absolute proof there is a devil: Sarah Palin could have been our Vice President. n/t

[Soylent Brice]

20. ftw

[dimbear]

17. Whenever you find yourself in that position, you face a difficult choice. Should you go

patent.......... or copyright?

[sakabatou]

19. I am going to steal that.

[Deep13]

27. outstanding nt

[hrmjustin]

29. Interesting and logical, but there is no proof either way.

[Hissyspit]

35. He knows that.

There's no proof it is or is not turtles all the way down, either.

It's one way to deal with the Burden of Proof fallacy.

[hrmjustin]

37. I never believed in any Burden of proof. You believe or you don't.

Nothing in this life is certain except death and taxes, but i hope and believe there is a heaven. I would like to party for eternity.

[Hissyspit]

40. Burden of Proof Fallacy:

Saying that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

"The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not make it valid.

i.e. 'Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that no one can prove him wrong his claim is therefore a valid one.'"

[hrmjustin]

41. Thanks for clarrifying it.

I think it is a faulty idea. If I say the moon is made of cheese and say you have to disprove that it seems silly. I say there is a God and you have to prove me wrong seems silly to me.

[Marrah_G]

47. If there is a God, let me put this to you:

People get very excited about miracles and the miracle of prayer. Someone's cancer goes into remission and it's a miracle.

YET.... time after time throughout history people by the 100's of thousands, even millions have died in horrific ways. What, no miracle for them? Is god only capable of doing little tiny things? I don't get it.

I just have to wonder, where this all good, almighty being was while millions were slaughtered during the holocaust, in Serbia, in Kosovo, in Rwanda, etc. Was he on vacation?

It just honestly makes zero sense to me unless God is an evil fucking bastard, an uncaring voyeur or an absent landlord.

I just cannot rationalize it at all. I've heard all the explanation from my very Catholic family and no.... none of it makes no sense to me.

I remember the night my nephew died of Tay Sachs after 4 years of nothing (and I do mean nothing, but pain) and the priest shows up at the house talking about God's will....... I gotta say, I wanted to punch him.

[hrmjustin]

50. I don't believe miracles happen today.

I do not think God decides who lives, dies, gets sick, or is rich and famous. I pray to God for strength and forgiveness. I believe God is with us but we make our own choices. But that is just my humble opinion.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. Did they use to happen?

[hrmjustin]

57. I believe that Jesus made miracles.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. But not the Old Testament ones?

[hrmjustin]

70. Some I would say yes and some i would say were allegory.

[lindysalsagal]

45. To everyone: What would proof of God look like?

I'm just curious. What would it take to make non-believers believe?

FWIW: I put "God" right up there with Santa, The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy, the Great Pumpikin, and Unicorns.

[cleanhippie]

49. Empirical is what it would look like.

Something verifiable/falsifiable. Anything less is nonsense.


Simple, really.

[hrmjustin]

51. so you think when we die there is nothing?

[cleanhippie]

52. I've seen nothing that supports the idea that there is.

Last edited Sat Apr 13, 2013, 08:23 PM - Edit history (1)

If you have something that does, then please share.

[hrmjustin]

56. Just faith that there is a heaven. Sorry I have no inside knowlege.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. No hell?

[hrmjustin]

71. I do not believe in hell. I think almost all souls make it to heaven.

The few exceptions I believe God makes them cease to exist.

[Warren Stupidity]

72. So this heaven is crowded with billions of individual former people?

Presumably there are other sentient beings in this universe, are they allowed in? Where is this heaven? Isn't it going to get boring? Can you have hobbies, or is it just bliss all day long? Are my dogs excluded?

Since we apparently just get to make stuff up regarding god etc. wouldn't it be more comforting to adopt a reincarnation viewpoint?

If there is no hell except apparently for hitler level baditude, and that is just termination, what motivation is there to not be a selfish asshole in this world?

[hrmjustin]

83. I am sorry to get back late on this but all I can say is I do not know

what heaven is. But yes I believe in it. I believe animals are there.

[Warren Stupidity]

85. Doggie heaven!

Cool.
But I am still confused. In this heaven, wherever it is, is your "personality" preserved?

[hrmjustin]

86. I would imagine so!

[Warren Stupidity]

88. So do babies go to heaven?

[hrmjustin]

89. I would think they do.

[Warren Stupidity]

90. What personality do they have for eternity?

[hrmjustin]

91. I can not answer that but it is something to think about.

[Warren Stupidity]

92. maybe god can make one up for them?

What about people with dementia? What personality do they get for eternity? What about people who were suicidally uncomfortable with themselves, are they stuck for eternity with that mess?

Personally I think a metaphysics that has our individual "souls" merging back into some cosmic meta-physical uber soul is a little less problematic, although it has the disadvantage of being remarkably similar to the "lights out you're dead" atheistic view.

Maybe the "hindu" branch of bronze age theology got it right in terms of just so stories to make us less anxious about death?

[hrmjustin]

93. I would think you don't have all of your old problems from earth when you get into heaven.

How much we change when we get there is a guess. Your guess is as good as mine.

[Warren Stupidity]

94. Insane from birth. What "personality" survives for eternity?

[hrmjustin]

95. i do not know.

What will be will be!

[lindysalsagal]

105. Is there Nutella?

Cause I gotta have Nutella.

[hrmjustin]

106. If you want it there than i am sure it will be there.

[lindysalsagal]

107. OH: So Heaven is whatever you want? No wonder you believe in it! It's GOOD!

I'm gonna start believing that I live in a nutella factory!

[goldent]

108. "OH: So Heaven is whatever you want? No wonder you believe in it! It's GOOD!"

This is probably as good as a description as any.

[hrmjustin]

109. Go for it!

[Warren Stupidity]

53. Yes of course. You die, you're dead, done, gone. Lights off.

[hrmjustin]

58. I hope there is more!

[Warren Stupidity]

73. You can hope all you want but I suggest you make the most of this life here.

[hrmjustin]

84. Good advice!

[lindysalsagal]

79. No straight answers here. Guess we have no idea what we're looking for.

Exactly what I expected to happen, since deep down, "God" is just wishful thinking, and totally imaginary.

But it was an interesting little experiment. Thanks for the responses.

[goldent]

81. If we are talking about proofs come up by humans...

and not God appearing are acting in physical form...

I would say it would take rigorous scientific proof. Even with that, I would say some small-ish percentage of non-believers would not buy it.

“Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

[Jim__]

104. Kurt Gödel, probably the top logician of the 20th century, thought it would look like ...

... this:

Ax. 1. {P( ? ) ∧ ▢ ? x (? (x) ? ? (x))} ? P( ? )
Ax. 2. P( ¬ ? ) ? ¬ P( ? )
Th. 1. P( ? ) ? ◇ ? x ( ? (x) )
Df. 1. G(x) ? ? ? (P ( ? ) ? ? (x) )
Ax. 3. P(G)
Th. 2. ◇ ? x G(x)
Df. 2. ? ess x ? ? (x) ∧ ? ? ( ? (x) ? ▢ ? x ( ? (x) ? ? (x) ) )
Ax. 4. P( ? ) ? ▢ P( ? )
Th. 3. G(x) ? G ess x
Df. 3. E(x) ? ? ? ( ? ess x ? ▢ ? x ? (x) )
Ax. 5. P(E)
Th. 4. ▢ ? x G(x)

[Phillip McCleod]

111. not everything mathematical is also empirical.

godel's theorems are true within the axiomatic framework of assumptions that make arithmetic go, but can't be generalized to all number systems or to just any real phenomenon.

[Jim__]

114. That's not a mathematical theorem.

It's Gödel's logical proof for the existence of god.

[Phillip McCleod]

115. ah so.. i had no idea he tinkered so deeply with metaphysics..

sadly for godel, logical proofs don't lend themselves well to metaphysics. my reading of the criticisms of his proof lie, as they almost always do in such matters, in the axioms assumed at the outset.

for instance, one may debate the following assumption all day long without progress.. in fact that's more or less what we do around here..

Axiom 3: The property of "being God-like", G is a positive property.

[Jim__]

121. The argument was offered here only as a response to the question in post #45.

The post asked, what would proof of god look like? The argument is an example.

[gateley]

55. Here's my proof:

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Anonymousecoview]

61. The Blessed Trinity? Not

Human beings make mistakes... but the human spirit is capable of rising above them. ie. Anne Frank after watching her family murdered by Nazi tyrants wrote, "I still believe in the human spirit."

[gateley]

63. And that book bu Viktor Frankl - inspirational and awe-inspiring. I'm not sure I'd

be capable of that hope and forgiveness.

[Anonymousecoview]

64. I hear you

inspirational people out there

[HeiressofBickworth]

62. Reminds me of a brief (and I do mean brief)

conversation I had many years ago with a Jehovah's Witness who knocked at my door. After informing her I am an atheist, she asked how I could believe there is no god. I told her I accepted it on faith. She didn't want to talk with me any more.

[lindysalsagal]

78. The last time the jehovah's knocked on my door, I asked them to grab the end of the 12'X20'carpet I

had rolled up in the entranceway, having just ripped it off the hardwood livingroom floor with my bare hands.

They declined, and never knocked on my door again.

[LTX]

96. Proof is for logic, mathematics, and whiskey.

I'm not sure what the point of the missive in the o/p actually is. Mr. Friborg has hidden "proof" that god does not exist, and that is to be (satirically) juxtaposed against . . . what? Hidden "proof" that god does exist? Beyond the various historical vanities by which god was allegedly "proved" by logic, I know of no one who claims to have such proof, hidden or not.

If there is some other point being made, such as science "proves" its contentions and religion does not, then the missive is just wrong. Science does not deal in "proof." It deals in hypothesis, theory, supporting evidence, and disproof. Perhaps this should have been phrased "I have evidence that god does not exist, but I won't show it to you." But that wouldn't be quite as definitive a quip, I guess.

[kwassa]

101. great post!

"I have evidence that god does not exist, but I won't show it to you".


LOL

[Phillip McCleod]

112. there's another layer of satire..

you rightly point out the difference between proof and evidence, but all too often the demand is that 'you cannot *prove* god *doesn't* exist'.. when atheists invariable point out that the onus is on the believer to 'prove' (using their terminology) their extraordinary claim, they demur.

iow i think the OP was playing with the relentless and willful misunderstanding of 'proof'. you're preaching to the choir to point out the inconsistency to atheists who must repeatedly explain that very same distinction to believers during the course of debate. that's part of the joke.. ..

[LTX]

116. Doesn't that still come full circle to evidence?

Saying that "you cannot prove god doesn't exist" is equivalent to saying "you cannot disprove god," an entirely appropriate point for the scientific construct, and not at all a misunderstanding of the relationship between science and "proof."

To which the proper response remains, you have no supporting evidence for your hypothesis that god does exist.

So in context, the quip itself should still properly be "I have evidence that god doesn't exist, but I won't show it to you." Which remains a rather deflated quip, since the entire scientific edifice is built on evidence of natural, as opposed to supernatural, explanation, i.e. evidence that god is not an effective explanation for the phenomenon being considered. Adding one more piece of evidence, or one more naturally explained phenomenon, and then declaring it hidden, seems to fail most rudimentary tests of effective satire.

[Phillip McCleod]

117. ah but it's a *joke* .. so no, because it wouldn't be as funny.

there is no 'proper' or 'properly'. he's making fun of the constant refrain from believers, and their willful and continued misunderstanding of basic distinctions between empirical evidence, scientific theories, and logical proofs when arguing for their god, or against atheists.

i think we've all seen this conversation from time to time.

the word 'proof' is needed because the demands for 'proof' or claims of 'proof' *are* the joke.

i think you're thinking about this too much.

[LTX]

118. Maybe. But if the "joke" is

premised on a misrepresentation of the position held by your erstwhile opponent, it's a fairly juvenile "joke." Like I said, there is nothing inherently wrong with the statement that science has not, and perhaps cannot, disprove god (or, in your phrasing, that it cannot prove that god doesn't exist). So making fun of this particular "constant refrain" from believers is rather like making fun of the scientific method itself. But then, maybe self-parody was the point after all.

As for the "willful and continued misunderstanding of the basic distinctions between empirical evidence, scientific theories, and logical proofs," it certainly seems at times to be as epidemic in the atheist community as it is in the theist community. The demands for "proof" of god, after all, seem to emanate from the atheist side of the equation.

I don't know, maybe I just find bumper-sticker snark an unsatisfying form of humor.

[Phillip McCleod]

119. well i chuckled.

parse it to pieces if you want, but the fact remains..

..you just don't *get the joke*.

[cleanhippie]

120. The point is that he can feel superior to everyone.

And that is most important, not the point being made in the OP.

[goldent]

113. Good catch