Its all your lines it seems. I was just pointing out that your thinking is wrong. I can prove a negative using mathematics. I do understand why you feel you have a point. Duality. I accept your point but have a counter point.
And now you're just repeating yourself. Stop trying to sound profound and actually listen for once.
Creating a mathematical proof for a negative number is NOT the same thing as proving a negative. You're making the same mistake skeptic is in trying to conflate two statements with different meanings. Trying to prove a negative refers to the absence of evidence for something, and it's effectively impossible because you can't rule out that you might find evidence at some point. It has nothing to do with a mathematical or logical proof, since those are constructs used in arguments, not demonstrations of physical reality.
Did you understand that time?
At least you're willing to admit that much.
Exactly - that is why I said in maths we can prove a negative.
But you aren't actually proving a negative in the first place, because math doesn't work with physical evidence the way science does.
Because we do. It was against your logic that we could not and it is why I have questioned. Using infinity to work out complex problems like the big bang and claiming it is true would in anyone book sound like a lie or a cheat.
So you aren't even talking about the subject of the topic now. Great... And worse, you're trying to make science sound like lying and cheating by playing word games.
Yet you do not go around saying in science and in maths we lie and cheat to prove these things we say it is logical and rational. We use critical thinking.
Yep, because scientists don't claim that the current theories on the Big Bang
, accelerating to lightspeed
, and black hole singularities
are the final words on the subject. The fact of the matter is that the BBT and black hole theory are incomplete, but we can't exactly perform experiments or test them to find out what actually happens.
There is no need to educate me on what we already know are lies and deception.
Wrong, because you're making an assumption about science that doesn't fly, namely that science lies or cheats to support claims. Do you have any actual evidence of this, or is it based on your misapprehension of things?
But that is how we do things around here - in science and in maths.
This is a lie; furthermore, it's an insulting lie. It shows only two things - that you don't understand science or math nearly as well as you think you do, and that you're only saying so to further what you want to believe in any case. It's as big a strawman as what skeptic tried to pull in the first topic of this post.
The concepts of our world as it appears in our minds eye is that there are laws that govern everything in matter and it is for the human mind to obey such laws. There is nothing else says the theists who know God. Wherever the human goes he would have to use rationale critical thinking and science to try and figure out the world he is observing. It is to give the mind hard work or fail trying to prove that there is no God. Nothing created does not follow some law. Only god has no laws to follow. He can do what he wants when he wants and that will forever confuse the logical rational skeptical mind.
Until you actually show evidence that there is such a thing as a god - and trying to say that there are laws that govern things and thus a god must have put them in place is not any kind of evidence, it just shows your continuing lack of understanding of how science works - any belief that there is is no sturdier than a house of cards. It's just that people are really good at propping up houses of cards in their minds.
In other words it is bullshit. Take this apple hold it taste it and now lie to yourself and prove that it does not exist - keep saying "it does not exist" until you come to "believe that it does not exist". And the point is -- it is self delusional training.
Are you speaking from experience here? If you pretend that you have an apple long enough and hard enough, your mind will start manufacturing evidence that the apple exists, even though it doesn't. And you'll claim that it does to other people until they get tired of listening to you. That's just as much of a self-delusion as trying to pretend that an apple which actually does exist doesn't. Ever read The Emperor's New Clothes? Perfect example of what I'm talking about.
In any case, you still don't get it. When we talk about "proving a negative", what it means is that we can't say outright that something doesn't exist without evidencet. However, sauce for the goose works for the gander too; if you don't have evidence about something, then you don't have evidence, and so while you can't prove that it doesn't exist, you also can't prove that it does.
Exactly - you are not being realistic when you say nobody can prove a negative.
The one who isn't being realistic here is you. I've said repeatedly what "not being able to prove a negative" means, and you insist that I'm wrong. Well, if I'm wrong, prove a negative - in the real world, not in math or logic. Prove that something for which we have no evidence either way doesn't exist. You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath, though?
And that atheism is what you define it to be when it is not.
When your argument is that the word atheism originally meant something, therefore it can't possibly mean anything different today, your argument is invalid.
There is no logic in any of your arguments. But I am sure atheists see the logic, the rationale and the science behind it - they want everyone else to examine even though it is not there because it is a negative. You cannot prove a negative so it is true but it is not really cause it is imaginary. It is just a figure of speech to acknowledge what is not there but claims it is there to prove that it is not there. Technically BS.
All you're doing here is showing the old adage that you can prove anything logically if you use the right premise, even if it's totally ridiculous.Unless you have evidence regarding something, you can't make any claims about it - even whether it exists or whether it doesn't exist.
Playing these asinine word games to try to claim that atheists really do think this god of yours exists but are trying to pretend that it doesn't only shows the weakness of your position. Namely - that you have no actual evidence to support the existence of 'god'. So you're left with trying to claim that it exists anyway and that atheists think so to, they just don't "have faith" in it, and using steadily more ridiculous argument to support it.
To get back to the original point of the topic, atheists can't prove that there is no god. Can theists prove - in the real world, not with sophistry and logic - that there is one?