Karma reasons for concrete message



    Posts: 710
  • Darwins +108/-4

Where is your experimental data regarding miracles?
In the Vatican Library.
Empty dodge, no different than me saying all the evidence for leprechauns is located in the Dublin Library.  I’ll assume that since you have not posted a link for this experimental data that you do not have access to the expiremental data, and that you think the Vatican library has it.  Given your complete ignorance regarding other subjects, I have no reason to presume you are accurate in this regard either.
You wanted to know, I gave you the answer. Now you are insulting me by saying that I am ignorant? Why do you feel the need to do that? Attack me personally. Are you afraid of something? Like finally admitting that you don't have enough knowledge ton counter argue the fact that Miracles are the proof of the existence of God?

Your answer is an empty dodge.  You don’t have the experimental data or testing methods, you claim that someone else has it.  So, now not only do you have to prove there is actually experimental data or testing methods, you also have to prove that the Vatican library has this information.  All you’ve done in this thread (as well as others) is pile unsupported assertion on top of unsupported assertion. 

Observing your ignorance relating to science and even the very miracles you assert are proof of the existence of “God” outside of human imagination is not an insult.  It is a valid criticism for which you should take under advisement and attempt to correct.  Your refusal to address this problem is a testament to your cognitive biases.  If I wanted to insult you, I’d call you a total fucking moron and inform you that your bullshit is worthless tripe meant to deceive other brain dead close minded imbeciles like yourself. 

Do you see the difference now between an insult and constructive criticism?

Why do you insist on dodging instead of addressing my points?

So far, your arguments have been so incredibly reproachable that modification will likely not help them.
Yeah. I don'r remember any reproach made towards them sticking. They were all based on a lack of knowledge from the opposing party. I corrected them by giving them the opportunity to learn by themselves enough so they understand why their counter arguments simply don't work. Some of them categorically refused. Others just changed the subject. Others went stonewalling. Others did exactly what Zola did, looked the other way and kept thinking their counter-arguments were still valid.

The post you are replying to, was reply number 1000 in this thread.  You’re arguments have been reproached at every turn, by many individuals in many different ways, all very effectively debunking your claims and exposing your insistence on using logical fallacies.  YOU, Lukvance, have dodged and avoiding supporting any of your arguments, claims and assertions.  Even this very quote I am replying to, you have made an assertion that “others did exactly what Zola did” yet you have not supported this claim.  At this point, every post you make without supporting your arguments is only supplying evidence that you are delusional or a dedicated troll.

If you don’t care however if I’m convinced, why are you here?  You seem to have already decided that if we don’t agree with you that we are ignoring your “evidence” and not even attempting to review your “evidence”. 
I am here because I want to give a chance to people to learn about God. I want also make sure that my arguments are solid and that they cannot be countered.
For instance I don't open discussion about the existence of god with the philosophical arguments anymore. I use the comparison with love and if needed I use miracles. And that's all because of you guys and your critics. I realized that the philosophical arguments are not enough proof because they stay "in the mind".

Unfortunately, your method to “make sure that (your) arguments are solid and that they cannot be countered” is based on your presumption that you are right.  The only instance we have of you acknowledging a flaw in your argument is when YOU realized something.  Your method is ineffective as it requires you to realize something, yet if you fail to realize something then you will keep right on using flawed and false arguments.  Your attempts to refute the counter arguments are based on your various assumptions, presumption and other flawed and false logic.  In your very reply, you managed to lose track of a line of discussion we were having.  Given the multiple discussions you are having, it is understandable that you might lose track of a discussion, HOWEVER, if you can’t keep track of a discussion, how would you be able to properly evaluate a counter argument?

Perhaps in addition to doing some research regarding the scientific topics you wish to discuss, you should also take the time to review the discussions you are involved in before responding.  You don’t have to respond immediately to every person who replies to you.  You’re not on a timetable here. 

Falsify does indeed simply mean “proving something is false”.   Like I said, be my guest.  You keep claiming you can prove that unicorns do not exist, so do it.  I don’t believe that you can, and until you actually prove that unicorns do not exist, I have no reason to believe it is possible.  Time to put up or admit you are wrong.
That would be changing the subject. Let's stay with my claims about miracles and your counter arguments.

you are attempting to refute one of my points by claiming that you can prove that unicorns do not exist. 
Oh no! I don't want to refute your counter argument using that. It would derail the conversation. What was the argument again? Because we can't falsify unicorns, we can't falsify God? If this is it, the counter argument is that God has been falsified many times by theologians. More times falsified ("we don't know what caused the event") than not ("God is responsible for the event")

Okay, so you are not attempting to refute my point that something must be demonstrated before you can test, review and verify predictions regarding that something. 

The relevant discussion can be found here.

I don’t think you understand the concept of falsify properly.  If “God” were falsified by theologians, then that means they would have shown that their “theory of God” was false.  In science, all predictions, hypothesis and theories can be falsified if the evidence either doesn’t support the hypothesis and/or theory or if new evidence is found that contradicts the hypothesis or theory  <   this is what it means for something to be falsifiable.   So if I make a prediction, and the test shows something other than the prediction, then my prediction will have been falsified because the evidence gathered from the test contradicts the predictions.  So far, the point of this thread is for you to provide the supporting evidence that shows that “God” exists.  Unfortunately, all of the “evidence” you have provided so far is not falsifiable, which means that there is no possible way to falsify your claimed “evidence” due to its unverifiable and/or illogical nature.  The same problem exists regarding unicorns, which is why in order for you to refute my points, you would have to prove that unicorns do not exist.

Can you falsify something that is true?

That depends on what you mean by true.  If you mean objectively (absolutely) true, then no, if something is objectively (absolutely) true then it cannot be false or falsified.  Of course, we know of very few things that are actually objectively (absolutely) true, such as mathematical or logical truths.  Everything other than mathematical and logical truths (assuming I’m not missing something besides those to general truths), is subject to being possibly true or possibly false at the same time.  The reason for this is because we are not omniscient, there might be information regarding something we think is true that would make it false.  So anything that we think is true should be capable of being falsified.  Unfortunately, again, there are things which rely on not being capable of being falsified in order to pretend to be true, for instance, unicorns and your god.

I’ve researched the subject, reviewed the science behind the Higgs boson particle.  Your questions and statements regarding the Higgs boson particle indicate that you do not understand or comprehend the science.  I would recommend that you follow the instructions from the moderators and avoid referencing the Higgs boson particle further unless you wish to demonstrate your full knowledge regarding the science behind the Higgs boson particle.   I would also recommend you avoid referencing any subject related to science unless you can demonstrate your thorough understanding and comprehension regarding any subject you wish to bring up.  I make these recommendations for the benefit of moving forward in this discussion.

Haha. I understand, you realize the questions would make your statement in peril so you stonewall. Nice.

How you understand things is questionable at best given your continued use of logical fallacies and numerous presumptions.  You again however insist on dodging having to support your claims by making assumptions about what I said.  Actually, I’m trying to be polite to give you a chance to research the subjects yourself and support your own claims instead of me providing you links to topics you have already ignored in this thread.  If you wish to delude yourself though, be my guest.

The part that you underlined was after you had been requested to provide a definition.  The post you quoted did not actually contain a definition.  You may have intended that the definition was “Greatest Possible Being” however this was not necessarily apparent to anyone except you.  So unless you directly stated that “GPB” was your definition, it cannot be assumed that it was.  Since indeed you did not directly state that “GPB” was your definition, then you are incorrect in stating that you provided a definition.
I didn't think I had to spell everything for you. Wouldn't it be wrong for me to use the GPB as a proof of the existence of God if I didn't believe that God was the GPB?

Given the multiple occurrences of misunderstandings in this thread (and others), you didn’t think you had to spell everything out?  Is that how you hope to prove something, by not spelling everything out? 

Indeed, perhaps it would be wrong to use GPB as proof if you didn’t believe that “God” was the GPB, however what you believe is not in question in this line of discussion as defining “God” and what you believe “God” is or is not are two different things.

If “Greatest Possible Being” is your definition, would you please define “Greatest”, “Possible” and “Being” in the context of your definition.
I think the dictionary can accomplish that better than me.
Greatest : the superlative of great 
Great : 1. Very large in size.
2. Larger in size than others of the same kind.
3. Large in quantity or number : A great throng awaited us.
4. Extensive in time or distance : a great delay.
5. Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent : a great crisis.
6. Of outstanding significance or importance : a great work of art.
7. Chief or principal : the great house on the estate.
8. Superior in quality or character; noble : "For he was great, ere fortune made him so" (John Dryden).
9. Powerful; influential : one of the great nations of the West.
10. Eminent; distinguished : a great leader.
11. Grand; aristocratic.
Possible : 1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
2. Capable of occurring or being done without offense to character, nature, or custom.
3. Capable of favorable development; potential: a possible site for the new capital.

Being : 1. The state or quality of having existence. See Synonyms at existence.
  a. Something, such as an object, an idea, or a symbol, that exists, is thought to exist, or is represented as existing.
  b. The totality of all things that exist.
  a. A person: "The artist after all is a solitary being" (Virginia Woolf).
  b. All the qualities constituting one that exists; the essence.
  c. One's basic or essential nature; personality.
Did I have to copy paste the dictionary for you?
Are you going to present your counter argument against miracles being proof of the existence of God? Or do you plan to keep trying to change the subject?

Your condescension is grossly unwarranted considering how oblivious you are to the fact that defining the word “Great” does not define “Greatest”.  The word “greatest” is a subjective concept, what is greatest for you might not be greatest for me and vice versa. 

You’ve chosen a subjective concept to define “God”.  Nice.
Changed Change Reason Date
xyzzy Had you wanted to insult him, you'd have still been honest August 05, 2014, 07:03:19 PM
12 Monkeys try as you might it wont sink in August 05, 2014, 06:10:19 PM