Right. So you find your statement, even if it were true, somehow supports what??. That the "devout christian" Kurt Gödel with his Incompleteness Theorem , stopped the potential development of Bertrand Russell, who turned out to be one of the most brilliant thinkers of all time, even though it is nowadays blindingly apparent , Gödel's Theorem does not diminish nor invalidate Mathematics. And from the tone of your post you are pleased with such scenarios. So you prefer people to live in , and encourage the imposition of ignorance do you? Because if you don't, your empty arguments for religion fall apart.
They didn't. duh..#1 You are deviating yet again.. That is not a cure !! duh..#2!! The cure (prevention in this case) comes later... if they find a cure !.. This is about... 'CHOOSING NOT TO USE this "God given talent" ' as you describe it. This is not about USING IT !! duh..#3 To recap for you....I am calling YOU to task over this phrase of YOURS..."God gave man(and woman the ability to eradicate all suffering,but we choose not to." (btw you still have not properly explained why you find a need to turn the pronoun "we" into a collective noun and what that does to the meaning of your sentence.) According to your statement humankind must have been 'CHOOSING NOT to use their ability to eradicate ALL suffering' whilst searching for a cure!! Humankind is still searching for cures today to eradicate all types of suffering, so is it therefore 'CHOOSING NOT TO USE this "God given talent" whilst it searches is it ?!! But in any case, how is it that humanity 'CHOOSES NOT to use their ability to eradicate ALL suffering' ... before they even knew what disease was ! - what caused it - and how it could be overcome ?? How do you account for the millions of people who suffered over thousands of years because of polio and disease of all kinds, before a vaccine or a cure was found?? What about ALL the suffering which continues because a cure CANNOT be found no matter how hard humankind tries to. Humankind didn't have the "God given talent to find a cure" or any cures or the ability to develop today's vaccines in Caveman, Egyptian or Roman times. But only comparitively recently !! They don't 'CHOOSE NOT NOT TO USE their ability to eradicate ALL suffering' .People are trying as hard as they know how ! What of tomorrows vaccines. Is humanity 'CHOOSING NOT to use their ability to eradicate ALL suffering' by not yet knowing of vaccines or genome fixing abilities - 100 or 200 years into the future!! So is humanity CHOOSING NOT to eradicate suffering from earthquakes because there is no vaccine or cure for earthquakes !! Shit... how silly do you get ??!!. It's obviously IMPOSSIBLE to eradicate all suffering it's not a case of CHOOSING NOT TO ! Why should a "loving" God thingy torment humankind, which the God thingy is supposed to love, by inflicting hideous and cruel suffering on them, then hiding the means to eradicate the suffering. ?? Why would a God thingy create polio in the first place, so that millions of his 'children' could suffer from it, then hide the means to eradicate the disease and leave humankind to its own resouces to find a preventative vaccine, which the God thingy knew was there all along ?? Why would a God thingy like that create 'countless' diseases some of which are impossibly hard to fathom a cure for?? Such a God thingy sounds like one sick mf. Perhaps there is a cure for the God thingy. I think so. OH....helloooo ....Is humankind then 'CHOOSING NOT to use their ability to eradicate ALL suffering' by not developing a cure for the God thingy and the suffering caused by it The vast numbers of nurses doctors scientists all over the world, who dedicate their lives to medicine and care of people are "wanting things for themselves and not for the good of everyone. Eh??? You say you "TradeforChrist". So Does Christ want things for himself which trading brings and not for the good of everyone.??? Instead of TrdingforChrist, why aren't you "EradicatingSufferingforChrist"? Personally I think you are BullshittingforChrist, but there you are. Try to concentrate on the order of things. That was MY question to you! L@@k back at the posts. All you have done is to ask me the same question back. You can try mimicking my argument all you like but it is not what is known as an answer When you become a little more honest in your thinking, you may then start to realize you are talking rubbish.
Rules of evidence require the burden of proof be placed on those who assert the positive (in this instance that "god exists"). The fact that in your post you are asking for "it" to be "disproven" tells even a newcomer to this thread two things about how you choose to represent your mind in this forum: 1. You are able to identify the "it" (of god) from all the other "it" concepts people hold. It, as you used it here, is a specific thing. It has an identity unique to itself. 2. You acknowledge that proving something is a valid process in rational thought, a useful process in social discourse, one that you implicitly claim to respect. I approach learning much as I approach trading. I stay in as long as the premises of the trade remain intact; I maintain a specific pov for as long as my premises and method stand up. As soon as I learn otherwise, I'm out of the trade. Or out of the chat. I look around to reassess what I just learned. I look to improve. Sometimes I find aspects of myself to evolve. Sometimes I just realize I'd been had, and seek to cut out that noise in the future. And I have done that before; others who weren't serious are now on my ignore list. I will not further grant them the benefit of my mind, except as crumbs off the table when I'm dining with others. For now, my premise is that you don't understand why a "call to disprove" is not a valid rebuttal to the "call to prove." That kind of error in thinking is readily cleared up with those who want to learn. [Aside: Making mistakes is not a badge of dishonor; we all have started from pretty much the same tabula rasa place as children. And I've made plenty. But, as an example, once I had learned that 2 + 2 = 4, I didn't constantly go back making the same mistake I did as a child. And think myself clever.] I've found that most people grasp things pragmatically. So let's start with an example that should clear this up once and for all. Your wife dies. You attempt to cash in her insurance policy. As the insurance claims adjuster, I state that your wife isn't dead and challenge you to prove that she isn't alive. You say you have a death certificate signed by the coroner. I say the certificate is easily faked and that you bribed the coroner to do just that. Prove that you didn't. You bring in the coroner to testify on his bonafides and thus in your behalf. I claim the coroner is an imposter. Prove that he isn't. You have him fingerprinted which shows his prints match the records. You also bring in others who swear it's really him. I claim the records were forged, that you know someone in the FBI's Records Office who exchanged them with the impostor's, and that you've paid off all these witnesses. Prove that you didn't. You show your bank records don't have a suspicious pattern of disbursement. Nor do your phone records show any contact with anyone in Washington, D.C. in the last 3 years. Nor is there any record of any trips to DC. Nor do you have any acquaintances who work at the FBI or who are friends with anyone who does. Character witness (yours now) after character witness confirm all this as true. I state that you have been saving up in cash for years planning this. And that there are "ways" (unstated at this time, to keep the waters nice and muddy) to be in contact with people to hide your true intentions. And that all these others are in on it with you for a portion of the insurance settlement. Prove that you didn't, weren't, aren't. And on and on and on... until you yourself die and my company keeps your money. This is an example of why arbitrary assertions (statements not based on some evidence) are not allowed into legal arguments where lives depend on them (as opposed to a chat room bulletin board). Lacking the discipline required for establishing basis or foundation, anything could be asserted (as has been in primitive cultures). And we'd spend our time painstakingly gathering evidence why something didn't occur, only to have the original asserter invent something new as soon as we were done, in supposed "answer" to our most recent rebuttal. In other words, it doesn't work. And if you think it's important in the legal process, i.e. you on trial wouldn't want to be subjected to arbitrary claims of fact, then consider how much more important a proper philosophy of knowledge is to your entire life. The burden of proof to show the existence of god is where it always has been throughout the centuries: on those who want to assert it publicly. I have yet to read anything here on this or any other thread that even remotely approaches the rigor required for claims of god to be taken seriously. That said, I'd be first in line to defend your right to believe anything you want personally without interference by others as long as your acting on those beliefs doesn't injure anyone else. In your mysticism, you don't want me to start perceiving you as just a dormant form of the Taliban, after all. As John Lennon wrote, "Whatever gets you through the night is alright." And for people's personal, private beliefs, I'm with that 100%. However, once you enter the arena of social discourse where you expect to be taken seriously by civilized adults when you propose ideas, you simply have to back up your claims when asked. Or be seen as you are. The "it" being "it" applies to you, too. Perhaps you are not here to be taken seriously, which is okay. Chat is designed for screwing around at times, it helps people blow off steam. Or, perhaps you may not be able or not willing to acknowledge concepts which contradict a position; perhaps your mind is already made up and you're here more for the argument than for a fully aware discourse. That's okay, too; it's your life and your choice how to live it. But if you're not actually interested in the answer to the question you posted, then it simply means that past a few exchanges (and sometimes just one), some of us will refuse to converse further with you because our values hierarchies are anathema to each other's. And because some of us value our time spent making forward progress, not looping around in issues long ago decided. Cheers.
.....yes! For something to exist it must be in time and space. If it is outside time and space, it does not exist, as existence is definable by humans only as relative to time and space. But furthermore, stuff outside of time and space is incoherent. If God thingy created time and space then he was not dependent on, nor conditioned by, nor present within time and space, as before God thingy was supposed to have made time and space, it was not there!! (God thingy is supposed to be omnipotent, omnipresent-all powerful and everywhere all at once (LOL,... sorry), therefore God thingy would not be dependant on but must be outside of time and space). God thingy is now incoherent. God thingy is outside the parameters of what is definable by humans as existence. Therefore God thingy does something other than exist. But God thingy does not exist!! QED. Furthermore....if nothing existed, then God thingy did not exist either. But then there is an impossible problem for God thingy.... For the ABILITY of God thingy to create existence (time & space), an incoherent ABILITY must have been present for God thingy to create existence which also includes the God thingy creating itself!! Therefore God thingy did not create the ABILITY and God thingy has no influence over the ABILITY. If you ignore all coherence and simply say God thingy did have influence over all stuff coherent and incoherent, then Gilbert pops up and the argument sinks without trace ! (If you don't know why that happens, then you may never) Now, can you prove it? Can you prove the existence of God, .... at least by disproving the above? ps. I can already sense one of ART's if____then lame equations formulating itself, but the if then's in this case are all made outside coherence by necessity, because God does not exist by definition
"For something to exist it must be in time and space." If__________________, then _________________. If I accept that the only definition of existence is that it must conform to the human concepts of "space" and "time" based on limited understanding, limited perceptions, limited intellect, etc., then _____________. However, to accept the predicate statement of Stu's "existence defined" without proof that it is absolutely true, then it is just guesswork.....relativistic guesswork at that. A computer could do it, just program it along certain parameters, and apply digital logic. However, as I say time and time again, human beings are more than digital logic and conditional statements.