Proof of God

[Sinfidel]

Great question, while I won't get into the complex material here, unless you have the inclination to explore & consider some quantum physics, entanglement (what Albert Einstein called "spooky action at a distance"), statistical probability, subatomic wave/particle action & the basic true nature of spacetime, matter and the very essence of what we perceive to be reality it probably wouldn't be of any interest.

I know how you feel. At the risk of immodesty, I have made a breakthrough discovery in antigravity. Given your position on "pulling this "I need proof to believe!" crap our of our ass", no doubt I can count on your support in this potentially earth-shaking endeavor, despite that I can offer no proof, given the risk that any disclosure exposes my work to theft. But, I can only move forward with further development with significant capital investment, which I lack. Could you help with that?

At the risk of sounding pedantic, I have no desire to waste anyone's time & effort blathering on about stuff most people aren't going to care about, make an effort to understand &/or will just make fun of anyway. In fact, I've found it's more difficult to just get past the human inclination to stick to what one already believes & how one views basic values, than most people are willing or able to get involved in.
For example, just simply letting go of something as the common statement, "I don't believe ____ because there's no proof." is mostly bullshit.

Proof is for liquor and mathematics. Evidence is the keyword. "That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." as the famous quote goes.
So, if you were hiring someone, you wouldn't go through the BS of asking for "proof" of claimed qualifications? Or evidence that a proferred investment was genuine?

but we still do it (smoking or using carcinogenic products

So, discarding the "pulled out your ass proof", i.e. decades of research, those things are harmful, how would you propose to know that they are?

At the risk of sounding pedantic, I have no desire to waste anyone's time & effort blathering on about stuff most people aren't going to care about, make an effort to understand &/or will just make fun of anyway. In fact, I've found it's more difficult to just get past the human inclination to stick to what one already believes & how one views basic values, than most people are willing or able to get involved in.


nobody helps anyone learn squat... we stagnate as individuals and a race when it comes to some things that just might be important.

You seem rather reticent about identifying just what those things are. Looking at the last century, we sure have stagnated. Hopefully, some day we will have air travel, cell phones, colour TV, refrigeration, anaesthesia, ......

[CuddlePhysh]

Sinfidel, you seem to think I somewhere said "Ignore all proof!", which I did not. Lemme see if I can make this simple for you (although I get the feeling your talent for disregarding the point of what someone else is trying to communicate so you can make some other point not being said will again prevail...

My point was:

1) Proof is good and preferable, when it's available rely on it. It is, after all, proof.

2) In the absence of absolute proof, saying, "I don't believe ____ because there is no proof.", while it is your right, is closed minded at best & certainly not conducive to ferreting out truths about some potentially important things. Especially things that are, by their very nature, not necessarily subject to absolute proof.

There ya go, feel free to screw that up.

Which reminds me of a quote you overlooked in your diligence (if you even actually read my post):

"But not acknowledging it for what it is says something about us, It forms habits of how we teach ourselves to learn and approach facts. We should, at minimum, be willing to see this kind of thing for what it is so we can get to the root of honesty with ourselves & each other. Form habits of that honest approach so it ceases to remain an obstacle when it comes to learning & valuing the important things & make better, more reliable decisions in our lives."

(and the word "facts" there is meant to imply the loose sense synonymous with "information")

Your propensity to 'read into' my post things I didn't say is a perfect example of those habits I mention we should rid ourselves of. You asked me a question then read my answer with an obvious purpose of blasting it. Well done! I certainly learned something here even if you didn't.

Sinfidel wrote

So, discarding the "pulled out your ass proof", i.e. decades of research, those things are harmful, how would you propose to know that they are?

I don't even know what that means... & there's a quote in there I have no idea who said (resources bro, resources) unless you're still operating on the fabrication I said 'don't ever prefer or believe proof'. If so, see what hanging on to that old habit of how you're viewing facts does? If you're going to make stuff up from what people said at least do it from what they actually said. Thanks for making my point...

Sinfidel wrote

At the risk of immodesty, I have made a breakthrough discovery in antigravity. Given your position on "pulling this "I need proof to believe!" crap our of our ass", no doubt I can count on your support in this potentially earth-shaking endeavor, despite that I can offer no proof, given the risk that any disclosure exposes my work to theft. But, I can only move forward with further development with significant capital investment, which I lack. Could you help with that

Certainly. I'm a member of an anonymous foundation geared towards funding people just like yourself, with new ideas & theories to help advance various sciences, with up to $10mil. As long as the theory potential & skill level can be validated of course. I completely understand your concern for safeguarding your ideas so if you'll just post an example of the equations involved I'll see to it's consideration. Please make it original, no plagiarizing please. (nothing telling is required mind you, just some theoretical tidbit I can show copy & my colleagues you have the skills to back up your claim is fine)

Finally, as I'm confident your response is mostly just in the spirit of rhetoric, meant to somehow ridicule me into submission for some odd reason, I feel compelled to reiterate this... I didn't come here to change anyone's mind about anything (your kind of approach to simple conversations is exactly why). Indeed I doubt yours could be changed anyway. I didn't even plan on, or instigate having this conversation... YOU asked me a question & against my better judgement I answered it. People that want to continue believing what they already believe, evidence or not, are common & I've come to expect they most always attempt to make their own philosophies look good by ridiculing others... thanks for not disappointing me.

I'll leave you all to your site... my hope is that fortune finds you all.

[CuddlePhysh]

AtomJack wrote

Not saying you should go elsewhere, just that he won't be responding. I also think that the divide between theist and atheist isn't one to be penetrated easily, and for basically the same reasons you have cited. I don't discuss much with theists, as their arguments are seldom of a rational nature. So many theists stumble into an atheist forum thinking that they are going to save some atheists, or that they have THE ANSWER to their disbelief. Said answer turns out to hinge on faith, or in some cases on some shameful argumentation techniques. As an atheist who reasoned his own way out of religious programming, I have no truck with faith and beating dead horses in the form of a fresh-faced theist bent on saving people. I'm open to some evidence for whatever it is that is a god, but I haven't seen any real evidence, so far. The claim for existence has to be proved by the claimant, and I have yet to see real proof. Jesuitical argumentation doesn't work either.

Well said... although I might exchange the word "proof" for the term "preponderance of the evidence", I absolutely agree.

I'm also aware (& blind to lol) one of my own biggest failings is that I tend to 'read' absolute words like 'proof' in their strictest lexical sense. Perhaps it's the depth of the subject matter in conversations of philosophy drawing it out of me, or a flaw in my own value system, but I forget many times how unfair it can be to hold someone to such rigid definitions in an arena of casual conversations. If I'm guilty of that please excuse me.

[AtomJack]

I might accept "preponderance of evidence", depending on the evidence. Having taught mathematics (high school) for a time, I can see your point with a strict definition of "proof".

[Sinfidel]

Sinfidel wrote:
At the risk of immodesty, I have made a breakthrough discovery in antigravity. Given your position on "pulling this "I need proof to believe!" crap our of our ass", no doubt I can count on your support in this potentially earth-shaking endeavor, despite that I can offer no proof, given the risk that any disclosure exposes my work to theft. But, I can only move forward with further development with significant capital investment, which I lack. Could you help with that

Certainly. I'm a member of an anonymous foundation geared towards funding people just like yourself, with new ideas & theories to help advance various sciences, with up to $10mil. As long as the theory potential & skill level can be validated of course.

Validated? Oh, you mean proof! But you said -

For example, just simply letting go of something as the common statement, "I don't believe ____ because there's no proof." is mostly bullshit,

yet here you are demanding proof -

if you'll just post an example of the equations involved I'll see to it's consideration.

Well, here are some equations -

[Sinfidel]

AtomJack wrote

CuddlePhysh, it looks like redbeardjon hasn't posted in over 2 years. Maybe he found a forum like you refer to elsewhere.

Surely you wouldn't expect a Quantum physicist and all around Genius to notice such a minor detail!

[AtomJack]

Stop calling me Shirley!

[Sinfidel]

Sinfidel, you seem to think I somewhere said "Ignore all proof!", which I did not.

We are aware of your goal of conditioning us to accept that the God claim is somehow exempt from any evidenciary requirements. FYI it's not as if that hasn't been tried a zillion times already.
If only they'd bring back the Blasphemy laws, eh!

YOU asked me a question & against my better judgement I answered it.

Nah. In response you posted a few sciency words, e,g, "quantum", along with what translates as "I won't bother with an answer because you're probably all too stupid to be interested."
You have been nominated for the Annual Deepak Chopra Award for the Art of Bullshipping, which includes a framed autographed copy of the article "Helium and Quantum Cosmic Flatulence."

I'll leave you all to your site...

Remember when you were a kid playing some game and you caught another kid cheating, and he said "I don't wanna play with you anymore."

[dogpet]

CuddlePhysh wrote

Never heard of it... nvm

Cuddlepish, are you a stalker? You know it's only the religionists who crave this, conciliation you're hawking. It's only purpose is to lubricate your rectum.