Guest Valk0010 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Correct me if I'm wrong, but does Godel's proof make the assumption that there are multiple worlds? Well snake feces would try his best to fit god into what based of the little reading I have done into Godel's theory, was just him doing a mind puzzle in a sense. But if I understand correctly it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 And people, that he supposedly knew would reject him or possibly reject him. Yet he created the suitation for it to happen. Face it, Yahweh is either impotent or evil. Take your pick? Yahweh is neither. I have to warn you. The Old Testament is not an easy book to comprehend. Anything better then slight condescension? Yahweh is both, btw. I think there is a reason you degrade god to the level of superman or a person on par with the devil. Its because your a coward that can't admit his own bible conceptually contradicts itself. In is fundamentally impossible to be omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent and pick the route of the Old and New Testament. You can rewrite what those terms me all you want or degrade them. However it doesn't change, how god has been understood via the bible. Who are you to put your own God in a box? If god is not omniscient, omnipotent and all that jazz. You jayl are a coward. Here is why. You can't establish God is any better or more powerful then the devil. So your just siding with the person that your more scared of. If god is not fully omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then by what basis can you form anything that the bible says is true, without just adhoc selection criteria? I will answer for you. You can't. And don't give me that crap about, the stone he can't lift. So what, you would have to deduce god is a logical being and has some nature, and he needs that to function. A god that has no definable nature or logic couldn't do anything at all. I don't see that as limited his omnipotence. As I read the Bible, the God of the Bible is clearly not omnipotent ( whatever people mean by that term!!!). But that does not mean God is impotent either. It is just that people make up strange logical categories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 And people, that he supposedly knew would reject him or possibly reject him. Yet he created the suitation for it to happen. Face it, Yahweh is either impotent or evil. Take your pick? Yahweh is neither. I have to warn you. The Old Testament is not an easy book to comprehend. Anything better then slight condescension? Yahweh is both, btw. I think there is a reason you degrade god to the level of superman or a person on par with the devil. Its because your a coward that can't admit his own bible conceptually contradicts itself. In is fundamentally impossible to be omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent and pick the route of the Old and New Testament. You can rewrite what those terms me all you want or degrade them. However it doesn't change, how god has been understood via the bible. Who are you to put your own God in a box? If god is not omniscient, omnipotent and all that jazz. You jayl are a coward. Here is why. You can't establish God is any better or more powerful then the devil. So your just siding with the person that your more scared of. If god is not fully omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then by what basis can you form anything that the bible says is true, without just adhoc selection criteria? I will answer for you. You can't. And don't give me that crap about, the stone he can't lift. So what, you would have to deduce god is a logical being and has some nature, and he needs that to function. A god that has no definable nature or logic couldn't do anything at all. I don't see that as limited his omnipotence. As I read the Bible, the God of the Bible is clearly not omnipotent ( whatever people mean by that term!!!). But that does not mean God is impotent either. It is just that people make up strange logical categories. Well I will go simple on my next question. Then why is he worth worship and why is he god? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyanaprajna0 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 jay, you're funny. This is the way xtians normally answer. They supposedly want all to believe in god and be saved. So we ask for proof of god's existence. Obviously, they have none, since god doesn't exist. But they can't let go of their deeply emotional and ingrained beliefs, so they make things up. It's a good try, really. But completely irrational and dishonest. Thousands of years, this is what we've been asking for. Now, all of a sudden, here comes jay, who, lo and behold, has scientific proof of god's existence. Great! Let's see it. And what does jay do? Nope, can't see it. That's the best joke I've heard in awhile. And, wait, it get's better! They say all you have to do is read the bible, and you will understand. Well, we've all read the bible, and guess what? It's complete nonsense. But they say it's clear and self-explanatory. I can't argue with that. It reveals itself for the crap that it is. Now, wait for it...here's comes jay again. In his infinite wisdom, he proclaims that the OT is difficult to understand. Well, if that just don't beat all. Careful jay, if you run circles like that long enough, you'll puke and pass out. And you don't want none of that devilish scientific medicine corrupting your temple now, do we? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Well I will go simple on my next question. Then why is he worth worship and why is he god? He is the Creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 We know your apologetic proof has a major flaw in it. Deep down inside you probably know it too. We don't know which flaw (or how many if there are more than one) because you don't want your pet theory to get shot down. Aren't you the one who claimed he had a master's in science? You should know that talking about a proof you won't share doesn't impress and doesn't wash. Yes, I have a master's degree in physics from U of Cal. I have shown my proof to two PhD scientists and they were both favorably impressed. I came up with the proof because I was not all that happy with traditional apologetic arguments. However, the fact that someone as brilliant as Kurt Godel worked on a variation of Ontological argument makes me think twice about those arguments. I think they are good but to me not as convincing as my 'proof from physics'. The whole issue of God's existence and my own relationship with my Creator is something I think about a lot. I must say that over the past few years, my own worldview has been going thru some fundamental changes. I started out with the standard, materialistic, science based worldview into a God centered worldview. But I am still functioning ok in the real world. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Correct me if I'm wrong, but does Godel's proof make the assumption that there are multiple worlds? To be honest, I cannot begin to understand formal logic.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 We know your apologetic proof has a major flaw in it. Deep down inside you probably know it too. We don't know which flaw (or how many if there are more than one) because you don't want your pet theory to get shot down. Aren't you the one who claimed he had a master's in science? You should know that talking about a proof you won't share doesn't impress and doesn't wash. Yes, I have a master's degree in physics from U of Cal. I have shown my proof to two PhD scientists and they were both favorably impressed. I came up with the proof because I was not all that happy with traditional apologetic arguments. However, the fact that someone as brilliant as Kurt Godel worked on a variation of Ontological argument makes me think twice about those arguments. I think they are good but to me not as convincing as my 'proof from physics'. The whole issue of God's existence and my own relationship with my Creator is something I think about a lot. I must say that over the past few years, my own worldview has been going thru some fundamental changes. I started out with the standard, materialistic, science based worldview into a God centered worldview. But I am still functioning ok in the real world. lol No Jay! You are liar. You've already lied to us and been found out. You've even fessed up to lying when confronted by me. I can quote where you lied, where I found you out and where you admitted your lies. Want me to do so, troll? BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owen652 Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Wow. 70 pages? I am NOT reading 70 pages. The OP is friggin' hilarious though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 n/m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 A song for jay: http://www.toomuchjoy.com/index.php/2010/06/song-of-the-week-thats-a-lie/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Wow. 70 pages? I am NOT reading 70 pages. The OP is friggin' hilarious though. Mostly it's summed up with Jay lying and then Jay admitting that he doesn't know what he is talking about. And then Jay lying again. He will tell us that he put together this impressive logical argument which he just happens to not want to share. Then it turns out that he doesn't understand even the basics of logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Wow. 70 pages? I am NOT reading 70 pages. The OP is friggin' hilarious though. Mostly it's summed up with Jay lying and then Jay admitting that he doesn't know what he is talking about. And then Jay lying again. He will tell us that he put together this impressive logical argument which he just happens to not want to share. Then it turns out that he doesn't understand even the basics of logic. My proof is based on scientific arguments. No formal logic is involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 My proof is based on scientific arguments. No formal logic is involved. Then show your premises, your experimental methodology and all calculations, your conclusions and your data set -- Now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 My proof is based on scientific arguments. No formal logic is involved. It's a contradiction. Proof and arguments in science require that formal logic is followed. You might not structure your proofs as syllogisms, but you must construct them with logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 My proof is based on scientific arguments. No formal logic is involved. It's a contradiction. Proof and arguments in science require that formal logic is followed. You might not structure your proofs as syllogisms, but you must construct them with logic. But . . . but . . . but . . . he has a masturbation in science degree from Cal Tec and MIT and CERN and Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking. Y no U believe whatever he say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 But . . . but . . . but . . . he has a masturbation in science degree from Cal Tec and MIT and CERN and Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking. Y no U believe whatever he say? First he got his BS, and then he went from there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 My proof is based on scientific arguments. No formal logic is involved. Then show your premises, your experimental methodology and all calculations, your conclusions and your data set -- Now. Challenge not accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 But . . . but . . . but . . . he has a masturbation in science degree from Cal Tec and MIT and CERN and Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking. Y no U believe whatever he say? First he got his BS, and then he went from there... I.e., Master of S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 The Gospel of JayL chapeter 4:3-7 And in those days in the land of California behold JayL traveled to a certain university where he met a certain scientist. And JayL showed the scientist the wonderful scientific proof without logic. And the certain scientist was amazed and marveled at the wisdom. And the certain scientist replied "Surely this must be the one real Truth". And the certain scientist pleaded with JayL to show the wondrous scientific proof without logic to another certain scientist. Reluctantly JayL agreed. And the other certain scientist marveled as well. They were both amazed at the great wisdom. And JayL replied "Blessed is he who believes without seeing the wonderful scientific proof without logic." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 He must be terrified that his pet theory will get holes poked in it. Any good scientist is overjoyed to show his work--in the hopes that it'll be refined. If Jay's this scared to show his work, that indicates a certain lack of faith in it and in the scientific process. I'm suspicious that his "proof from physics" is going to display the standard logical fallacies we've seen a thousand times over. Nothing is ever settled for 100% sure in science. There's always another experiment to construct, always a further refinement of the theory. That's one of the most beautiful things about science. But it all starts with a sharing of work among peers to review and refine the theories involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 He must be terrified that his pet theory will get holes poked in it. Any good scientist is overjoyed to show his work--in the hopes that it'll be refined. If Jay's this scared to show his work, that indicates a certain lack of faith in it and in the scientific process. I'm suspicious that his "proof from physics" is going to display the standard logical fallacies we've seen a thousand times over. Nothing is ever settled for 100% sure in science. There's always another experiment to construct, always a further refinement of the theory. That's one of the most beautiful things about science. But it all starts with a sharing of work among peers to review and refine the theories involved. I've seen a lot of "Well the universe is here so God must have made it" arguments. Can't have something come from nothing. Just ask God who was always there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayL Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 My proof is based on scientific arguments. No formal logic is involved. It's a contradiction. Proof and arguments in science require that formal logic is followed. You might not structure your proofs as syllogisms, but you must construct them with logic. But . . . but . . . but . . . he has a masturbation in science degree from Cal Tec and MIT and CERN and Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking. Y no U believe whatever he say? Why are we still talking about this?? There is no way I am going to share my proof with people here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Why are we still talking about this?? There is no way I am going to share my proof with people here. This makes no sense. You come here as an evangelist, yet you won't share the alleged definitive proof we asked for whenever you assert Christian "Truths". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Why are we still talking about this?? There is no way I am going to share my proof with people here. This makes no sense. You come here as an evangelist, yet you won't share the alleged definitive proof we asked for whenever you assert Christian "Truths". Maybe it would destroy our "free will" to believe. I mean, we can't go around conclusively proving that Christianity is true, or all sorts of people would be going to hell because they wouldn't have faith anymore, and we can't have that, now can we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts