How to mute a retard spamming my mailbox ? :S

[phantomlink]

I always killed people, fuck being nice to my servents

[0000000]

Originally posted by Futile Rhetoric
There are two types of proof; a statement can be considered proven through empirical means, and something can be considered proven by being a consistent, convincing argument/theory.

No, there is one type of proof, which is the former you describe. The latter is just evidence which can become overwhelming but it will never be proof until it is shown to exist in all cases that could possibly arise.

For example evolution is still a theory since it is not proven. Mathematically, the Riemann hypothesis is almost certainly true, yet it is unproven. I dont like confusing overwhelming evidence with proof which is what you are doing. There are very few examples of true proof in science, it mostly exists in the realms of the absolute, for instance mathematics.

As for religion, well it is neither, they have no proof nor sound evidence. Intellectually religion is a non-starter.

[Kik0]

Originally posted by Festo
I played black&white once i killed people does that make me an evil god?

I didn't have to kill people, my avatar done it for me...

[Futile Rhetoric]

Originally posted by 0000000
Did you really need such a massive post futile? your points are subjective and fairly difficult to quantify, certainly not worthy of debate. If you have a problem with the christian teachings where i grew up in southern england then im really not bothered, because i think its all a load of crap anyway. And i never said you made that statement did I...

Which of my points were subjective, exactly? My statement that most Christian denominations believe in the Holy Trinity is easily falsifiable if untrue; for example, you could've come up with a large denomination which rejects this belief, and we could've worked on that. Instead, you give us "the christian teachings where i grew up in southern england" -- talk about "subjective and difficult to quantify", indeed.

oh i miss arguing with you, you can take up half a page with quotation abuse and still get shot down in a couple of simple paragraphs. * less is more, less is more.

That's actually rather cute -- you still believe that you calling an argument fallacious actually makes it wrong. And then you wonder about this so-called "quotation abuse" -- given your rather infantile mental development coupled with what can only be described as Trisomy 21, how could I not point out exactly which argument counteracts yours? Seeing how you'll try to stick a square peg into a round hole for hours until your mommy takes it away in despair, I don't think it's an unnecessary luxury, far less "abuse".

[Futile Rhetoric]

Originally posted by 0000000
No, there is one type of proof, which is the former you describe. The latter is just evidence which can become overwhelming but it will never be proof until it is shown to exist in all cases that could possibly arise. *

For example evolution is still a theory since it is not proven. Mathematically, the Riemann hypothesis is almost certainly true, yet it is unproven. I dont like confusing overwhelming evidence with proof which is what you are doing. There are very few examples of true proof in science, it mostly exists in the realms of the absolute, for instance mathematics.

Actually, what you are describing here is not empirical proof in any sense of the word, it is mathematical proof, which exists only in the realm of absolutes as you put it, seeing how mathematics is nothing but a collection of tautologies. I, of course, did not invoke the term "proof" to mean "mathematical proof" -- when I mean "mathematical proof", I'll say "mathematical proof". I used it in its simplest dictionary definition, being:

proof  /pruf/
–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

I'd also like you to name any single physics theory which is actually proven in your definition of "true proof"; seeing how you're trying to apply the concept of mathematical proof to natural sciences, you'll be having one hell of a hard time.

As for religion, well it is neither, they have no proof nor sound evidence. Intellectually religion is a non-starter.

How so?

[festo]

I just like adding random comments to posts like im eating chicken chow mein atm

[0000000]

It is abuse since there is no need to quote each sentence individually on a forum. you can quite easily save page space and quote entire posts or large chunks. And most of your points are ridiculous, im not really sure how you think they counteract anything. You ignore most points other people make, and just go off in your own world about points that are irrelevant.

Fundamental to the understanding of how science and religion interact, is knowing about PROOF and what it means, which you clearly do not.

And i was not a member of any denomination or church. There were many anglican churches in my area, where they gave talks at school. I agree that many denominations regard jesus to be god but its fair to say that a lot of liberal anglicans believe that jesus was not. Does this really bother you? After all it is a non-issue rather like arguing whether the tooth fairy or santa claus is more real.

See, i managed to answer all your points whilst saving most of the space you would have used. Remarkable.

[FatM4n]

Futile, can you prove that your religion does excist?

If so hit me with hit :wub:

[festo]

I went to Humberston CofE school look how i turned out

[Ali1989]

Originally posted by Festo
I went to Humberston CofE school look how i turned out

i ll spam festo s PM but i dont want get ban :wub: :wub: :wub:

[FatM4n]

You ended up well Festo :P

[festo]

dunno how the shit i used to do when i was a kid >_<

[Flam3_Arch3r]

Originally posted by FatM4n
Futile, can you prove that your religion does excist?

If so hit me with hit :wub:

stop beeing so stupid.
if there was any proof of god, u would have had to believe in it!
if its proven, its real, no point of believing it.
thats why it called believing in god not supporting god or whatever.
if u dont believe it, good for u, each man will live with his own beliefes.

[festo]

I was ruled by a false god called Apohis

[0000000]

what you call mathematical proof is what i call proof. I think its fair to equate some Laws with tautologies. I consider newtons first law of motion to be a tautology. Newton defines force simply as mass times acceleration (f = ma). Notice that Newtonian force is abstract. That is to say, only mass and acceleration exist physically and force is mathematically derived from the two. In this light, Newton's first law is really a tautology and can be paraphrased thus: a massive body cannot be accelerated unless it is accelerated.

But like i said, proof is a a tricky spot in science, where theories are only disproved usually.