"You can't prove a negative!"

[nemesiss]

Whether the universe is a Steady State or Big Bang is a scientific and experimental question. I have no doubt that if the Steady State solution prevailed, all you atheists would be hailing this monumental breakthrough that the universe had no beginning, thus no point of creation, thus no creator.

Funny how atheists always talk about how science has destroyed Gods. How science destroyed the moon God, the Sun God, the God of the planets. Funny how people thought the Sun was raised by the hand of God, yet science found that not to be true, that it was actually gravity.

Yet, when an instance arises where science didn't disprove God, ie the Big Bang, then all the sudden the power of science is too feeble to destroy Gods, to the atheist.

I find no credibility in such hypocrisy. Either science can destroy Gods or it can't. Make up your minds.

what we have here is what we call a "God of the gaps" argument.
A place where there is much unknown, that one can substitute their god for a yet to be given explenation.
the only reason why a steady-state was prefered by science over a creation myth, is the problem of infinite regression.
you probably heard of the phrase "who designed the designer?"

moons, planets and suns are just small fry compaired to the whole universe, so it would relatively easy to "debunk" them.
the only honest thing a person can say about "the beginning" of the universe is that it's an unknown.
it could be a god or gods has/have started the universe, but there is no evidence to support that claim.
if a person does claim he/she knows the how the universe started, he's (most likely) a liar and/or a fraud.
when i think of a liar, i think of WLC or Kent hovind
when thinking of frauds, i think of VFX or Nephilimfree

 

[devilsadvocate]

To <<V>>,

Would you like to discuss the cosmological argument in either or both, modal and temporal, forms in this or another thread? As the starter of the thread, I don't have any problem discussing it here, so here's two problems I have with it:

Causality, as we usually use the term, has two properties that seem to be incompatible with how the term is used in cosmological argument.

1. It needs time. It is always the case that cause is before the effect. Simultaneous events never get causally connected, and neither does an effect that anticipates the cause make any sense. Yet, time being eternal (not created by God) poses obvious problems for traditional theism.

2. Not a single causal event we observe create something from nothing. There is always something out there that gets modified by a cause to produce an effect.

The problem with both modal and temporal cosmological arguments, is then, that they both try to gain support from our intuitive or experimental understanding of causality, but being something categorically very different from any ordinary causes.

 

[Gnug215]

Whether the universe is a Steady State or Big Bang is a scientific and experimental question. I have no doubt that if the Steady State solution prevailed, all you atheists would be hailing this monumental breakthrough that the universe had no beginning, thus no point of creation, thus no creator.

Funny how atheists always talk about how science has destroyed Gods. How science destroyed the moon God, the Sun God, the God of the planets. Funny how people thought the Sun was raised by the hand of God, yet science found that not to be true, that it was actually gravity.

Yet, when an instance arises where science didn't disprove God, ie the Big Bang, then all the sudden the power of science is too feeble to destroy Gods, to the atheist.

I find no credibility in such hypocrisy. Either science can destroy Gods or it can't. Make up your minds.

(Emphasis mine.)

What?

How did you manage to make this into an issue when you've already answered the question?

Science has found many explanations for natural phenomena, as you point out, and thus essentially "destroyed" a number of gods. The God of the Bible (and Koran and Torah, I suppose) has been notoriously slippery (not to the fault of science, but due to the charming ingenuity of religious people), and now he's supposedly sitting behind the Big Bang somewhere. With this in mind, is it any wonder that atheists (according to you) say that he can't be destroyed? It's kinda hard when the goal posts are moved constantly, wouldn't you say?

Science too feeble? Because it's pointed out that we can't prove negatives?

The real hypocrisy here is, of course, that you're defending the ever-moving goal (gap) posts of the God of the Gaps that we've all come to know. A God that, mind you, is amazingly similar to the one the YECs swear by - only older, really. And then you have the gaul to accuse us of not making up our minds.

No, how about we stop this gap-game and you theists tell the rest of us once and for all, where is God? Is he just beyond the Big Bang? If we find evidence of other or older universes preceding this one, is he hiding behind those, too?

And you said this earlier:

I'm not saying the Big Bang proves God, I'm saying a Steady State universe denies the existence of creation and thus a creator and this could have falsified the creation claim, but it failed. Thus, a creation claim is falsifiable and within the realm of science.

I realize that we're talking about a hypothetical situation here, but you know full well that if science pointed to a Steady State universe, this would somehow still point to God for most theists, mostly like something about if time is infinite, then we could never have "begun", and so we'd need a "timeless being" or some vapid nonsense like that.

(Prove me wrong on that one, somehow. )

 

[nemesiss]

No, how about we stop this gap-game and you theists tell the rest of us once and for all, where is God? Is he just beyond the Big Bang? If we find evidence of other or older universes preceding this one, is he hiding behind those, too?

you know what this proves?

WALDO IS GOD!

 

[Deleted member 619]

If anybody wants to assert that a non-existence postulate can't be proved, tell them that Andrew Wiles would like a word with them.

 

[devilsadvocate]

In the case you're referring to proof of Fermat's last theorem, I doubt anyone is questioning that. I can't claim to understand the proof, but by the virtue of it being mathematical it falls to the same category of analytic truths as "No bachelor is married". It is true by definition, but as mathematics tend to get, the truth of it is not so easily "teased out" as from the simple example I gave.

 

[>< V ><]

Science doesn't prove or disprove anything, chuckles. It evidences.

Nonsense.

Evidence alone proves little if there is not some correlation and that correlation is science.

When you look through a telescope and witness the evidence of the phases of Venus, all that evidence tells you is that Venus has phases. Using that evidence to prove a heliocentric system, requires science.

When you see the voltage output on an oscilliscope attached to a magnetometer, all that evidence tells you is that the oscilliscope is measuring a voltage from the magnetometer. But when you incorporate science, that voltage can prove a superconducting state has zero resistance.

When cosmologists look at the night sky and see a cosmic background radiation, all that is evidence of is of a background radiation. Yet, when you incorporate science, that becomes evidence for inflationary theory.

Look, I get it, you're a hardcore empiricist that thinks the universe can be entirely explained by the physical. But it cannot. It's exactly because of the abstractions of mathematical logic that science has progressed passed the dark ages of religious explanation. Easily since Newton, physics has been all about mathematical explanation, not just because it works, but because it works outstandingly well. So well, that almost all physical hypotheses today are based in what mathematics is telling us.

What you need to start accepting is that there is something to be said about the abstract. Matter and energy is useless without it.

what we have here is what we call a "God of the gaps" argument.

That's impossible, because I'm not arguing for God. I'm arguing that the creation hypothesis is scientifically testable because a Steady State universe would have falsified the claim.

What we have here is your average atheist dogma and your inability to think beyond it.

Science too feeble? Because it's pointed out that we can't prove negatives?

Negatives can easily be proven. I can give infinitely many examples.

2 + 2 = 5 You can't prove the negative?

I claim you have 20 billion fingers on your hand. You can't prove the negative?

I claim a full grown adult Earth Jack Ass lives inside your skull. You can't prove the negative?

I claim you are stupid. You can't prove the negative?

I realize that we're talking about a hypothetical situation here, but you know full well that if science pointed to a Steady State universe, this would somehow still point to God for most theists, mostly like something about if time is infinite, then we could never have "begun", and so we'd need a "timeless being" or some vapid nonsense like that.

(Prove me wrong on that one, somehow. )

Irrelevant thesis. My argument is not invalidated because some theist might not believe the evidence. Next, you're going to tell me that the Earth really isn't spherical in general, because some people believe it's flat.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Science doesn't prove or disprove anything, chuckles. It evidences.

Nonsense.
Evidence alone proves little if there is not some correlation and that correlation is science.

That depends on what you mean by proof. If you mean absolute proof, they you are way out of the mark because science doesn't do that. But if you mean a "well justified and so far as I know to be correct but can be shown to be otherwise in the future" kind of proof then that is science.
Australopithecus was arguing for the first, while you are arguing for the second. And with this in mind let us review your response.

When you look through a telescope and witness the evidence of the phases of Venus, all that evidence tells you is that Venus has phases. Using that evidence to prove a heliocentric system, requires science.

The fact that that Venus has phases does not prove the heliocentric system, in fact the heliocentric system has already been surpassed.
But anyways, Second form.

When you see the voltage output on an oscilliscope attached to a magnetometer, all that evidence tells you is that the oscilliscope is measuring a voltage from the magnetometer. But when you incorporate science, that voltage can prove a superconducting state has zero resistance.

Actually this is nonsense; first you can not measure resistance just by measuring the voltage out of a magnetometer in an oscilloscope, and even tough you could use an oscilloscope to measure resistance (not by the process you described) you picked a crappy piece instrument to do what you want. Secondly you will never actually measure zero resistance on an oscilloscope, even in superconductors. Thirdly you don't need to measure a voltage to prove that a superconducting state has zero resistance because that is the definition of super conductivity. But anyways it is a tangential point, you are still arguing for the second.

When cosmologists look at the night sky and see a cosmic background radiation, all that is evidence of is of a background radiation. Yet, when you incorporate science, that becomes evidence for inflationary theory.

That is because now you are using the first sense rather than the second. And why would you do that rather than dishonesty? Because it is proof in the second sense, the same sense as you tried to use in the other attempted examples.

Look, I get it, you're a hardcore empiricist that thinks the universe can be entirely explained by the physical. But it cannot. It's exactly because of the abstractions of mathematical logic that science has progressed passed the dark ages of religious explanation. Easily since Newton, physics has been all about mathematical explanation, not just because it works, but because it works outstandingly well. So well, that almost all physical hypotheses today are based in what mathematics is telling us.

Now that is major nonsense. Math is a tool, math bloody hell works but not because math is real. Only someone who doesn't have a clue of is math or science could ever confuse the 2.
And yes we use mathematical explanations just because they work, if they didn't we wouldn't use them, and in fact many of the mathematical formulations are abandoned because of that (when they don't work). Of course math being extremely versatile and we can describe anything, it is inevitable that there will be a function that happens to work.

What you need to start accepting is that there is something to be said about the abstract. Matter and energy is useless without it.

Yes there is something to be said about the abstract. IT IS ABSTRACT! It isn't real, it is all in your head! If you claim that God hides himself in the abstract, I agree that God isn't real, it is just an idea in your head. If only theists would just put 2 and 2 togheter.

what we have here is what we call a "God of the gaps" argument.

That's impossible, because I'm not arguing for God. I'm arguing that the creation hypothesis is scientifically testable because a Steady State universe would have falsified the claim.

As if we didn't knew already that creationism is religion. Who do you think we are, the governor of Texas?
You can change the wrapping and use a language that vaguely sounds scientific, but sounding scientific is not enough for me.
And no the steady state hypothesis would not falsify "creationism", in fact the idea of a steady state, perfect and unchangeable universe reflecting Gods might was part of the church official philosophy. And here is the weaseling nature of religion, if we think something is X then you claim that is evidence of God and that otherwise it would not exist, but if later think something is in fact Not X you will say "No, no, no, 'not X' is actually evidence of God and if it was X then God would not exist". Well I say, fuck you, Prove it or crawl back to your hole.

I realize that we're talking about a hypothetical situation here, but you know full well that if science pointed to a Steady State universe, this would somehow still point to God for most theists, mostly like something about if time is infinite, then we could never have "begun", and so we'd need a "timeless being" or some vapid nonsense like that.
(Prove me wrong on that one, somehow. )

Irrelevant thesis. My argument is not invalidated because some theist might not believe the evidence. Next, you're going to tell me that the Earth really isn't spherical in general, because some people believe it's flat.

Actually it is very relevant, because what it is being pointed out to you is that your reasons are bullshit and don't prove squat. Either the universe is or isn't in a steady state makes no difference what so fucking ever about the existence of God. Because if the Universe was a steady state you would be here claiming that would be what actually proved God and not what you are claiming now. Even if your opinion didn't flipped flopped to what it suited you, and that in fact you would hold the opinion that a Steady State would disprove God even if the Steady State was true, it would make a difference what so ever. It is not just enough to say that X proves Y, you have to demonstrate that X does indeed prove Y. Else I could just as well claim if I can not swim then no one else can and prove that nobody can swim by failing at it.

What you are doing doesn't resemble science in anyway, it is just apologetics, i.e. making childish excuses.

 

[Gnug215]

Science too feeble? Because it's pointed out that we can't prove negatives?

Negatives can easily be proven. I can give infinitely many examples.

2 + 2 = 5 You can't prove the negative?

I claim you have 20 billion fingers on your hand. You can't prove the negative?

I claim a full grown adult Earth Jack Ass lives inside your skull. You can't prove the negative?

I claim you are stupid. You can't prove the negative?

Now you're just being facetious. Could you try to take this a bit more seriously?

I can (or someone else can) prove that 2 + 2 = 4, thus invalidating your claim
I can reject your claim about 20 billion fingers, by showing you my 5 fingers.
Etc.

How would go about disproving God?

Let's look at your original post instead of derailing the conversation further:

Whether the universe is a Steady State or Big Bang is a scientific and experimental question. I have no doubt that if the Steady State solution prevailed, all you atheists would be hailing this monumental breakthrough that the universe had no beginning, thus no point of creation, thus no creator.

Then let's look at my response and your response to that:

I realize that we're talking about a hypothetical situation here, but you know full well that if science pointed to a Steady State universe, this would somehow still point to God for most theists, mostly like something about if time is infinite, then we could never have "begun", and so we'd need a "timeless being" or some vapid nonsense like that.

(Prove me wrong on that one, somehow. )

Irrelevant thesis. My argument is not invalidated because some theist might not believe the evidence. Next, you're going to tell me that the Earth really isn't spherical in general, because some people believe it's flat.

So what we have here is you saying that if the scientific reality were different, atheists would use that as a claim to support their worldview. When I make the same claim about theists, all of a sudden it's an "Irrelevant thesis"?

At least my claim is backed by the whole "god of the gaps" problem, and how God has receded from so many of those gaps throughout history. (According to some of the latest trends, God is resting just behind the bacterium flagellum among other things.)


Moving on, you said this:

Funny how atheists always talk about how science has destroyed Gods. How science destroyed the moon God, the Sun God, the God of the planets. Funny how people thought the Sun was raised by the hand of God, yet science found that not to be true, that it was actually gravity.

Yet, when an instance arises where science didn't disprove God, ie the Big Bang, then all the sudden the power of science is too feeble to destroy Gods, to the atheist.

Are you disagreeing that science destroyed the Moon/Sun/Planetary gods?

If not, then you'll have to explain this:

I find no credibility in such hypocrisy. Either science can destroy Gods or it can't. Make up your minds.

This is of course a false dichotomy, unless you really believe that science has never destroyed any gods, such as Sun/Moon gods.



You also said this:

Yet, when an instance arises where science didn't disprove God, ie the Big Bang, then all the sudden the power of science is too feeble to destroy Gods, to the atheist.

That instance probably DID destroy a few gods, in the minds of people who thought their God had created an eternal, stable Universe.

Beyond that, your comment is a dishonest description of the situation, and I think you know that quite well, but you're just trying to make a point.

You also know quite well that the God of the Bible, according to what we seem to be hearing from most Christians, is omnipotent, eternal and all kinds of things, so when evidence for the Big Bang was discovered, God had long since retreated from that gap, and jumped behind the Big Bang (God was there before the Big Bang, and he set it in motion, according to some theists) where he "safely" resides today.

So, getting back to the original question: How would you go about disproving this God?