Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
Yes - unsolved math problem exist.
I think there was a story last year where one long-standing one was solved - by a kid barely 20 years old I believe. There are others still unsolved of course. (Millennium Prize problems).
So Stu's comment that math is proven is in error, for there are still many unlnowns. That means he is not All-Knowing. That means he does not have the fullness of knowledge to state with certainty God does not exist, because he could be in error on that too.
Therefore, I cannot worship Stu as All-Knowing on this topic!! I cannot merely take his word, because he has already spoken in error.
I think there was a story last year where one long-standing one was solved - by a kid barely 20 years old I believe. There are others still unsolved of course. (Millennium Prize problems).
So Stu's comment that math is proven is in error, for there are still many unlnowns. That means he is not All-Knowing. That means he does not have the fullness of knowledge to state with certainty God does not exist, because he could be in error on that too.
Therefore, I cannot worship Stu as All-Knowing on this topic!! I cannot merely take his word, because he has already spoken in error.
stu isn't likely to assert that God does not exist, for obvious reasons, as such a statement would require a burden of proof.
The angle stu takes is sophistry, to claim that he is "without" a belief in God.
How is he without a belief in God? He will say because he is not with a belief in God...or some other such ponce and dancing around it.
His equation of atheism, being without theism, makes a turnip an atheist, as a turnip is without a belief in God. True, at least I doubt anyone would argue that a turnip has a belief in God.
It is a clever dodge, as they intuitively know they are asserting something they cannot prove, i.e. a claim that God does not exist.
So they hide behind a false claim that they are without a belief in God...just like a vegetable is without a belief in God. So they see themselves as a vegetable? Perhaps, but every atheist I have met who can reject the concept of God existing, does so by use of their intellect to choose to believe God exists or not. A choice, a decision, an analysis is made, and the decision is then held to be true...though there is no proof that the decision is actually true. Therefore, they are holding a belief, and they practice this belief system.
Why they are so ashamed to deny their own belief system and compare their mental status to a vegetable is peculiar....at best.
The angle stu takes is sophistry, to claim that he is "without" a belief in God.
How is he without a belief in God? He will say because he is not with a belief in God...or some other such ponce and dancing around it.
His equation of atheism, being without theism, makes a turnip an atheist, as a turnip is without a belief in God. True, at least I doubt anyone would argue that a turnip has a belief in God.
It is a clever dodge, as they intuitively know they are asserting something they cannot prove, i.e. a claim that God does not exist.
So they hide behind a false claim that they are without a belief in God...just like a vegetable is without a belief in God. So they see themselves as a vegetable? Perhaps, but every atheist I have met who can reject the concept of God existing, does so by use of their intellect to choose to believe God exists or not. A choice, a decision, an analysis is made, and the decision is then held to be true...though there is no proof that the decision is actually true. Therefore, they are holding a belief, and they practice this belief system.
Why they are so ashamed to deny their own belief system and compare their mental status to a vegetable is peculiar....at best.
you can't prove God because you can't define God. a thing w/o definition or boundary is no-thing at all 
on other side of coin, we cannot disprove "nothing".
on other side of coin, we cannot disprove "nothing".
Bad analogy.
Math is proven to solve previously unsolved questions relating to math problems.
Unsolved questions solve nothing, including not solving even more unsolved questions relating to what you call God's existence.
Maybe take a little more time to think things through.......no second thoughts, that's not going to help you any.
God has been defined, I did so previously in this thread with an ontological argument.
A thing without boundary, is unbounded. You do understand the concept of unbounded, don't you?
An undefined thing, is still a thing. Do we know all the sub atomic particles? Have we defined them all? Or are there some that we have not defined? No, science admits they don't have all the answers or all the proofs, but that doesn't say that science has stopped trying to define what they cannot currently define. Science is limited to physical instrumentation at its basis, as it requires measurement.
Does the universe exist?
Can the universe actually be measured? No, it is immeasurable.
Yet, you agree that the universe exists and is immeasurable. Does the universe have an outer boundary?
We don't know actually, so the universe is boundless and immeasurable by definition...yet does exist and a totality of the universe also exists.
We can't really define the totality of the universe, we can't measure the totality of the universe...but the universe and the totality of the universe does logically exist.
So your comments below have been reduced to rubble...
A thing without boundary, is unbounded. You do understand the concept of unbounded, don't you?
An undefined thing, is still a thing. Do we know all the sub atomic particles? Have we defined them all? Or are there some that we have not defined? No, science admits they don't have all the answers or all the proofs, but that doesn't say that science has stopped trying to define what they cannot currently define. Science is limited to physical instrumentation at its basis, as it requires measurement.
Does the universe exist?
Can the universe actually be measured? No, it is immeasurable.
Yet, you agree that the universe exists and is immeasurable. Does the universe have an outer boundary?
We don't know actually, so the universe is boundless and immeasurable by definition...yet does exist and a totality of the universe also exists.
We can't really define the totality of the universe, we can't measure the totality of the universe...but the universe and the totality of the universe does logically exist.
So your comments below have been reduced to rubble...
Quote from killthesunshine:
you can't prove God because you can't define God. a thing w/o definition or boundary is no-thing at all
on other side of coin, we cannot disprove "nothing".
I made a good analogy, and your pissing yourself in denial of your own belief system is a poor example for anyone who could in fact practice continence. Unless you are mentally incontinent, and in a turnip vegetative state....
Unsolved questions about certain propositions that God exist do exist, true.
Unsolved questions about certain math propositions do exist, true.
Valid analogy.
Some math folks try to deny that the propositions are valid, but as a body, the math community accepts that the propositions do exist as valid propositions, because the propositions have not been shown to universal agreement to be mathematically impossible propositions.
Some atheistic folks try to deny that the propositions that God exists are valid, but as a body, the entire philosophy departments at most universities which include ontology, and concepts of God accept these propositions that God exist are valid propositions, because they have not been show to universal agreement to be logically impossible.
Analogy is spot on.
Maybe take a lot of time to think things through...try second, third, fourth, and umpteen thoughts until you can get it logically sound...though I doubt that will happen to someone who willfully denies their own practiced belief system.
Unsolved questions about certain math propositions do exist, true.
Valid analogy.
Some math folks try to deny that the propositions are valid, but as a body, the math community accepts that the propositions do exist as valid propositions, because the propositions have not been shown to universal agreement to be mathematically impossible propositions.
Some atheistic folks try to deny that the propositions that God exists are valid, but as a body, the entire philosophy departments at most universities which include ontology, and concepts of God accept these propositions that God exist are valid propositions, because they have not been show to universal agreement to be logically impossible.
Analogy is spot on.
Maybe take a lot of time to think things through...try second, third, fourth, and umpteen thoughts until you can get it logically sound...though I doubt that will happen to someone who willfully denies their own practiced belief system.
When you make the claim that God has no boundary, definition or limit (ie, omnipotent) then what evidence must "I" provide you to "disprove" your notion of God? To prove to you that your notion of God is not quite correct?
What is there to refute with smthg that is everything known & unknown, possible & impossible all at same time?
Have you ever redefined your notion of God? Made corrections to your concept of God?
What is there to refute with smthg that is everything known & unknown, possible & impossible all at same time?
Have you ever redefined your notion of God? Made corrections to your concept of God?