The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Barcs

DUMBASS.

Ya know I think I might have rattled your cage. lol

Like always, you can't refute a single thing said so you desperately find an excuse to ignore it. Pure comedy. Thanks for validating my statement.

a reply to: Jay-morris

There's no evidence in the bible that proves god is real if you mean according to modern science.

If you want scientific proof then you could look at something like Kurt Godel's Ontological Proof which uses Modal Logic. Essentially proving mathematically that god exists. Not saying i believe it but if you ask a computer the logic is sound.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

There's no evidence in the bible that proves god is real if you mean according to modern science.

If you want scientific proof then you could look at something like Kurt Godel's Ontological Proof which uses Modal Logic. Essentially proving mathematically that god exists. Not saying i believe it but if you ask a computer the logic is sound.

There is alot criticism (and rightly so) for Kurt Godel's Ontological Proof . But let's forget about the criticism and the obvious holes in this theory for just a minute and concentrate on belief.

Now, religous people will look at Kurt Godel's Ontological, and see this as proof thst their God is real, and their religion is real. Do you think they stop to think that thus only means a God is possible? Of course not. And this is the problem, as this thread has shown. As you can see on this thread, people gave posted BS and lies to justify their God in the religion they worship,

Kurt Godel's Ontological is not proof, it's a theory with absolutly no proof or evidence that God is real.

mathematicians have put forth theories that we are in a simulation. Could it be true? Yes, is their evidence to prove it? No. It's all theories, not proof.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Do you think they stop to think that thus only means a God is possible?

No the problem is you arguing from the position that it is
impossible when it's equally as possible as anything you can bring
against it. That's what makes you the biggest joke associated
with this thread. Enistein !

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Jay-morris

Do you think they stop to think that thus only means a God is possible?

No the problem is you arguing from the position that it is
impossible when it's equally as possible as anything you can bring
against it. That's what makes you the biggest joke associated
with this thread. Enistein !

There is a difference between something being possible, and actually having evidence for that. Some people think we could be living in a computer simulation. Is it possible? Yes. Do we have evidence to prove that? No!

And with all your pointless ramblings, you still ignore my questions!

Show me the evidence that the God in the bible is real?

a reply to: Jay-morris

And with all your pointless ramblings, you still ignore my questions!

And that will continue.

a reply to: Jay-morris

The scientific logic cannot be doubted. The axioms could be brought into question but that could be said for most Theory.

originally posted by: Grenade
If you want scientific proof then you could look at something like Kurt Godel's Ontological Proof which uses Modal Logic. Essentially proving mathematically that god exists. Not saying i believe it but if you ask a computer the logic is sound.

Sorry, but ontologocial argument is not scientific, not math, and not proof of anything. It's nothing but philosophism (just sophistry and word games that are outdated) made up by people that knew nothing about the universe compared to what we know now. There is no logic at all in that argument.

The scientific logic cannot be doubted. The axioms could be brought into question but that could be said for most Theory.

Um, have you actually looked at the argument. There is no science involved and the logic is flimsy at best. Equating an apologetic argument to science is completely ridiculous. It's not evidence, not math based and certainly holds no merit whatsoever in science.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Jay-morris

Do you think they stop to think that thus only means a God is possible?

No the problem is you arguing from the position that it is
impossible when it's equally as possible as anything you can bring
against it. That's what makes you the biggest joke associated
with this thread. Enistein !

Are you ever honest? Claiming something is impossible AGAIN, with no proof, no evidence, no nothing. You just state it and expect people to blindly listen to you. Most people aren't as pretentious as you. Your whole gimmick is pretending to know things that you never even took so much as 5 minutes to learn about.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Grenade
If you want scientific proof then you could look at something like Kurt Godel's Ontological Proof which uses Modal Logic. Essentially proving mathematically that god exists. Not saying i believe it but if you ask a computer the logic is sound.

Sorry, but ontologocial argument is not scientific, not math, and not proof of anything. It's nothing but philosophism (just sophistry and word games that are outdated) made up by people that knew nothing about the universe compared to what we know now. There is no logic at all in that argument.

The scientific logic cannot be doubted. The axioms could be brought into question but that could be said for most Theory.

Um, have you actually looked at the argument. There is no science involved and the logic is flimsy at best. Equating an apologetic argument to science is completely ridiculous. It's not evidence, not math based and certainly holds no merit whatsoever in science.

Show me direct measurable evidence of dark matter? A very widely accepted scientific theory. Or show me an experiment to detect a Graviton. A lot of science needs a little bit of faith.

a reply to: Barcs

Its mathematically sound logic. Whether its viable or true i can't even speculate however it just goes to show that if you spin equations long enough you can "prove" anything.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

The scientific logic cannot be doubted. The axioms could be brought into question but that could be said for most Theory.

Sorry, but that does not prove there is a God, not even close. Theories are not evidence, hence the reason I brought up the simulation theory.

a reply to: Barcs

Are you ever honest? Claiming something is impossible AGAIN, with no proof, no evidence, no nothing. You just state it and expect people to blindly listen to you. Most people aren't as pretentious as you. Your whole gimmick is pretending to know things that you never even took so much as 5 minutes to learn about.

People do listen the smart ones.
You can be smart to. All you have to do is look inside yourself.
The answers you are looking for here are there.

"Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence"
Even if we never discovered proof that alien life exist, It would not prove that it did not.

a reply to: rom12345

I can't even prove I exist when I'm not there! lol

a reply to: Jay-morris

There's no such thing as absolute proof. Evolution, relativity etc are just theories as well.

a reply to: Barcs

I have looked into the argument. It holds as much verifiable evidence as something like dark matter or dark energy. Even gravity is a ficticious force which can't be directly measured.

I'm not advocating for Godel. What I'm stating is that he was a top mathematician and pioneer of his field. Someone who knows a more about math and logic than anyone in this thread that's for sure.

Essentially I'm stating you can't dismiss god for lack of evidence while at the same time accepting other scientific theories which are just as full of holes.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

There's no such thing as absolute proof. Evolution, relativity etc are just theories as well.

Not true! That's just something people say to fuel their belief, simple as that. How do you know we are not in a simulation? How do you know we were not planted here by aliens? All assumptions, thst could be true, but no evidence to say they are.

Let me ask you this, why does it have to be a God?

Essentially I'm stating you can't dismiss god for lack of evidence while at the same time accepting other scientific theories which are just as full of holes.

a reply to: Grenade

Why does it have to be a God?

a reply to: Jay-morris

It doesn't. You just can't rule it out. Same way I can't rule out any of the other ideas you propose.