But I didn't prove there is no God. I only proved that gods alleged to be omnipotent as defined in my argument do not exist.
You're kind of slow, you know that?
How is it horseshit?
Last edited:
But I didn't prove there is no God. I only proved that gods alleged to be omnipotent as defined in my argument do not exist.The only confusing thing is your "proof" that there is no God.
How is it horseshit?It's horseshit, even Dawkins says it's horseshit.
I did not say there is a set that contains everything. Please, read the argument again and this time strive for actual comprehensionExcept there is no such thing as a set of anything that contains everything ("omnipotent").
You clearly have no idea what you're taking about.Secondly, it is not a proof, it's a theory.
I didn't disprove God's existence. I only disproved any god alleged to have omnipotence as defined in the argument.You cannot prove or disprove Gods existence.
1.) Nothing is "defined by physical laws." The idea is nonsensical, but amusing that you'd think it wasn't.The point is, you can't define the nature of a supposedly all-powerful being, that can allegedly create and destroy at will, by our logic or physical laws.
That's what makes disproving such a thing impossible.
Why not? You literally just did by defining that beings nature as a being that can create and destroy at will.
Any particular observations to back up that claim?
When all else fails use the victim card and then double down on personal attacks.
None the less, I hope one day you truly find happiness and joy and no longer feel the need to be hateful towards others.
Believe me, I understand exactly what you're saying. But what YOU obviously don't understand is that the speed of light measured in a vacuum is the same, regardless of the motion of the observer. So light from the clocktower WILL catch up to the streetcar, and the speed of that light from the clocktower, if measured by someone in the streetcar, will be c.Are you trying to tell me you don't get it? Because you sound exactly like someone who doesn't get it. Try reading what I quoted again if/when you're thinking a bit clearer. Here are some genuinely helpful suggestions: 1) Get enough sleep. 2) Have something to eat/Make sure your blood glucose levels are normal.
I'll put it into my own words in case it helps:
The streetcar has passed the clocktower. The streetcar is moving at c. The light bouncing off the clock tower is also traveling at c. The light from the clocktower will not catch up to the streetcar. They are both moving at the same speed but there is a non-zero distance between them.
Zoe travels towards Jasper at speed v.
First, suppose that, instead of light, Zoe fires an arrow from her car at speed u, as she measures it. Jasper will measure its speed as v+u, as predicted by Galilean relativity.
Alternatively, if she sounds the horn, the sound will travel forward with a speed vsound with respect to the air that is the medium for the sound wave. In the absence of wind, Jasper will measure the sound to be travelling at vsound, and Zoe will measure its speed relative to her as vsound−v, again as specified by Galilean relativity.
It is tempting to extrapolate one or other of these results to light: if light is like little arrows, Jasper should measure v+c. If light is like sound, and if its medium is stationary with respect to Jasper, than Zoe should measure its speed as c−v. (We discuss the possibility of a medium for light later.) If we are really careful in our thinking, however, we should also say that light may be neither like arrows nor like sound.
The extrapolation mentioned above is tempting, but it would be a huge extrapolation: light travels nearly a million times faster than sound. And extrapolations are always dangerous. For instance, very near where you are now, the temperature and other physical conditions are (I hope) fairly comfortable. But the further you go from your familiar surroundings - suppose for instance you go 20 kilometers up or down - the more likely things are to be different in surprising ways. The further you go from the familiar, the more likely we shall be surprised. And the speed of light is a very unfamiliar speed.
Indeed, the speed of light (about 300,000 km/s - over a billion k.p.h.) is so great that our intuition is of little use. All the observations about speed that you have ever made, all of the experience upon which your common sense is based, are in a tiny area of physical reality that we could label "extremely low speed" compared with light. It is often the case that one can make approximations that apply over a limited region of reality, but that fail when we examine a larger range. For instance, objects fall at 9.8 metres per second per second in the lab. Also in the basement or on the roof. But this is not true in high orbits, or at the centre of the Earth.
At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morely experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding: what requires understanding are its consequences, and how it can be integrated into what we already know.
And I hope you find the maturity to face the fact that you stink. I will always not want you to. That's just the nature of my hate. Attack me again sometime if you don't want to be left alone.
Yes, it is.
I'm not throwing anything under the bus. This is the nature of empirical knowledge.
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is.
I'm not denigrating anything. This is pretty basic epistemology. You'll never rule out solipsism, so you'll never have 100% certainty of empirical facts. Deal with it.
I hope you find happiness and joy in your life. As well as learning that those who truly have faith do not find it necessary to be evil or nasty toward others.
You wow us all with your stunning admissions. You just admitted that you cannot rule out soliposism, which is widely discredited as a tool of logic, you claimed to be able to prove God does not exist (nobody in history has been able), and claim that one cannot prove gravity exists.....
Good entertainment, and if you are ever in town, the beers on on me! You'd be awesome to party with. Not at all like Moonie who would either have me running for the door, or crying in my beer.
M
There's no reason to be wowed. I've not said anything untrue or even that controversial among academics.You wow us all with your stunning admissions.
You do not appear to understand what solipsism is. It isn't a "tool of logic" --I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean.You just admitted that you cannot rule out soliposism, which is widely discredited as a tool of logic,
No, I didn't.you claimed to be able to prove God does not exist...
Proof is for mathematics and beverage alcohol. Nothing in science will ever constitute "proof."...and claim that one cannot prove gravity exists.....
Believe me, I understand exactly what you're saying. But what YOU obviously don't understand is that the speed of light measured in a vacuum is the same, regardless of the motion of the observer. So light from the clocktower WILL catch up to the streetcar, and the speed of that light from the clocktower, if measured by someone in the streetcar, will be c.
And guess what, if I were to shine a flashlight in the forward direction from the streetcar, and you (standing inside the streetcar) measured the speed of the light leaving the flashlight, you'd get that same speed - c.
Doubt what I'm telling you? Then maybe this will convince you (the bolding is mine).
But I didn't prove there is no God. I only proved that gods alleged to be omnipotent as defined in my argument do not exist.
You're kind of slow, you know that?
1.) Nothing is "defined by physical laws." The idea is nonsensical, but amusing that you'd think it wasn't.
2.) I can logically define anything.
3.) My argument does not depend on defining god. It only shows that the idea of omnipotence as defined in the argument is incoherent. The conclusion is of course that it is impossible for a being with that attribute to exist.
I wanna hear more about how you thought relativistic quantum mechanics had anything at all to do with this. Wanna "explain" that for us? That would be really funny, I think.
I didn't disprove God's existence. I only disproved any god alleged to have omnipotence as defined in the argument.
And I hope you find the maturity to face the fact that you stink. I will always not want you to. That's just the nature of my hate. Attack me again sometime if you don't want to be left alone.
You can't find happiness and joy because they are coveted by the ego. They found me when I abandoned all hope that I could get them. You need a kick in the pants because you keep yourself fron seeing that. It does't matter if you are so blind that you think it's mean. You are far more valuable to me than to worry about your childish opinions of me will be. I have to care about the real you, mot the ass you drive your sleep.
And anyway, any hurt you feel today is a rip pressed memory of pain from long ago. This I know.
How would you know, being a chief ignoramus yourself? :whiste: Your logic puzzle only proves what basic logic can define. Flatlanders can't prove the existence of cubes, either. To them they all look like squares.
I don't feel any hurt and you can't affect my happiness. Just pointing out that a person who truly has faith doesn't feel the need to attack or be evil/nasty towards others.
So now I not only hope you find joy and happiness but true faith as well. Have a wonderful day, I know I will have one.
You mean to tell me that I'm a rotten filthy hate filled, mean, nasty, bastard and I never caused you any hurt. WTF?
Well, that's a relief. Thanks for telling me. I won't feel so compelled now spending time in deep thought agonizing over how to reach you without harming your psyche. I wish you'd told me earlier. I just spent 4000 bucks on a treadmill so I can walk off the stress you've caused me, and I'm stuck at home today waiting for the delivery. I guess I can look on the bright side and just use it to improve my general fitness. Thanks then, for that.
Sorry. Intuition has nothing to do with it. Read the information at the link I provided. Read about the speed of light in a vacuum. Read about the concept of no absolute frame of rest. Here's another link on the subject:Blah blah blah. All that gibberish and you still don't understand that if 2 objects are traveling at c, in the same direction, and are some positive distance apart, one won't catch up to the other. It looks like your version of intuition has failed you. Better hit the books a bit more and build some physical intuition instead of making yourself look like a fool in online forums son.
Another assumption on the laws of physics made by the SI definition of the metre is that the theory of relativity is correct. It is a basic postulate of the theory of relativity that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. This can be broken down into two parts:
To state that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer is very counterintuitive. Some people even refuse to accept this as a logically consistent possibility, but in 1905 Einstein was able to show that it is perfectly consistent if you are prepared to give up assumptions about the absolute nature of space and time.
- The speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer.
- The speed of light does not vary with time or place.
In 1879 it was thought that light must propagate through a medium in space, the ether, just as sound propagates through the air and other substances. The two scientists Michelson and Morley set up an experiment to attempt to detect the ether, by observing relative changes in the speed of light as Earth changed its direction of travel relative to the sun during the year. To their surprise, they failed to detect any change in the speed of light.
Fitzgerald then suggested that this might be because the experimental apparatus contracted as it passed through the ether, in such a way as to countermand the attempt to detect the change in velocity. Lorentz extended this idea to changes in the rates of clocks to ensure complete undetectability of the ether. Einstein then argued that those transformations should be understood as changes of space and time rather than of physical objects, and that the absoluteness of space and time introduced by Newton should be discarded. Just after that, the mathematician Minkowski showed that Einstein's theory of relativity could be understood in terms of a four dimensional non-euclidean geometry that considered space and time as one entity, ever after called spacetime.
The theory is not only mathematically consistent, it agrees with many direct experiments. The Michelson-Morley experiment was repeated with greater accuracy in the years that followed. In 1925 Dayton Miller announced that he had detected a change in the speed of light and was even awarded prizes for the discovery, but a 1950s appraisal of his work indicated that the most likely origin of his results lay with diurnal and seasonal variations in the temperature of his equipment.
Modern instruments could easily detect any ether drift if it existed. Earth moves around the Sun at a speed of about 30 km/s, so if velocities added vectorially as newtonian mechanics requires, the last 5 digits in the value of the speed of light now used in the SI definition of the metre would be meaningless. Today, high energy physicists at CERN in Geneva and Fermilab in Chicago routinely accelerate particles to within a whisker of the speed of light. Any dependence of the speed of light on inertial reference frames would have shown up long ago, unless it is very slight indeed. Their measurements are actually made in a non-inertial frame because gravity is present. But in the context of the measurements, this non-inertial frame is almost identical to a "uniformly accelerated frame" (this is actually the content of Einstein's Principle of Equivalence). And it turns out that a measurement of light's speed made in a uniformly accelerated frame directly by someone who is very close to the light will return the inertial value of c—although that observer must be close to the light to measure this value.
But what if we pursued the original theory of Fitzgerald and Lorentz, who proposed that the ether is there, but is undetectable because of physical changes in the lengths of material objects and the rates of clocks, rather than changes in space and time? For such a theory to be consistent with observation, the ether would need to be completely undetectable using clocks and rulers. Everything, including the observer, would have to contract and slow down by just the right amount. Such a theory could make exactly the same prediction in all experiments as the theory of relativity; but it would reduce the ether to essentially no more than a metaphysical construct unless there was some other way of detecting it—which no one has found. In the view of Einstein, such a construct would be an unnecessary complication, to be best eliminated from the theory.
This would be a great place to substantiate that curious assertion.Context, you're manipulating it (again).
It isn't a problem for me or my argument.That's the problem.
My conclusion is necessarily true in all possible universes. Your response amounts to, "oh yeah? but what if there's a place where logic is not true?" It's absurd.Inside, yes, but we don't know the ruleset outside the parameters of the environment (if there is an outside). We don't even know how many layers exist in our own reality; 10, 11, 32, 72?
Not as funny as watching you bumble around with logic.
But that's false. The truth of logical conclusions do not depend on any "parameters" or "environment." You're clearly just making shit up because you don't understand the grown up concepts.You only disproved its existence within a strict set of parameters, within a certain environment.
See what I mean? It really isn't hard to see this as projection of your feelings about yourself.The nature of your hate is insecurity, due to the collapse of your own beliefs.
Sorry. Intuition has nothing to do with it. Read the information at the link I provided. Read about the speed of light in a vacuum. Read about the concept of no absolute frame of rest.: