Why are atheists on this website always attacking Christianity? (3 Viewers)

[Ayatollah]

No offense Ayatollah, but that proof is incorrect. It is a mathematical error to divide both sides by zero. It defies the basic axioms of mathematics.

you've clearly been tricked into accepting the athiest axioms, disgusting propaganda really, Newton new the power of the god proof and axiom number 2, so he and voltaire and his cronies struck it from the record.
unchain your mind. never accept dogma.

 

[Kwayera]

Do you then admit that evolution cannot be proved? Then it is not a fact. Therefore you cannot use it to assert a point of view.

Can you mathematically prove your own existence?

 

[mirakon]

Actually Ayatollah, I believe in God. Your claim that these are 'atheist' axioms are unintelligent. They are not 'atheist' as they do not function in anyway as proving God does not exist.

However, you raise a good topic to discuss. Mathematics is based on human constructed axioms that have no function beyond time and space. Therefore mathematics cannot be used to prove or disprove God, who, if we assume his existence, is beyond time and space as he created it.

 

[Kwayera]

No offense Ayatollah, but that proof is incorrect. It is a mathematical error to divide both sides by zero. It defies the basic axioms of mathematics.

Ayatollah is a troll.

 

[ConquerDiscover]

There's not much difference between attacking and criticism, as both tends to offend the believer, but for people who are just out to offend, no mind need be paid to them.







I'll admit I don't know much about the catholic church and did not know the pope was against literal interpretation, but I did already had a negative view of him because of some of his statements on AIDS and contraceptives. Why the catholic church can take a scientific approach to evolution but at the same time go to AIDS infested countries and say that condoms can "aggravate" the spread of infection is beyond me. Condoms not the solution for combating AIDS: Pope - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

And while the catholic church may be compatible with evolution, there are many religious groups out there which take the teachings of their books literally and are incompatible with science.

The fact that the church can accept evolution has nothing to do with it being against contraceptions.

We were talking about the church and its views of evolution.

And as for contraceptions etc, all I can say is that it's a clash of morals for people. But this isn't the topic we were talking about.</SPAN>

 

[mirakon]

@Kwayera,

Of course. Using Avicenna's theory.

'I can conceive it, therefore it exists.'

I can also apply this principle to God. Although, admittedly it is being pedantic with definitions.

Mathematically I cannot prove my own existence. Mathematics only proves what is theoretically within its axioms. The question of the beginning of the Universe, or existence for that matter, cannot be answered in this manner.

 

[Kwayera]

Mathematically I cannot prove my own existence. Mathematics only proves what is theoretically within its axioms. The question of the beginning of the Universe, or existence for that matter, cannot be answered in this manner.

So you can't prove your own existence. Therefore, your existence is not a fact.

Okay.

 

[mirakon]

You are incorrect. I did prove my existence using Avicenna's theory. I simply didn't prove it mathematically.

 

[khorne]

Actually, proving your own existance in this world is a complex process, and one which has invited much Philosophical discussion. What you percieve as existence, can be something entirely different. The complex senses we have conjured are nothing more than electrical signals to our brain, interpreted as such, who says that they are actually real, or infact, accurately depicated by our minds.

The point is, everything is subjective, and the underlying nature of the world proves a potent competitor to challenge these views of existentiality.

 

[mirakon]

Actually, proving your own existance in this world is a complex process, and one which has invited much Philosophical discussion. What you percieve as existence, can be something entirely different. The complex senses we have conjured are nothing more than electrical signals to our brain, interpreted as such, who says that they are actually real, or infact, accurately depicated by our minds.

The point is, everything is subjective, and the underlying nature of the world proves a potent competitor to challenge these views of existentiality.

Positive rep for you! Excellent answer.

 

[Kwayera]

You are incorrect. I did prove my existence using Avicenna's theory. I simply didn't prove it mathematically.

You said that if it can't be proven mathematically is isn't a fact. And so, therefore, your existence is as much of a fact as evolution, that is, not a fact.

 

[mirakon]

You said that if it can't be proven mathematically is isn't a fact.

Initially I never claimed that, what I meant was that you were attempting to prove scientific thought using mathematics which I deduced was incorrect. Secondly I proved my existence using Avicenna's Theory. There are ways of proving beyond mathematics and science, but you have failed to utilise them to prove evolution. You have simply relied on mathematics and science which are not substantial proofs as I mentioned in earlier posts. Unfortunately for you, you cannot prove evolution using Avicenna's Theory.

 

[khorne]

Ah, but does a solid theory require proof? We can never prove einstein's through experiments (because they are thought experiments), but we can certainly conclude that the results are true.

Nothing in the world of mathematics or science can ever really be proven, but when an idea is so solid, and so much evidence is found, it is a simple court case. You can never prove they did it, but you can prove, beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[mirakon]

Please provide me with as much evidence there is of evolution.

And suppose that even if evolution does exist, going back to the beginning of the argument, morality is not a result of biological Darwinian evolution.

 

[Kwayera]

Ah, but does a solid theory require proof? We can never prove einstein's through experiments (because they are thought experiments), but we can certainly conclude that the results are true.

Nothing in the world of mathematics or science can ever really be proven, but when an idea is so solid, and so much evidence is found, it is a simple court case. You can never prove they did it, but you can prove, beyond reasonable doubt.

Which was my point in the first place. You can't prove evolution mathematically, but that doesn't mean it isn't fact. You can't prove existence mathematically, but that doesn't mean it isn't fact.

 

[khorne]

Which was my point in the first place. You can't prove evolution mathematically, but that doesn't mean it isn't fact. You can't prove existence mathematically, but that doesn't mean it isn't fact.

Exactly, I am supporting your point...:uhhuh:

 

[Kwayera]

Please provide me with as much evidence there is of evolution.

And suppose that even if evolution does exist, going back to the beginning of the argument, morality is not a result of biological Darwinian evolution.

Prove it.

Or at least, tell us why you don't think this very good explanation for the existence and development of morality is at least implausible.

 

[katie tully]

what is this thread.

 

[khorne]

Let me google that for you

 

[mirakon]

Yes, there is a possibility of evolution being a fact. I admit this. However the burden of proof is with you. Is it Definitely a fact?

Also, next post I'll post my argument, then I must go for lunch. I'll catch up later.