On Wed, 1 May 2024, Jamie Michelle wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2024 11:53:41 +0200, D <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, 68hx.1806 wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/30/24 7:23 PM, Jamie Michelle wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:22:57 -0400, "68hx.1806" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Poe was an under-respected polymath indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>> However an "insightful" theory is just a theory,
>>>>> like Democritus and "atoms". Neither had a shred
>>>>> of PROOF, no evidence and logical steps that would
>>>>> lead to a CONCLUSION. It was pure speculation in
>>>>> a sea of speculation.
>>>>>
>>>>> And no, math does not prove the existence of 'gods'.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the universe being open or closed - the jury
>>>>> is still out on that. There have been recent worries
>>>>> that the markers used to judge expansion might not
>>>>> be as reliable as first believed - plus some info
>>>>> that the "dark energy" input may be "variable".
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case, I'd suggest you move to the "religious"
>>>>> groups.
>>>>
>>>> God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within
>>>> Standard Physics
>>>
>>>
>>> Um ... no. Get over it.
>>
>> Sigh... math cannot in itself, prove anything in the world. That is why we
>> have science. God is a claim about something in the world, and as such, we
>> currently have no proof, and by definition, any proof, would just result
>> in god being reduced to something in the world.
>>
>> Now... therefore, most define god as beyond the world, but being defined
>> as such, by definition, god can never be proven, since we by nature are
>> being _in_ the world, and science is a tool and methodology to describe
>> the world. So if you start the argument by assuming god being "beyond" the
>> world, it is impossible to prove him.
>>
>> That is why I am agnostic in saying I don't know. I do lean heavily
>> towards there being no god however.
>>
>> Last, but not least, all proofs of god, tend to start out assuming god,
>> hence they are all useless except for people who are already believers as
>> a kind of "intellectual scaffolding" for their belief.
>
> The field of physics does involve mathematical proofs of physical
...
> theories, i.e., physical theorems, such as the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch
You are just stating things and linking to papers. You have not offered
any proofs are counter argument to my position, which is basically
accepted by todays science as the only logical position.
Granted, you might have a point, but unless you are able to state that
point in a way that I understand, our conversation is meaningless.
And no, I will not read through 100 papers without you first showing
that my meta-argumetn is invalid, which no one has managed to do in
about 2500 years of philosophical history, so consider me highly
skeptical.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.