Flashing your degree is not going to work on this site. Many people here are well educated.

Let's try reading this again . . . .

Let just say there is an actual Creator. Who do you think will find it first, science or religion? — Jeremiah

You are also completely wrong about my level of mathematics. Last night I wrote out a proof showing $\sigma^2=\frac{\alpha\beta}{(\alpha+\beta)^2(\alpha+\beta+1)}$ for the beta distribution. Think you could do the same?

In a proof you must be able, when called on to PROVE EVERYTHING, and SHOW HOW ONE THING FOLLOWS ANOTHER. This does not mean just giving your subjective opinion as a proof, and it is certainly not an act of listing stuff you think is true, or you think is common knowledge and my advice, that you keep ignoring, was TO ACTUALLY LEARN SOME LOGIC.

Prove P1 & P2,


I don't think you have ever seen a formal proof.

"P5: There is an infinite number of potential premises that can be used in an argument."

Prove that.

Ya that is a big pile of nonsense.

Truth and logic are not the same things. Logic is a tool to help us narrow in on the truth, it does not actually create truth.

bjective morality/value is impossible — khaled

I don't remember you actually establishing that. Perhaps you should actually try.

I like how you try so hard to pretend like you don't care. Got to keep up that nihilistic image, right? Or how you think they should act, rather.

I don't recall asking about a supernatural being. Let's take a look. . .

Let just say there is an actual Creator. Who do you think will find it first, science or religion? — Jeremiah

Do you see the word supernatural or even god in there? As I don't.

And you really think that you'll be able to handle advanced mathematics? You do know that you will need a very high attention to detail for that type of education, right?

Why do you care?

Well good luck with your thinking, you are going to need it.

Not the "truth" you are peddling.

Not interested.

Nihilism never stands "staunchly" against anything. That would imply a purpose, a meaning and a direction.

You want that to be true and that is why you selected those modifiers. In a world without meaning, there is no reason at all for why you can't find "objective meaning" in just about anything you want. There is nothing stopping you, and you don't need to justify it as the universe doesn't care.

Existential nihilism gives you the freedom to shape meaning how you like; it, however, does not remove it. It is the realization that in an existence devoid of intrinsic value we are free to define and shape our own paths. I have never understood why people see this a negative thing. It means we are free and that our future truly belongs to us.

If your world is so easily shaped by words, then you are not much of a nihilist.

At any rate, I am using the words properly. I am starting to think that you like the idea of nihilism, but that you don't really understand it.

I don't really care about colloquial usages. Everything that we considered objective, to be considered at all, must also be subjective, a subjective consideration that in truth is an objective process.

I can decide whether it has meaning or not but in doing so I will have effectively decided that it does not have an objective meaning which is what the philosophy is about, non Existence of objective meaning. It doesn't say anything about subjective meaning. In other words I cannot decide it has objective meaning because the presence of the word "decide" in that sentence means that another decision was feasible thus making my decision subjective — khaled

Subjective and objective are the same things, and they have always been the same thing, ever since people thought them up. Subjective and objective are just classifications based on perceived characteristics. You are the one giving meaning to these words, it is not the other way around.

Saying and doing are two very different things. I can say that I have flown to the moon and swam to the bottom of the ocean, but just saying those things does not make them true.

How about addressing my actual question?

And learn how to use the quote and/or mention feature, which is standard practice at these forums.

I never claimed you claimed it was universal. I am pointing out the fact that nothing has meaning because you decided it does not have meaning. You could just as easily decided it has meaning. Nothing is stopping you from doing so, and all your standards at which you derive things as meaningless and /or non-existence are meaningless and non-existence themselves.

For example, "I see a green apple" requires the premise "Visual perception is reliable" for it to be considered true. — khaled

Yet, it is you who decided what is "reliable". If you are going to say nothing has meaning let's be consistent here.

Change your relative scope. It is an absolutely meaningless scope that has no real foundation, no actual purpose and it does not really exist. You pulled it from your subjective well, so just change it. You have that power.

In a world void of all meaning we are free to shape it however we want. Purpose is a prison and nothingness is the best possible position to be in, as it gives you the most amount of freedom.

Let just say there is an actual Creator. Who do you think will find it first, science or religion?

You are talking about a mathematical abstract as if it were real, you need to learn the difference. A logical proof will only show it in the abstract, in reality it is an impossible task to count out infinite primes. It cannot be done and it does not exist.

So what makes a theologian such an expert? All they do is study human imagination.

You do need to learn how to read, as you have missed my point since the very start, and you still clearly don't get it.

I am saying this statement here:

that science cannot be used to determine that no God of any kind exists, as claimed by Hawkins, and that scientists have no special knowledge on this issue, — LD Saunders

Carries no significance, it is pointless and moot. You have not been able to grasp that this entire thread. I am not disagreeing with it, I am disagreeing with what you think it means.

Your major error here is the way in which you misinterpret the implications of your statement. Not only is it impossible to prove the non-existence of something (God, cyborg frogs, unicorns, etc.) but it is a condition that applies to everyone, not just scientist, therefore if that is the standard which bars scientist IT BARS EVERYONE, including theologians. You are pushing a worthless, moot point. It is a silly argument for why scientist can't have "special knowledge on this issue" and by those standards even theologians also "have no special knowledge on this issue."

The idea that simply because someone's profession is science that they can't also at the same time be an "expert" in the God concept is just stupid, senseless and lacks all common sense. And as I said at the start of the thread, if there is a Creator then to understand this Creator, it would be better to study the actual works of the Creator, rather than the works of man. Go back a few hundred years ago and that is exactly what people thought and it was a huge motivating factor for many natural philosophers (aka scientist) back then. It is only in recent history that people have start to draw this sharp line between the two.

You have provided no good reason at all why theologians should be preferred in this respect and all you have done is pushed your horrible misunderstanding of a fallacy, trying to misshape it into some-type awkward filter.

Furthermore science does address the issue of God by classifying it as an unfalsifiable claim, and I openly encourage everyone to engage scientific principles into their supernatural investigates, that is how we move from mysticism to fact.

Feel free to actually address it.

I have never seen an infinte number of prime numbers, have you?

It is more rational to realize your limits, accept that of such things you are clueless and conclude nothing.

As far as I can tell nothing I have ever observered has had a start.

Pick a book you wish to read and understand. Start reading that book, when you come across a reference to an unfamiliar work or concept, stop reading and go read the related work. Do this every time you run across something unfamiliar. While also making sure to study the culture and time period the work was written in.

I like the disclaimer at the bottom, as it shows that I got to you. It also displays a flare of egotism, since you are worried others might see your silence as defeat. Which means you approach these exchanges as a contest.

Ya, I have heard your lame excuses.

You are dodging. The idea that a few lines in a dictionary is sufficient to cover a vast subject of something like religious faith, is stupid.

And so this is how it goes, on the religious side there is never any evidence, just a bunch of talk, while scientist continue to crank out mountains of evidence for their claims.

If someone can't even put their own argument forward then this tells me that they don't even have confidence in their own position.

I have not called you any names. You have accused me of name-calling, but it not actually something I have done; however, I do recall you calling me a bigot. I'll consider this proof to the subjective nature in which you try to bend reality. So yes, to substantiate your position you need to clarify it and support it, as you clearly lack objectivity in these matters.

All I have asked you to do, is make your argument and give your proof and that is not an unreasonable request.

We are not talking about a word. We are talking a multicultural theological and philosophical concept and if you think a brief colloquial summary in a dictionary is sufficient to span that entire scope then I think that shows how limited your reflections are in such things, and it speaks volumes about your lack of insight into religious faith.

It is a mathematical science, so science is the other half of that. Statisticians are trained in things like experiment design, sampling methods, model design and selection, and other general scientific principles.