God is not great

Jake Starkey said:
And an atheist's investigation is no more conclusive than that of a theist.
Click to expand...
That’s the deal. Most theists assume and never investigate.

Bart Ehrman, one of the foremost Biblical scholars, was once a fire breathing evangelical true believer. Know what changed his mind? Rather than blindly accepting the Bible, he actually started STUDYING it.
 
Jake Starkey said:
gmark 77 is offering a Stone fallacy.

✅ When Negatives​

  • Mathematics and logic: Negatives are routinely proven.
    • Example: “There is no largest prime number.” This was proven by Euclid.
    • Example: “√2 is not a rational number.” This is a classic proof by contradiction.
  • Formal systems: In structured environments with clear rules (like chess, programming, or geometry), you can prove that something cannot happen or does not exist.

❌ When Negatives​

  • Empirical claims about the real world: It’s often difficult or impossible to prove a universal negative.
    • Example: “There are no unicorns anywhere in the universe.”
      • You’d need exhaustive evidence of every possible location, which is impractical.
  • Philosophical or theological claims: Proving the nonexistence of abstract entities (e.g., God, ghosts) is often considered impossible because the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim.

🧠 Why the Confusion?​

The phrase “you can’t prove a negative” is often misused. It’s true that some negatives are hard or impossible to prove, especially universal claims without boundaries. But in logic, science, and law, negatives are proven all the time—especially when framed correctly.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you. I doubt you have the balls to answer it but what is your view of the existence of the Fligmajorg? It's a 90 foot long serpent that lives in my refrigerator and comes out at night to build shoes.

Do you believe it exists?

Or are you merely "agnostic"?
 
gmark77 said:
Let me ask you. I doubt you have the balls to answer it but what is your view of the existence of the Fligmajorg? It's a 90 foot long serpent that lives in my refrigerator and comes out at night to build shoes.

Do you believe it exists?

Or are you merely "agnostic"?
Click to expand...
What kind of shoes? Does he/she/it do orders? I’m gonna need a new pair of running shoes soon.

Hopefully, you have a “personal relationship” with this thing.
 
gmark77 said:
OMG, now Cy is an expert on String Theory! :mad:
Click to expand...
ftfy
Anyone who reads popular science journalism knows superstring theory is based on open strings and closed strings.

It the most elementary and basic thing any person can know about superstring theory.

All you need to have is an interest in science, and the ability to read popular science articles and magazines.
 
Jake Starkey said:
gmark 77 is offering a Stone fallacy.
The phrase “you can’t prove a negative” is often misused. It’s true that some negatives are hard or impossible to prove, especially universal claims without boundaries. But in logic, science, and law, negatives are proven all the time—especially when framed correctly.
Click to expand...
You could disprove the God of Abraham by just showing the big bang did not happen and there is no origin to the universe.

That's why some astrophysicist really did not want to accept the evidence for the big bang; they didn't like the idea of an origin or a creation.
 
Cypress said:
ftfy
Anyone who reads popular science journalism knows superstring theory is based on open strings and closed strings.
Click to expand...

Not to mention people like you who rely on Google AI to answer questions. Or listen to an audiobook (cuz reading is haaaard)

Cypress said:
It the most elementary and basic thing any person can know about superstring theory.
Click to expand...

You don't understand string theory. You don't have the math background for it. You are a blow hard who uses Google AI to answer questions on here.

LOL.

Cypress said:
All you need to have is an interest in science, and the ability to read popular science articles and magazines.
Click to expand...

What good does an interest in science do you if you are unable to understand what they are talking about?

Google AI has only been out a short while. you have a lot of catching up to do!
 
Cypress said:
You could disprove the God of Abraham by just showing the big bang did not happen and there is no origin to the universe.

That's why some astrophysicist really did not want to accept the evidence for the big bang; they didn't like the idea of an origin or a creation.
Click to expand...

Hey, why don't you ask Google AI to "disprove" God.

LOL.

You are too credulous to rely on AI as much as you do.
 
Cypress said:
You could disprove the God of Abraham by just showing the big bang did not happen and there is no origin to the universe.

That's why some astrophysicist really did not want to accept the evidence for the big bang; they didn't like the idea of an origin or a creation.
Click to expand...
You cannot prove or disprove that God is or is not.

You believe in your position without proof. That is faith.
 
gmark77 said:
I don't understand string theory.
Click to expand...
ftfy....Who asked or expected you to understand it?

The idea of open and closed strings in superstring theory is literally the most basic and rudimentary factoid anyone can know about it.

If you had read one single popular science article in a magazine only once in your life about superstring theory, you would have had access to this information.

You claimed you were a PhD in science. Why does the most rudimentary factoid about string theory sound so exotic to you?
 
No, string theory is not considered a rudimentary fact of science—it is a highly advanced and speculative theoretical framework that remains unproven and largely mathematical.

🧠 What String Theory Is​

  • String theory proposes that the fundamental building blocks of the universe are not point-like particles, but tiny one-dimensional “strings” that vibrate at different frequencies.
  • These vibrations correspond to different particles, including the graviton, which would unify quantum mechanics with gravity—making string theory a candidate for a “theory of everything.”

🔬 Why It’s Not Rudimentary​

  • Complexity: String theory involves extra dimensions (up to 11 in M-theory), supersymmetry, and advanced mathematics like mirror symmetry and brane cosmology.
  • Lack of experimental evidence: Despite decades of research, string theory has not been confirmed by any direct experiment. It remains a mathematical construct, not an empirically validated theory.
  • Scientific criticism: Some physicists argue that string theory is not falsifiable, meaning it doesn’t meet the criteria of a scientific theory as defined by Karl Popper. Critics say it’s more of a framework than a testable model.

🧪 What​

  • Newton’s laws of motion
  • The periodic table
  • Basic cell theory
  • Conservation of energy
  • DNA as the carrier of genetic information
These are foundational, experimentally confirmed principles taught early in science education. String theory, by contrast, is advanced theoretical physics—often introduced at the graduate level or through popular science journalism.
 
Jake Starkey said:
No, string theory is not considered a rudimentary fact of science
Click to expand...
That's right, but no one on the thread said it was.
What I said is that anyone who had read at least one popular science article in their life on superstring theory must have noticed that strings come in two types, open strings and closed loops. That is the most rudimentary factoid anyone can get from reading at least one popular science article on string theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top