God is not great

[domer76]

And an atheist's investigation is no more conclusive than that of a theist.

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.

 

[gmark77]

I use Google AI to answer questions on here. If I were still in school I'd be the guy using ChatGPT for homework.

ftfy

 

[gmark77]

Some versions of superstring theory only include closed looped strings - so I guess we're talking spaghetti-o's here, lol

OMG, now Cy is an expert on String Theory.

Such is the power of Google AI!

 

[gmark77]

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.

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"?

 

[Jake Starkey]

gmark77. Your serpent is as real as the monster lizard that lives in my basement rooms.

 

[domer76]

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"?

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]

What kind of shoes? Does he/she/it do orders? I’m gonna need a new pair of running shoes soon.

Let me know. The only downside is usually it makes the left and right foot different sizes. But if you can work with that we can get you set up.

 

[domer76]

Let me know. The only downside is usually it makes the left and right foot different sizes. But if you can work with that we can get you set up.

What the fuck? You must have an imperfect Fligmajorg. Not omni-pedestrian, anyway.

 

[Cypress]

OMG, now Cy is an expert on String Theory!

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.

 

[Cypress]

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.

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.

 

[gmark77]

ftfy
Anyone who reads popular science journalism knows superstring theory is based on open strings and closed strings.

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

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

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.

All you need to have is an interest in science, and the ability to read popular science articles and magazines.

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!

 

[gmark77]

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.

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.

 

[Jake Starkey]

You theists and atheists are boring.

 

[Jake Starkey]

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.

You cannot prove or disprove that God is or is not.

You believe in your position without proof. That is faith.

 

[Cypress]

I don't understand string theory.

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?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You theists and atheists are boring.

Extremists always are. Sad.

 

[Cypress]

people like you who listen to an audiobook (cuz reading is haaaard)!

ftfy. Explain to the board exactly why audiobooks, podcasts, lectures, and debates are not profitable ways of learning, Perry PhD

 

[Jake Starkey]

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.