God does not exist.

Sorry, I can't decipher that, you're just babbling at this point.

 

What is this nonsense? He either can or he cannot lift it. If at any point he is unable to lift the rock, then he is not omnipotent.

Also, stop adding "-gf" at the end of your arguments, this isn't runescape.

 

i can do w/e i want honestly. And you are smart are you? look up omnipotence please then research then come back.

 

√4 = [-2, 2]
This is simple mathematical example that there actually can be more answers on one question. I as a human came to the conclusion that in a situation there can be more answers available. So wouldn't God as a so called "higher power" be able to come to an answer?

 

Yes, the human race has been around for thousands of years, but don't try to make it sound like we understood genetics all this time. It is not out of our league. It is theoretically possible to create humans artificially, based on experiments conducted on other animals, but it is not being done because it would most likely involve a series of failed experiments to develop a reliable method. Risky experimentation with non-consenting humans are not acceptable in any modern society with the resources to perfect a method of artificially creating humans. Nor would it be beneficial to create humans out of "thin air", in lack of a better way to put it, when we are facing over-population.

Not all scientists believe this and it isn't even supported by actual scientific observations, so you can't fight the integrity of scientific studies as a whole based on this.

Personally, I see the big bang "theory" as a non-falsifiable hypothesis, i.e. not scientific.

The opinions of individuals are not relevant, especially when you take quotes with no scientific value in any sense of the word and try to use that against science as a whole.

How did you come to the conclusion that the universe hasn't always existed? You're using nothing but appeal to authority, try to back it up.

 

1. Please define pariothipical, righon, and bi-opular, as according to the multiple dictionaries I've checked, such words do not exist.

2. Are you saying God exists when necessary? How does the fact that we, supposedly, need God cause him to exist? You're commiting the "Begging the Question" fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html), in that you are assuming God exists in your proof of God. You actually do not prove God exists in any way, you are merely saying God is a completely watered down imaginary friend that "exists" only out of necessity.

 

How do you multiply negatives? Don't respond with "-2 x -2 = 4 lol", try to give me an actual example.

I can prove that 2 x 2 = 4. I can put two people next to each other, and both of them have 2 hands. When I count their hands, the total is 4. Conclusion: 2 times 2 equals 4.

Try to do the same, in practice, with your fictional negative numbers. If you fail to do so, your equation is fucking metaphysics and shouldn't be allowed near a mathematical argument.

If that sounds harsh it's because I'm pissed off by the way kids, myself included back in the day, are forced to acknowledge these metaphysical monstrosities as mathematical fact.

Edit: here's a visualization of my experiment for your enjoyment.^_^

 

So in order to prove that your argument is wrong I've got to prove an easy mathematical sum? I was assuming that you were getting my point without writing that out because even my 10 years old brother knows how to prove √4 so you didn't prove yourself any smarter by doing so.

Though by expressing your feelings you forgot (with purpose) to give an actual answer on my little sum up off how your theory lacks mathematical evidence. Plus by your previous post you've also broken a rule that was written by sythe on this thread: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=476986

 

You talk about lack of mathematical evidence, without showing any of your own. Go ahead, entertain me and show how you can multiply with negative numbers.

 

Of course - because of the bias of the staff - useless postulations of this nature are allowed to be posted.
"God does not exist."

Sounds great!

 

Once again you're getting off topic and putting me words in my mouth. I just wanted to prove to you that 2 answers on 1 question is easily possible but you had to bend the subject because you couldn't found an answer on my assumption?

 

When did I bend the subject? You made a claim, I disputed your claim, and you failed to prove your claim. Simple.

 

Wait wait wait, are you claiming it's impossible to multiply negative numbers? Seriously? Did you fail elementary school?

 

At the time I conformed to what I was told. So no, I did well in elementary school math.

Now, I claim that it is impossible to multiply negative numbers, and I'm still waiting for a good explanation as to how it is possible. If an acceptable explanation is presented to me, I will stand corrected. Until then, I consider negative multiplication pure metaphysics.

 

OK, here goes, a real life example of why multiplying 2 negatives equals a positive:

Let's say you film someone walking forwards at 3 m/s.

Then if you play back the film for 4 seconds, he will walk a distance of (3)(4) = 12m.

Now, suppose he walks backwards at 3 m/s. then playing the film for 4 seconds will show that he walked a distance of (-3)(4) = -12m.

Now, if you play the film *backwards* for 4 seconds, the person will walk *forward* for a distance of (-3)(-4) = 12m.

I could also prove it by explaining field axioms, but you sound like you're not good at maths so I think it would be pointless.

 

Oh wow. I love how you think you can disprove a core concept of math using philosophy. After hundreds of years of stress-testing, you think our current conception of math can be shattered by some guy who frequents a runescape forums and knows a little about philosophy/science. I'm not a mathematician, but I know a UCLA mathematics/physics professor (graduate level), and I'll edit this later tonight with his information.

Wow, people that think the laws of physics and mathematics are subject to their philosophical whim really piss me off.

For your enjoyment, the same idea, as depicted by xkcd:

 

If he walks backwards at 3 m/s he is not moving at -3 m/s. He is moving at 3 m/s. If you let him walk backwards for 4 seconds the distance between his starting position and destination will not be -12m, it will be 12m.

If you play the tape backwards for 4 seconds, you are playing the tape for 4 seconds, not -4 seconds.

You are simply assigning negative numbers to doing stuff backwards of how they are normally done. I have to move my cursor -10cm to post this, does that make sense to you?

 

Looking forward to it. I will see it as a positive thing to have it properly explained in the case I just don't get it.

They are subject to my skepticism, like everything else. Even my skepticism is subject to my skepticism.

 

Assume they are velocities, not scalar measurements.

It makes sense then.

 

You're committing the argument from laziness fallacy. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#laziness

Nevertheless, since you probably don't care, I'll get the professors opinion on this within about 3 hours, give or take.