That sounded a bit pedantic hence thread inappropriate.

But if someone is unsure what they believe, why do they
insist on the right to criticize one who is sure?

Your (generic your) uncertainty should be a warning sign
that you (generic you) may not be right.

Although I made a decision on this topic, I do accept that I may be wrong in my position. I am also certain that I have not thought as deeply on this and many other topics as philosophers or luminaries have but neither am I willing to do so. I can also be cut while shaving with Occam's Razor but that is ok too.

I remain open to tinkering with the basis upon which I have drawn conclusions if I come across things that suggest it may be worthwhile to do so, or even occasionally merely to test my convictions.

On pondering if a cute angel dances on the head of a pin, I may consider the [URL="http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i3/angels-7-3.htm"]Quantum Gravity Treatment of the Angel Density Problem[/URL].

[QUOTE=davar55;390060]But if someone is unsure what they believe, why do they
insist on the right to criticize one who is sure?[/QUOTE]
Well, if you are sure, really sure, double dog dare sure, then maybe criticism would be wrong. Maybe not. There I go being unsure again. Whoops.

:popcorn:

[QUOTE=only_human;390063]Although I made a decision on this topic, I do accept that I may be wrong in my position. I am also certain that I have not thought as deeply on this and many other topics as philosophers or luminaries have but neither am I willing to do so. I can also be cut while shaving with Occam's Razor but that is ok too.

I remain open to tinkering with the basis upon which I have drawn conclusions if I come across things that suggest it may be worthwhile to do so, or even occasionally merely to test my convictions.

On pondering if a cute angel dances on the head of a pin, I may consider the [URL="http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i3/angels-7-3.htm"]Quantum Gravity Treatment of the Angel Density Problem[/URL].


Well, if you are sure, really sure, double dog dare sure, then maybe criticism would be wrong. Maybe not. There I go being unsure again. Whoops.[/QUOTE]

I get the feeling that you don't WANT to become convinced that the non-existence of God is provable.

[QUOTE=davar55;390086]I get the feeling that you don't WANT to become convinced that the non-existence of God is provable.[/QUOTE]So go ahead and prove it. Why all the beating around the bush? Just prove it and move on showing that water is not wet and that black = white.

You mean that old guy with white beard, living in the clouds? He does not exist, for sure, except for Santa (Santa exists, I have seen him in the polar express movie - don't tell me that I wrote that letter in vain, and no one will bring me the 48-cores computer I asked for! :tantrum:).

(I am also interested how one's going to prove the nonexistence of something).

[QUOTE=retina;390088]So go ahead and prove it. Why all the beating around the bush? Just prove it and move on showing that water is not wet and that black = white.[/QUOTE]

Water is wet. That can be proven.

Black does not equal white. That can be proven.

God is non-existent. That can be proven.

2^31-1 is a Mersenne prime. That can be proven.

Some people know none of these four proofs.
Some people know one or two.
Most Mersenners probably know three.
There are at least three people who know all four proofs.

Just because one doesn't don't know all four proofs doesn't mean
one should cynically exclude their possibility.

There's a reason I won't put a proof here - it's already posted elsewhere.

[QUOTE=LaurV;390089]You mean that old guy with white beard, living in the clouds? He does not exist, for sure, except for Santa (Santa exists, I have seen him in the polar express movie - don't tell me that I wrote that letter in vain, and no one will bring me the 48-cores computer I asked for! ).
(I am also interested how one's going to prove the nonexistence of something).[/QUOTE]

Start with it's not necessary to prove the negative of a statement for which
no positive evidence is presented.

[QUOTE=davar55;390091]There's a reason I won't put a proof here - it's already posted elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
... you tell us, in your 237th posting in this thread.
I don't suppose "elsewhere" means somewhere in the other 236? Or in the Bible, or the Quran? In the works of Shakespeare? In the horoscope section of today's Little Edgington Times perhaps?

[QUOTE=retina;390088]So go ahead and prove it. Why all the beating around the bush? Just prove it and move on showing that water is not wet and that black = white.[/QUOTE]

I decided to not ask about this proof because the frequency of his references to it indicated he was just looking for the attention / validation. But now that's we've come out and asked, I also would like to see this proof. Unfortunately, beating around the bush is all this guy will ever do.

Case in point, this bullshit:

[QUOTE=davar55;390091]Just because one doesn't don't know all four proofs doesn't mean
one should cynically exclude their possibility.[/QUOTE]


THIS IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT. This statement has ZERO content.


[QUOTE=davar55;390091]There's a reason I won't put a proof here - it's already posted elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

I am calling you out on your crap. You won't put a proof here because you don't have one.

If you've posted it elsewhere, you can save yourself the trouble of re-writing and just copy-paste or give us a link. You can [B][I]prove[/I][/B] to us that you have in fact previously posted such a proof. Claiming that you have is not [B][I]proof[/I][/B] of anything.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;390143]I decided to not ask about this proof because the frequency of his references to it indicated he was just looking for the attention / validation. But now that's we've come out and asked, I also would like to see this proof. Unfortunately, beating around the bush is all this guy will ever do.
Case in point, this bullshit:
THIS IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT. This statement has ZERO content.
I am calling you out on your crap. You won't put a proof here because you don't have one.
If you've posted it elsewhere, you can save yourself the trouble of re-writing and just copy-paste or give us a link. You can [B][I]prove[/I][/B] to us that you have in fact previously posted such a proof. Claiming that you have is not [B][I]proof[/I][/B] of anything.[/QUOTE]

Vinegar versus honey.