It's not an insane idea in the slightest. NIST wont release any of the data that they used to come to their conclusions and the computer models they have released don't map to the observable video evidence. Eye-witness testimony mentions explosions. So test for explosions. The complexity of setting up demolitions doesn't rule them out. Argument from incredulity is a fallacy. Look it up.>> ^shponglefan:

First of all, I never said the collapse was due to falling debris. I said that the facts we have are that the building sustained initial damage (which according to NIST may have included structural damage) followed by a 7 hour fire leading to eventual structural failure. So please don't misread what I write. It's about pointing out known facts (damage + fire) versus unknown speculation (secret bombs).
Second, There is no real substantial evidence that WTC 7 was demo'd. It's mostly based on a superficial account of the video of the collapse, which in itself doesn't suggest anything other than the building was damaged, then on fire, then eventually fell down.
Third, saying that "none of that shit is relevant" when you are proposing an idea that would involve an extremely complex undertaking makes it relevant. When exploring ideas, it helps to step back sometime and do a "sanity" check. That you don't seem to want to with respect to the controlled demo idea suggests you know it's pretty insane idea, you just don't want to admit it.
>> ^Fade:
None of that shit is relevant. I just want to know whether explosives were used or not. Independent testing shows evidence of this. So why didn't NIST do a test?
The footage of wtc7 collapsing is not grainy at all. What footage were you looking at?
your first point is covered in the NIST report anyway. NIST themselves state that the failure was not from structural damage due to falling debris.
The fact that you are arguing against the official account tells me that you probably haven't even read the official account. So why are you even involved in this discussion?

First of all, I never said the collapse was due to falling debris. I said that the facts we have are that the building sustained initial damage (which according to NIST may have included structural damage) followed by a 7 hour fire leading to eventual structural failure. So please don't misread what I write. It's about pointing out known facts (damage + fire) versus unknown speculation (secret bombs).

Second, There is no real substantial evidence that WTC 7 was demo'd. It's mostly based on a superficial account of the video of the collapse, which in itself doesn't suggest anything other than the building was damaged, then on fire, then eventually fell down.

Third, saying that "none of that shit is relevant" when you are proposing an idea that would involve an extremely complex undertaking makes it relevant. When exploring ideas, it helps to step back sometime and do a "sanity" check. That you don't seem to want to with respect to the controlled demo idea suggests you know it's pretty insane idea, you just don't want to admit it.
>> ^Fade:
None of that shit is relevant. I just want to know whether explosives were used or not. Independent testing shows evidence of this. So why didn't NIST do a test?
The footage of wtc7 collapsing is not grainy at all. What footage were you looking at?
your first point is covered in the NIST report anyway. NIST themselves state that the failure was not from structural damage due to falling debris.
The fact that you are arguing against the official account tells me that you probably haven't even read the official account. So why are you even involved in this discussion?

None of that shit is relevant. I just want to know whether explosives were used or not. Independent testing shows evidence of this. So why didn't NIST do a test?
The footage of wtc7 collapsing is not grainy at all. What footage were you looking at?

your first point is covered in the NIST report anyway. NIST themselves state that the failure was not from structural damage due to falling debris.

The fact that you are arguing against the official account tells me that you probably haven't even read the official account. So why are you even involved in this discussion?

>> ^shponglefan:

I suppose if your standard for "looks like a controlled demo" equals "grainy footage of a building falling down", then yeah. I'm not sure why people expect a building collapsing due to structural failure is going to look any different. And really, you have to ignore so many things to even consider that it was a controlled demo:
1. The fact the building was damaged from debris and then on fire for 7 hours;
2. The fact that wiring the building in advance and in secret would be an incredibly complex undertaking;
3. Why the building was wired at all, since for all of this to happen would require the towers to be wired correctly, planes hitting the main WTC 1&2 towers, those towers collapsing, the debris hitting WTC 7 and causing it to burn for hours before finally setting off the charges to bring it down... it's a plan of epically complex undertaking with no evidence beyond grainy video footage of a building falling down. So why waste taxpayer dollars to chase what amounts to little more than conspiracy fantasy?
Plus, there's this bizarre idea that somehow a building hit by debris and then left to burn for 7 hours should somehow be impervious to eventual structural failure leading to collapse. Like somehow buildings in America are immune to gravity unless specially placed explosives are involved. I just can't fathom the mentality to believe all that.
>> ^Fade:
Well WTC7 certainly looks like a controlled demo which to my mind calls for a little investigation to at least rule it out. There was no evidence of a planet destroying space-station in the videos I have seen.

I suppose if your standard for "looks like a controlled demo" equals "grainy footage of a building falling down", then yeah. I'm not sure why people expect a building collapsing due to structural failure is going to look any different. And really, you have to ignore so many things to even consider that it was a controlled demo:

1. The fact the building was damaged from debris and then on fire for 7 hours;
2. The fact that wiring the building in advance and in secret would be an incredibly complex undertaking;
3. Why the building was wired at all, since for all of this to happen would require the towers to be wired correctly, planes hitting the main WTC 1&2 towers, those towers collapsing, the debris hitting WTC 7 and causing it to burn for hours before finally setting off the charges to bring it down... it's a plan of epically complex undertaking with no evidence beyond grainy video footage of a building falling down. So why waste taxpayer dollars to chase what amounts to little more than conspiracy fantasy?

Plus, there's this bizarre idea that somehow a building hit by debris and then left to burn for 7 hours should somehow be impervious to eventual structural failure leading to collapse. Like somehow buildings in America are immune to gravity unless specially placed explosives are involved. I just can't fathom the mentality to believe all that.

>> ^Fade:
Well WTC7 certainly looks like a controlled demo which to my mind calls for a little investigation to at least rule it out. There was no evidence of a planet destroying space-station in the videos I have seen.

I upvoted whether this has any scientific merit or whether it is merely a humourous undertaking, simply because it is aw-sum.

So you are saying Hitler contradicts himself constantly in his own book (if that's where your quotes came from, since most of them only site page numbers and not the source) much like the Bible? Sorry not buying it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

That's what we call propaganda. This is what Hitler really thought:
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
Hitler on propaganda:
"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)


>> ^Duckman33:
We can't explain how the tides work? You can't be serious.
Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)
“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
I can post more if you're still not convinced.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, we can't explain that.
The reply:
Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.
As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:
27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.

That's what we call propaganda. This is what Hitler really thought:

13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)


21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

Hitler on propaganda:

"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)





>> ^Duckman33:
We can't explain how the tides work? You can't be serious.
Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)
“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
I can post more if you're still not convinced.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, we can't explain that.
The reply:
Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.
As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:
27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.

We can't explain how the tides work? You can't be serious.

Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)

"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)

"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)

“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

I can post more if you're still not convinced.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, we can't explain that.

The reply:
Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.
As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:
27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Anyone care to enlighten me as to why these supposed conspirators blew up the towers? I mean, it must have been a pretty extensive operation to plan, so I'm guessing they didn't just murder a few thousand of their own citizens for shits and giggles.
Hell, even maddox isn't retarded enough to actually believe this shit.


In his book, The Grand Chessboard, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski (former national security advisor for President Carter, former director of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a member of the Trilateral Commission along with Bush Sr. and Dick Cheney) writes of an imperialistic endeavor of controlling the world's vast natural resources (oil, natural gas, minerals, gold, etc.) and also human labor in Eurasia (specifically central Asia/Uzbekistan) that the U.S. must undertake to maintain global domination despite the American public's indecisiveness towards the external projection of American power (in which he reminds the reader that the American public supported U.S.'s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor) and cautions that it will become more difficult to establish consensus on foreign policy issues with an ever increasingly multi-cultural society in America unless the public widely perceives a massive direct external threat. (killtown.911review.org)

It's strange to me that the religious right seem to forget about their undertaking of the War in Iraq. They were the one's who solely supported the War in Iraq, not because we might get cheaper gas, but because we were taking out a bunch of Christian God, Freedom, Capitalism hating terrorists. Oh, but Christians don't support mass murder because it's against their religion, hmmmmm..... HMMMMM?!

Research is an important part of education. It helps us understand and know things better and find possible solutions to any problem that may arouse along our way of life. Unifying the scientific hypotheses of formation is an undertaking that science and religion have been incapable of achieving thus far. But every little thing may change, due to a breakthrough by Fermilab in Illinois of what could really be the “God particle”. Within two days of one another, both labs say they have found significant tips at the existence of the sought-after Higgs boson, previously a theoretic gem in the crown of particle science. Here is the proof: Higgs boson breakthrough hailed as window unto creation.

>> ^gwiz665:

Given a limited scope you can absolutely prove a negative. "There are no muslims in congress" is provable. "There is no God in the United States" is also provable.
The problem is that if you have an unlimited scope, then it becomes impossible.
"There are no fairies in my basement."
vs.
"There are no fairies."


As already pointed out, by *definition* you can't prove a negative.
As per your other threads shinyblurry, we can argue semantics all day so it's kind of pointless, but I'm going to anyway, because it's actually at the nub of the statement "you can't prove a negative".
I've also used an online dictionary you've sited in your other posts.

prove/pro͞ov/Verb
1. Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
2. Demonstrate by evidence or argument (someone or something) to be.

Note the use of the affirmative "the existence" / "to be". There is no scope for a negative here.

Also it's worth pointing out the etymology of the word "proof". It comes from the Latin "probare" meaning "to test". So it you've got proof of god's existence, it's got to be testable. Similarly if I want to "prove" there is no god I need to formulate a test that will give a definitive result.

Now, moving away from semantics....

So yeah, he's using a linguistic trick to try and recontextualize the statement "you can't prove a negative". That statement is generally used as a shorthand in an argument not only as a reference to the above definition, but also as a more general indication of the vast impracticality of proving a blanket negative statement such as "there is no god". In that context it is never meant as an absolute.

By adding a very restricted location, as William Lane Craig has in the video above, a negative statement of course becomes provable. I don't think any atheist would disagree that the statement "there are no coins in my pocket" could be proven simply by looking in my pocket.

For example - If as an atheist I was to say "there is no such object as the holy grail in existence" in order to prove it I would then have to trawl through every every steet, house, closet, drawer, toilet cistern, dessert, mountaintop, quarry pit, top secret inaccessible military bunker in the world, then undertake extensive excavation all the way to the earths molten core.

At his stage a believer could say "Well I have just had a personal revelation from God who spoke directly to me and told me that the grail is being kept safe underneath the icy surface of Jupiter's 6th moon Europa"

So after I've convinced NASA to undertake "The Program for the Recovery of Christs Holy Grail from Under the Surface of Jupiter's 6th Moon Europa" I'm told by the believer that they've had another personal message received directly from god that he was angry at being tested, and so has moved the grail to a divine and indestructible vault at the heart of the distant sun Omicron Beta....

However, if I make the statement - "there is no such object as the holy grail in existence in my desk drawer" - I just have to open the drawer to look and the statement can be proven.

And the above examples are with definite physical objects. Think how impossible it is to prove the statement "there is no god" when the idea of how god is defined is so widely and radically disputed depending on what religion you subscribe to, and when almost every individual within each of these religions will have their own definition of what god is.

Ummm...I was referring to this: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/TL;DR
>> ^kceaton1:

Terse/Deal.
Submit->OK.
>> ^doogle:
Teal Dear.
I meant: tl:dr.
>> ^kceaton1:
This is why you DON'T cut your education funding and allow parents to pull children out of school or allow kids to decide not to go. It's also a reason why we might want to continue education past your formative years, as you're a literal "crazy idiot" as a teenager due to the chemicals pumping in your veins. Yet, we're fairly good at memorization during this time and procedural types of learning (like apprenticeship for basically anything). Education is the greatest gift you can give your children no matter what you believe and, truly, if you listen to me let them form their own opinions and try to keep them NEUTRAL in stances on any subject (including even your own religion) as taking a side can injure development. If they do become sidetracked into an academic arena (math, science, English, or even sports) give them full support in these areas and let them know of possible opportunities for the present (if they excel, possibly a low level "advanced" book to help their thirst or a class if it can be found) and the future (such as jobs: fireman, astronaut, college, which college, classes to take, books to read).
Pre-adolescence is also a great time to be taught anything. It's also the time that you're the most susceptible to people forcing ANY opinion as "fact" and ANY "fact" as knowledge; experience, perhaps being a better way to teach at this age--along with below, finding a direction or what you excel at (yes, I know you may not now this till you're much older, due to how the brain sets itself up). Whether it be good or bad: religion, politics, abuse, swimming, dancing, sports, science, computers, etc... Pre-adolescence is perhaps the most important time in your life to get an idea for direction, as this helps you mitigate problems that you face during adolescence (stay on course). This is of course a luxury for some as self-discovery is not a perfect process and can as always be entirely, never found.
If you wait to learn in your twenties or after adolescence you begin to form extremely superior ideas and opinions that as a adolescent, due entirely to having a brain that isn't shit-canning itself at a lot of turns. Things that need to be memorized are better in these "primitive" years; but, like religion and learning to form an opinion that makes sense, this requires someone usually to be above normal intelligence at that age or for you to be in your twenties when the fog of hormones and neurotransmitters has cleared up and allowed you to maake FAR more rational decisions.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of people that formed their opinions early, to the point that they are nearly unchangeable. I don't necessarily blame them either, to some degree, as these issues that "stop" learning are ingrained into your neural-net and chemical-memory. To make these people understand something is a huge undertaking (which is why I usually provide the information, as the only person that can convince them at that point is themselves--BUT, STILL make sure to give them the information or they'll have no chance).
This is why you can tell Rush Limbaugh the truth till you're blue in the face, yet it won't help as he can't understand it, will actively deny himself of it, and he physically can't. The only way to get through to them is to literally know how their neurons have decided to arrange themselves. If you knew it might be a matter of approaching the matter via religion or it could be politics, science, etc... This is why sciences premise of allowing yourself to let go of previous, erronious, information is FUNDAMENTAL. If you can't do that as aperson, you'll be locked in a world you can't or hope, to understand.
BTW, if you're reading this and you have a thousand questions that need answering, yet you've tried and they do not make sense. Remember, that it's the physical layout of your brain that disrupts this ability to understand in some cases. Your brain physically changes when you can figure out something for the first time; sometimes called an epiphany. Try something easy and move from there. DON'T try the hard stuff first (which is why that works incredibly well for teaching people; only people with I.Q.s of 150+ are able to see something complex and know, fairly intrinsically, what needs to be done--or what opinion should be held...).
Some of this will sound preachy, and I guess it should. Some of this will sound simple and obvious, I hope it does. If it sounds particularly TOO preachy or TOO opinionated, "...don't tell me what to do with my kid...". Your kid is a human being like yourself and demands as much respect at age 3 as at 33. If you can't give them the breadth of width to leave them to learn untouched or with a balanced or neutral approach you will hurt them. They will also hurt you. You can disagree, but deep inside I think you understand what I mean by everything I've said here. AND if you don't try to figure out why you don't.
What you see in this video is seen by a VERY small minority of people as being "good" or "informed"; it's seen as the opposite. However, if you can approach this same situation knowing all of this, knowing the ways the mind can fool you into making you a fool, yet you can still find a unwaivering "faith" or truth. That is when you're free to share responsibly, but please tell this to adults or people that understand at your level. Otherwise, you're Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Backmann, Pat Robertson, etc...
/Kind of a long point, but I think I made it. Hopefully, not too much on the cheesy side and not to "anti-religious".

Terse/Deal.

Submit->OK.

>> ^doogle:

Teal Dear.
I meant: tl:dr.
>> ^kceaton1:
This is why you DON'T cut your education funding and allow parents to pull children out of school or allow kids to decide not to go. It's also a reason why we might want to continue education past your formative years, as you're a literal "crazy idiot" as a teenager due to the chemicals pumping in your veins. Yet, we're fairly good at memorization during this time and procedural types of learning (like apprenticeship for basically anything). Education is the greatest gift you can give your children no matter what you believe and, truly, if you listen to me let them form their own opinions and try to keep them NEUTRAL in stances on any subject (including even your own religion) as taking a side can injure development. If they do become sidetracked into an academic arena (math, science, English, or even sports) give them full support in these areas and let them know of possible opportunities for the present (if they excel, possibly a low level "advanced" book to help their thirst or a class if it can be found) and the future (such as jobs: fireman, astronaut, college, which college, classes to take, books to read).
Pre-adolescence is also a great time to be taught anything. It's also the time that you're the most susceptible to people forcing ANY opinion as "fact" and ANY "fact" as knowledge; experience, perhaps being a better way to teach at this age--along with below, finding a direction or what you excel at (yes, I know you may not now this till you're much older, due to how the brain sets itself up). Whether it be good or bad: religion, politics, abuse, swimming, dancing, sports, science, computers, etc... Pre-adolescence is perhaps the most important time in your life to get an idea for direction, as this helps you mitigate problems that you face during adolescence (stay on course). This is of course a luxury for some as self-discovery is not a perfect process and can as always be entirely, never found.
If you wait to learn in your twenties or after adolescence you begin to form extremely superior ideas and opinions that as a adolescent, due entirely to having a brain that isn't shit-canning itself at a lot of turns. Things that need to be memorized are better in these "primitive" years; but, like religion and learning to form an opinion that makes sense, this requires someone usually to be above normal intelligence at that age or for you to be in your twenties when the fog of hormones and neurotransmitters has cleared up and allowed you to maake FAR more rational decisions.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of people that formed their opinions early, to the point that they are nearly unchangeable. I don't necessarily blame them either, to some degree, as these issues that "stop" learning are ingrained into your neural-net and chemical-memory. To make these people understand something is a huge undertaking (which is why I usually provide the information, as the only person that can convince them at that point is themselves--BUT, STILL make sure to give them the information or they'll have no chance).
This is why you can tell Rush Limbaugh the truth till you're blue in the face, yet it won't help as he can't understand it, will actively deny himself of it, and he physically can't. The only way to get through to them is to literally know how their neurons have decided to arrange themselves. If you knew it might be a matter of approaching the matter via religion or it could be politics, science, etc... This is why sciences premise of allowing yourself to let go of previous, erronious, information is FUNDAMENTAL. If you can't do that as aperson, you'll be locked in a world you can't or hope, to understand.
BTW, if you're reading this and you have a thousand questions that need answering, yet you've tried and they do not make sense. Remember, that it's the physical layout of your brain that disrupts this ability to understand in some cases. Your brain physically changes when you can figure out something for the first time; sometimes called an epiphany. Try something easy and move from there. DON'T try the hard stuff first (which is why that works incredibly well for teaching people; only people with I.Q.s of 150+ are able to see something complex and know, fairly intrinsically, what needs to be done--or what opinion should be held...).
Some of this will sound preachy, and I guess it should. Some of this will sound simple and obvious, I hope it does. If it sounds particularly TOO preachy or TOO opinionated, "...don't tell me what to do with my kid...". Your kid is a human being like yourself and demands as much respect at age 3 as at 33. If you can't give them the breadth of width to leave them to learn untouched or with a balanced or neutral approach you will hurt them. They will also hurt you. You can disagree, but deep inside I think you understand what I mean by everything I've said here. AND if you don't try to figure out why you don't.
What you see in this video is seen by a VERY small minority of people as being "good" or "informed"; it's seen as the opposite. However, if you can approach this same situation knowing all of this, knowing the ways the mind can fool you into making you a fool, yet you can still find a unwaivering "faith" or truth. That is when you're free to share responsibly, but please tell this to adults or people that understand at your level. Otherwise, you're Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Backmann, Pat Robertson, etc...
/Kind of a long point, but I think I made it. Hopefully, not too much on the cheesy side and not to "anti-religious".

Teal Dear.
I meant: tl:dr.

>> ^kceaton1:

This is why you DON'T cut your education funding and allow parents to pull children out of school or allow kids to decide not to go. It's also a reason why we might want to continue education past your formative years, as you're a literal "crazy idiot" as a teenager due to the chemicals pumping in your veins. Yet, we're fairly good at memorization during this time and procedural types of learning (like apprenticeship for basically anything). Education is the greatest gift you can give your children no matter what you believe and, truly, if you listen to me let them form their own opinions and try to keep them NEUTRAL in stances on any subject (including even your own religion) as taking a side can injure development. If they do become sidetracked into an academic arena (math, science, English, or even sports) give them full support in these areas and let them know of possible opportunities for the present (if they excel, possibly a low level "advanced" book to help their thirst or a class if it can be found) and the future (such as jobs: fireman, astronaut, college, which college, classes to take, books to read).
Pre-adolescence is also a great time to be taught anything. It's also the time that you're the most susceptible to people forcing ANY opinion as "fact" and ANY "fact" as knowledge; experience, perhaps being a better way to teach at this age--along with below, finding a direction or what you excel at (yes, I know you may not now this till you're much older, due to how the brain sets itself up). Whether it be good or bad: religion, politics, abuse, swimming, dancing, sports, science, computers, etc... Pre-adolescence is perhaps the most important time in your life to get an idea for direction, as this helps you mitigate problems that you face during adolescence (stay on course). This is of course a luxury for some as self-discovery is not a perfect process and can as always be entirely, never found.
If you wait to learn in your twenties or after adolescence you begin to form extremely superior ideas and opinions that as a adolescent, due entirely to having a brain that isn't shit-canning itself at a lot of turns. Things that need to be memorized are better in these "primitive" years; but, like religion and learning to form an opinion that makes sense, this requires someone usually to be above normal intelligence at that age or for you to be in your twenties when the fog of hormones and neurotransmitters has cleared up and allowed you to maake FAR more rational decisions.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of people that formed their opinions early, to the point that they are nearly unchangeable. I don't necessarily blame them either, to some degree, as these issues that "stop" learning are ingrained into your neural-net and chemical-memory. To make these people understand something is a huge undertaking (which is why I usually provide the information, as the only person that can convince them at that point is themselves--BUT, STILL make sure to give them the information or they'll have no chance).
This is why you can tell Rush Limbaugh the truth till you're blue in the face, yet it won't help as he can't understand it, will actively deny himself of it, and he physically can't. The only way to get through to them is to literally know how their neurons have decided to arrange themselves. If you knew it might be a matter of approaching the matter via religion or it could be politics, science, etc... This is why sciences premise of allowing yourself to let go of previous, erronious, information is FUNDAMENTAL. If you can't do that as aperson, you'll be locked in a world you can't or hope, to understand.
BTW, if you're reading this and you have a thousand questions that need answering, yet you've tried and they do not make sense. Remember, that it's the physical layout of your brain that disrupts this ability to understand in some cases. Your brain physically changes when you can figure out something for the first time; sometimes called an epiphany. Try something easy and move from there. DON'T try the hard stuff first (which is why that works incredibly well for teaching people; only people with I.Q.s of 150+ are able to see something complex and know, fairly intrinsically, what needs to be done--or what opinion should be held...).
Some of this will sound preachy, and I guess it should. Some of this will sound simple and obvious, I hope it does. If it sounds particularly TOO preachy or TOO opinionated, "...don't tell me what to do with my kid...". Your kid is a human being like yourself and demands as much respect at age 3 as at 33. If you can't give them the breadth of width to leave them to learn untouched or with a balanced or neutral approach you will hurt them. They will also hurt you. You can disagree, but deep inside I think you understand what I mean by everything I've said here. AND if you don't try to figure out why you don't.
What you see in this video is seen by a VERY small minority of people as being "good" or "informed"; it's seen as the opposite. However, if you can approach this same situation knowing all of this, knowing the ways the mind can fool you into making you a fool, yet you can still find a unwaivering "faith" or truth. That is when you're free to share responsibly, but please tell this to adults or people that understand at your level. Otherwise, you're Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Backmann, Pat Robertson, etc...
/Kind of a long point, but I think I made it. Hopefully, not too much on the cheesy side and not to "anti-religious".